PDA

View Full Version : Stricklands Foul in Skins



mike6262
01-02-2005, 04:52 PM
What did you guys think about the way Earl handled his foul against Charlie Williams? Granted the ref did not call a foul but it seems many people i have talked to thinks Earl should have called it on himself. I am a Strickland fan and hope to see him win another major before he is through. But would have liked to seen him call this foul on himself. I also think Allan Hopkins went too far in saying he was rooting for Williams because of Earl not calling it on himself. While Allan felt the same way i felt about the foul, he should stay unbiased and just call the match. What do you guys think about instant replay in pool, never thought I would have to ask that question.

Barbara
01-02-2005, 04:54 PM
Screw Earl!

Barbara

jjinfla
01-02-2005, 04:58 PM
Oh Barbara!

Is that really your desire?

My My.

Sweet dreams.

Jake

Barbara
01-02-2005, 05:34 PM
Jake,

That was just so wrong for Earl to do what he did, and on TV, to boot! He fouled!! He probably knew it, and lied to himself!!

Scott Smith also blew it as a ref by not being in position to see what happened in the first place. But I'm not surprised. I don't think too much about Scott since his answer to my question at the US Open, anyway.

Barbara

Popcorn
01-02-2005, 05:44 PM
That is exactly why something like a skins tournament can't really be played by pool players. They are by nature dishonest and prone to cheat and do business. I would find it hard to believe they don't have some savers going on with that kind of money involved. And here you have a format where someone could miss a ball and guarantee himself half of the skin. Regarding Earl, it is bad enough for someone to do something they can't even get caught at, he did right in front of a camera, I guess his basic dishonest nature kicked in. I will tell you and I am not lying. If I were a voter for this years HOF and I was on the fence about who to vote for, this would have decided it for me. I don't know if the voting has take place but this can't have helped him any. As Barbara said, "Screw Earl". I would never miss him. Too many other good players to watch to waste your time with a guy like him. And that is my opinion.

Keith McCready
01-02-2005, 06:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> That is exactly why something like a skins tournament can't really be played by pool players. They are by nature dishonest and prone to cheat and do business. I would find it hard to believe they don't have some savers going on with that kind of money involved. And here you have a format where someone could miss a ball and guarantee himself half of the skin....<hr /></blockquote>

Corn, first of all, I want to explain to you one thing. There was no saving or any business going on between any of the players. I was there and witnessed everything. There wasn't even the thought in any of the players' minds about some type of a situation like that.

At the players' meeting, we were all technically advised about the format and rules of this event. Believe me when I tell you, it was every man for himself.

As far as the foul going with Earl, it was an unfortunate thing to happen. Scott Smith was behind the guy shooting, and he couldn't see the shot. Charlie Williams took it well, most likely better than I would have because, as you know, I would have been squawking.

This was one of the most exciting events I've ever been to, especially the size of the purse. I have to admit, I was a little nervous, and I know all the other players were, too. Hope you enjoyed the show as much as I did, aside from Earl's mishap! I'd like to see more of these kinds of tournaments in the future.

Keith

JimS
01-02-2005, 06:42 PM
This was the first time I"ve ever spent more than an hour or two watching ESPN.

I'd certainly vote for more TV pool using this or a similar format but without Earl and absolutely without Mitch behind the mic.

table_tech
01-02-2005, 07:16 PM
if it were me i would hav called the foul on myself,but thats me.earl is a professional and he is there to win,period.how many bad calls do we see on nfl sundays go noticed by everyone but the refs?if any of us caught a game winning touchdown and we knew we were out of bounds would we try to explain that to the refs?i did wonder tho what they would have done if he did call the foul on himself,is there a second ref?and to kieth mcready thats the first time ive seen you play since the color of money,hope to see more of you soon.

JohnnyP
01-02-2005, 07:30 PM
Keith, it's great to see you posting on here. I hope the nits don't come out of the woodwork and run you off.

I call fouls on myself in the local tourney, but the entry fee is only $12. Hope I would still do it if I made the big time.

cheesemouse
01-02-2005, 08:14 PM
Keith,

I don't think I enjoyed it as much as you did but I sure did enjoy it...LOL...it was a pleasure to see your style once again. It looked like a tough foremat to get comfortable in. They didn't show all the games so I am curious to know if you ever did get comfortable enough to let it out?
I've seen you in full flight. I've even played you a few times way back ( you won...LOL) in the early 80's. It was party time so I don't remember much about it. What I do remember is watching you play nearly flawless for like 30 hours straight. I thought at the time that pool could not be played any better. Truthfully, it was kind of depressing.
You looked great on the tube and I hope they invite back. Oh, one other thing about the coverage. I wish the color guys wouldn't have talked over what you guys were saying while in your chairs.
Best wishes to you and JAM...

cuechick
01-02-2005, 08:21 PM
I was closely watching Earl during the replay and I have to say I think he may have not realized he fouled, he was intently watching the cue ball and did not so much as glanced toward the fouled ball. Of course with his experience we assume he knew but after watching the replay I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

cheesemouse
01-02-2005, 08:37 PM
cuechick,

I also watched the reply very closely. Earl may not have known during the shot that his cue moved the ob as his eyes were on the cb all the way. I think he realize before the shot was over that something happened but the ref made no call...Only Earl knows for sure...

cueball1950
01-02-2005, 08:46 PM
WHile i agree that maybe Earl should have called the foul on himself i have to also agree with cuechick. Is there a chance Earl did not realize it until it was to late or could it possibly be the bad blood between them still has not settled and Earl does not want to give him an inch.
Then again, I have seen Charlie do a similar thing at a tournament in Rochester NY. He was just starting to stroke and he tapped the cue ball with his cue. Maybe the cueball moved a 100th of an inch, but it moved. The opposing player had just turned away for a second when it happened and did not see it. But he knew what he did cuz he hesitated slightly then shot. And who is Hopkins to talk like he did. Hell i can remember 1 time he was in a tournament in Connecticut and he was paying so much attention to what was going on around him and not on his own match that his opponent broke, made the 3 on the break and then proceeded to make the 1,2,4,5,7,6,8,9...see anything funny here...everybody stood there laughing and when he asked what was so funny somebody told him what had happened and he tried to call a foul on the guy...to late..game was over.Anyway,,At that level, and for that kind of money, Do you think Charlie would have called the foul on himself..especially playing against Earl...i don't think so. And i don't really think alot of other pro players would either..To much money involved.......mike

Ross
01-02-2005, 08:53 PM
I thought I heard Earl say "the ref didn't see it!" implying he knew exactly what happened. I also wonder if Earl didn't miss the 5 later in that rack because he felt guilty about what he had just done. It looked that way, since it was an easy shot and he missed it badly.

BTW, Neils sure moved the cb well. Earl certainly showed he still has the talent but he and Nevel were just careless with the cb at times. It looked liked mental laziness to me.

tateuts
01-02-2005, 09:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Keith McCready:</font><hr>

As far as the foul going with Earl, it was an unfortunate thing to happen. Scott Smith was behind the guy shooting, and he couldn't see the shot. Charlie Williams took it well, most likely better than I would have because, as you know, I would have been squawking.

Keith <hr /></blockquote>

If this situation had happened to you, and you were aware of the foul, what do you think you would have done?

Chris

mike6262
01-02-2005, 09:07 PM
I think in this setting you have to call that foul on yourself, on ESPN with more people watching you than will probably watch you all year, in the USA anyway. This is not backroom gambling, this, i hope, was an attempt to bring pool to the masses and maybe pool will get the same treatment that Poker is getting from ESPN and several other networks. I am not really intrested in how these guys play in private between themselves but when your representing the game on national television, excuse me, international television, you got to do better than Earl did against Charlie. Speaking of representing the game, presenting the game is also important and I say can Mitch, Ewe, and Hopkins.

Popcorn
01-02-2005, 09:43 PM
There may or may not be business going on but the format lays it open to happen. Savers I would say for sure, there is just too much money involved. I know what you said but I have my own opinion on such things. It would be a shame for a few guys to mess the whole thing up and you have some of those kinds there. It jeopardized it for everyone. As it worked out Earl lost. Had he won the whole thing it would have been a disgrace.

onepocketfanatic
01-02-2005, 09:58 PM
Mike in the previous post talked about representing the game.
I personally think Earl has a lot of talent, but from what I have seen personally, he is certainly no ambassador for the game. From what I have seen (I don't know him personally and doubt I would care to)guy is a loud mouth jerk with absolutely no class. People like him influence others that really know little about the game, and give them entirely the wrong impression about people that do play the game.In this society unfortunately groups of people are judged by the actions of a few like Earl.
IMO he gives the game a bad name (and when I say the game I am talking about those that play) by acting the way he does.
He may be talented, but that is about the only good thing I have to say about him.

tateuts
01-02-2005, 10:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote onepocketfanatic:</font><hr> Mike in the previous post talked about representing the game.
I personally think Earl has a lot of talent, but from what I have seen personally, he is certainly no ambassador for the game. From what I have seen (I don't know him personally and doubt I would care to)guy is a loud mouth jerk with absolutely no class. People like him influence others that really know little about the game, and give them entirely the wrong impression about people that do play the game.In this society unfortunately groups of people are judged by the actions of a few like Earl.
IMO he gives the game a bad name (and when I say the game I am talking about those that play) by acting the way he does.
He may be talented, but that is about the only good thing I have to say about him. <hr /></blockquote>

Now you guys are really starting to upset me. The resale value of my white Cuetec "Earl the Pearl" official signature cue has dropped to $18.95. Thanks.

Chris

stickman
01-02-2005, 10:22 PM
Barbara, Why don't you tell us how you really feel? HaHa!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

FastJoey
01-02-2005, 10:26 PM
Earl showed what he is all about today..a real looser!!!! he could not make a patch on Mosconi's ass...Earl your a real joke and a disgrace to the Real game of billiards..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

cueball1950
01-02-2005, 11:29 PM
I have to disagree with you on earl. the first time i met and actually talk to earl was at the us open. he was in the practice room running off the mouth making comments on the conditions. someone told scott smith and barry. so they came in and had a little talk with him and calmed him down. couple of secondes later i ask earl for his autograph. he says to me...you the one out there complaining. then he signed the book for me. we started talking and an hour later i was beginning to understand earl and earls attitude. being the perfectionist he is he wants, no, needs everything to be perfect. the table, balls, cueball, the racks the temperture and all. when in a match he is all pool. concentrates on nothing else around him. with all the competition aroud him he has to be the most focused person/pool player i have ever met. and he will sit with an ordinary fan and talk pool forever. that way one would have a better understanding of earl and all of his idiosyncricies or how ever you spell it... in plain language... he is a very intense person with a hell of alot of respect for this game we all love.....MIKE

nhp
01-03-2005, 01:16 AM
I think that too many people love to hate Earl for any reason they can find. I'm willing to bet that if a player, like Efren or Archer did it, everyone would give them the benefit of the doubt and say "He probably didn't realize he did it". But since it's Earl, 'BURN HIM!!!' /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Fleece3
01-03-2005, 01:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FastJoey:</font><hr> Earl showed what he is all about today..a real looser!!!! he could not make a patch on Mosconi's ass...Earl your a real joke and a disgrace to the Real game of billiards..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Come on you Earl hater!!! Get a grip!!! I was there live, and I saw it on TV. When earl sat down he was still unsure about exactly what happened. I was sitting about 6 feet away. Now onto this "he should have called the foul himself". Have you EVER seen Micheal Jordan go to a ref and say "Hey I fouled that guy", Or Valdi Divac flop only to get up and say "I was just joking he really didn't hit me" or Randy Johnson say to an umpire "What the hell do you mean strike, that pitch was clearly outside". I have the Capelle on 9 ball DVD. There is an shot where Efren did the same thing on the 5. It was not called and he didn't call it on himself either. As far as the "if I was on the fence in voting"...statement. If you were voting you shouldn't be on the fence!!!! Earl Strickland has won more major titles than anyone!!!! The only reason we are discussing this is because it is EARL!!!! Jimmy Mataya was once playing...He broke and did not drop anything. However, his opponent didn't move. So Jimmy stayed at the table, ran out, and won the match. Now that's bad!!

CarolNYC
01-03-2005, 03:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What did you guys think about the way Earl handled his foul against Charlie Williams <hr /></blockquote>

I was there and think it was just poor sportsmanship,but then again, you're talking about a champion player,highly competetive, playing for ALOT of money!
I personally like Earl, and the fact is, "the ref didnt see it"- a ref can't call something he DIDNT see!
And Charlie Williams is AWESOME-he kept calm and just did what he had to do!Good for you,Charlie!

Bottomline:
Charlie won!

Carol /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif-Hi Keith!

DavidMorris
01-03-2005, 06:35 AM
Yep, I watched it last night, Charlie definitely deserves props for his attitude. He jumped up right away and pointed it out to Scott Smith, then when Earl said "he didn't see it!" Charlie just shrugged and sat down. A great sport, who then calmly got up when Earl dogged the 5 ball and ran out -- that had to feel almost as good as the money! And Earl dogged the 5 bad on an easy shot too, I have to wonder like someone else said if it wasn't weighing heavily on his mind at that point.

I was a bit disappointed in Earl too, he obviously knew he fouled because he said "He didn't see it"... twice. But I also have seen other pros foul and not call it, so it isn't unprecidented. We all would like to say that we would, but I wonder if we were playing in a Sudden Death rack for $16.5K and the chance to advance to the finals, how many of us actually would.

I myself, in total honesty, might have not said anything UNTIL I knew that Charlie saw it. But once Charlie jumped up and called it, I'm pretty sure I would have conceded it.

I would have liked to have heard the conversation between Earl and Charlie afterwards. Earl jumped up to shake his hand and was talking earnestly, shaking his head. I'm hoping he at least apologized.

jjinfla
01-03-2005, 07:01 AM
There was a baseball ump (I forget who) who once said, "It may be fair, or it may be foul, but it ain't nothing until I call it".

That is why Smith gets those big bucks (LOL) to make the calls. Shame on him for missing it. But it happens in all sports.

If Earl says he didn't see it why can't we believe him? And Barbara, even you have doubts as to if he knew he fouled it because you said he "probably" knew he fouled. One thing for sure, it was impossible for Earl to "see" it because his eyes were following the CB and OB. But he may have "felt" it. Which I doubt.

Perhaps Earl really didn't see where he hit the 5 with his cue.

So if Earl says he didn't see it, then I have to take his word for it. Or, when he said that, was he referring to Smith not seeing it. But either way, it is the job of the ref to call it. Or do you want instant replay?

But it was fun match to watch. When will the next one be held?

Jake

ChuckR
01-03-2005, 07:40 AM
I have played at this game for 40 years and have always been perplexed as to why it can't draw the kind of money that golf and some of the other sports have.As to Earl's possible fowl, I think of the times in major golf tournaments and nomajors alike where golfers called fowls on themselves. I remember Arnold Palmer calling a fowl on himself that only he saw and costing himself a two stroke penalty. Go to a major pool tournament and watch the conduct of many of the players and many of the fans and you will quickly see the difference. With this kind of behavior, pool will always be considered the "red light district" of sports and just out of the money. What a shame.

Donovan
01-03-2005, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FastJoey:</font><hr> Earl showed what he is all about today..a real looser!!!! he could not make a patch on Mosconi's ass...Earl your a real joke and a disgrace to the Real game of billiards..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fleece3:</font><hr>Come on you Earl hater!!! Get a grip!!! I was there live, and I saw it on TV. When earl sat down he was still unsure about exactly what happened. I was sitting about 6 feet away. Now onto this "he should have called the foul himself". Have you EVER seen Micheal Jordan go to a ref and say "Hey I fouled that guy", Or Valdi Divac flop only to get up and say "I was just joking he really didn't hit me" or Randy Johnson say to an umpire "What the hell do you mean strike, that pitch was clearly outside". I have the Capelle on 9 ball DVD. There is an shot where Efren did the same thing on the 5. It was not called and he didn't call it on himself either. As far as the "if I was on the fence in voting"...statement. If you were voting you shouldn't be on the fence!!!! Earl Strickland has won more major titles than anyone!!!! The only reason we are discussing this is because it is EARL!!!! Jimmy Mataya was once playing...He broke and did not drop anything. However, his opponent didn't move. So Jimmy stayed at the table, ran out, and won the match. Now that's bad!! <hr /></blockquote>

This is just silly! You are talking team players in professional sports over an individual playing for his own income. Golf is more like pool than the NBA or MLB. Those guys will call stuff on themselves. That is just doing the right thing. Although, some of those pro golfers have good sponser money, most of them still play for the prize money. Plus, the number of titles someone has, absolutely has nothing to do with what is OK and not OK for a person to do. That is ridiculous to think like that. Pool is an equalizer and everyone has the same chance to win.

I agree if he did not realize he did it, it is understandable to question the incident, that is one thing. But when everyone says he did except the guy who was out of position and the fact that you know it is being filmed, you need to take a moment to figure it out and do the right thing. Not just say Scott didn’t see it so move on.

It wouldn't matter who it happened to. I know Earl gets lots of bad press, but he brings much of this on himself. However, this had nothing to do with that. Being fair and doing the right thing is the best thing for all the players and the sport. This is supposed to be the event to bring pool up to the poker like for-front and it is tainted by this stuff. It just makes it look like all pool players are crooked. We don’t need to contribute to that kind of reputation.

As far as Efren, well it was wrong for him to do it too. Plain and simple! And Jimmy Mataya???….Please!!! That is just a dumb comparison. I've seen Jimmy come in and try to hustle in person. Just like no one knew who he was in 1987 at Northgate Lanes in Galesburg, IL. That is why there are professionals and hustlers. You should expect and watch for that kind of behavior out of Jimmy, but never on these televised events.

Charlie was put in a bad situation and was more professional than anyone expected him to be. I was deeply impressed with his behavior. This does make sense to do something to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

I don't think it is a Strickland hater thing, it is just a do the right thing...kinf of thing.

Donovan
01-03-2005, 08:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cueball1950:</font><hr> I have to disagree with you on earl. the first time i met and actually talk to earl was at the us open. he was in the practice room running off the mouth making comments on the conditions. someone told scott smith and barry. so they came in and had a little talk with him and calmed him down. couple of secondes later i ask earl for his autograph. he says to me...you the one out there complaining. then he signed the book for me. we started talking and an hour later i was beginning to understand earl and earls attitude. being the perfectionist he is he wants, no, needs everything to be perfect. the table, balls, cueball, the racks the temperture and all. when in a match he is all pool. concentrates on nothing else around him. with all the competition aroud him he has to be the most focused person/pool player i have ever met. and he will sit with an ordinary fan and talk pool forever. that way one would have a better understanding of earl and all of his idiosyncricies or how ever you spell it... in plain language... he is a very intense person with a hell of alot of respect for this game we all love.....MIKE <hr /></blockquote>

First of all, congrats on your experience with Earl. That would have been cool!

However, complaining about conditions in pool is crazy talk. You know as well as any of us that if you are playing this game, the conditions are constantly changing. If you can’t adjust to the many variables, then you will lead a life of disappointment and stress in this game. He should know this and know that it is the same conditions that everyone else is playing with too. Complaining about this stuff after all his years of experience is just insane and won’t change anything. This is not perfectionism; it is not dealing with realism.

Also, he is not the most focused person in pool as you say, because of the distractions that he lets in. It is obvious that conditions are interfering in his concentration, but he is constantly talking to the other players and the crowds about ego stuff and not concentrating on what he is doing.

I think it is great he took time with you, but that doesn’t make what he says or his actions…right.

Barbara
01-03-2005, 08:42 AM
Jake,

I think the blame really rests on Scott for being out of line to see the foul. In an "all balls foul" situation, the ref has to constantly move around to make sure that not only is the player not fouling with his body, but his clothing as well.

Barbara

DavidMorris
01-03-2005, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr>If Earl says he didn't see it why can't we believe him?
...
Perhaps Earl really didn't see where he hit the 5 with his cue.
...
So if Earl says he didn't see it, then I have to take his word for it. Or, when he said that, was he referring to Smith not seeing it.<hr /></blockquote>
Just for clarification, Earl said, and I quote, "He didn't see it!" referring to Scott Smith. He didn't say "I didn't see it." So he definitely knew it was a foul. I replayed it a few times too, and I think Earl had to have felt his cue on the ball and I'm pretty sure I saw his eyes move to look down at the five as he bumped it. Plus his immediate response to Charlie jumping out of his chair was "He didn't see it!"

All of which leads me to believe Earl knew exactly what he did. I don't hate him for it, though, but as a fan of the game I am disappointed...

woody_968
01-03-2005, 08:58 AM
I have it on tape but have not had the chance to watch it yet, so I will assume that Earl has fouled and didnt call it on himself.

As someone else said, I think people are quick to slam Earl for not calling it on himself and wouldnt be as quick on some other players. If any of you have ever watched much straight pool I am sure you can say you have seen fouls that the refs dont call, and the players dont stand up and say they fouled the shot. I have seen this happen with Sigel, Mizerak, and several others.

Not saying its right or wrong, just pointing out that Earl is not the only one to have been caught on tape.

Woody

RedHell
01-03-2005, 09:08 AM
OK, here's my 5 cents about this incident... I didn't see the shots but it doesn't really matter does it ?

From what I read, this debate splits in two.

1- Did Earl see he fouled or not ?

2- Should a player call a foul on himself when the match is played with a ref.

Well, if Earl didn't see (feel) the foul, who can blame him. If he did, I'd say that on a match played without a ref Earl would be a prick not to concede the foul. Now with a ref involded, well, it brings us to the second question...

Should a player call a foul on himself when the match is played with a ref ?

I say no, why would you ask ? Because there's a ref. Did Charlie had the right to question the ref about it, sure, but once decision is rendered, it is final. If Scott said, I didn't see anything move... that's final.

In no case should a player be even allowed to reverse a ref call, a call is a call and the ref are there to make them. I'm actually surprised at Barbara attitude toward this incident...

In my mind, reversing a call is discrediting a ref. If someone wants to say, it's not because Scott didn't see it... I think it is... By reversing the call you simply show that you feel the ref was not at the right place to make the right call. Ref are authority at the table, and respect of that authority should be obvious.

If a player can at anytime reverse the ref call, why do we use ref ? Just get someone to rack the ball like Mr.Sardo that will be enough.

It is a bad call, so be it, it is the call.

For those who play the Sportsmanlike arguement, respect of a call is showing sportsmanlike. Conceding a foul on a self referied match is sportmanlike, respecting your opponent is sportsmanlike, but ignoring the ref and the reason is there... is not....

Charlie showed the upmost sportsmanlike conduct by respecting the call, his opponent and the format he agreed to play in.

Qtec
01-03-2005, 09:55 AM
If a player makes a foul and is aware of it, he should declare it. Ref or no Ref.

Qtec

Rich R.
01-03-2005, 10:01 AM
Red, I think you have the right idea with this whole situation, when you say, a referee's call is final. That, in its self, implies that a non-call is also final, as in this situation.

Although I can understand Barbara's disappointment with Scott, I have to ask, can any referee see everything, all of the time? IMHO, I have to say no. The referee tries to do the best job possible, but it is not an exact science.

It would be interesting to know exactly what the players where told, before the matches began. Just speculating; they may have been told that the referee would make all calls and his calls are final. I'm sure they didn't want any arguing on TV.

dave62959
01-03-2005, 10:48 AM
I think scott is the best but it was his call and he missed it but we all are not perfect.

Qtec
01-03-2005, 11:04 AM
Rich, I,m surprised at you.
Lets say, the hand rest is under the table. I ask the ref to hand me the rest and while he is down there I move a ball. The Ref hasnt seen it, but everybody else has. Should I play on? I that OK with you?

If you know you have fouled and you play on, you are cheating.

Qtec

opposedtwin2
01-03-2005, 11:17 AM
It's interesting reading all the comments about what happened and as usual the opinions are varied. If Earl knew he fouled he should have called it because that is the honorable and right thing to do. To do otherwise is dishonorable and the wrong thing to do. Those who defend such things have probably commited similar incidents in their life and feel siding with Earl justifies their conduct/action. Misery loves company. I too, have met Earl and liked him. He was very personable and enjoyable to talk to. Because of his immense talent I think he should be in the HOF but those traits do not mean his actions should be condoned or go without consequences. Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth are both deservedly in the HOF but which one exhibited traits which we teach to our children or would want our children taught? The games of pool and golf can not be compared to such as basketball or football, etc because it accepted and encouraged to get away with as much as you can without getting caught. They remind me of how a personal friend handled the situation when his two sons were caught cheating on final exams at a local very exclusive prep school. When informed by the school administrator he punished his kids for getting "caught"! They are now pool players(just kidding). None of us really know what we would do in the same situation but hopefully all of us would know whether it was right or wrong.

RedHell
01-03-2005, 11:55 AM
You're obviously pushing to the limit.... but I'll play the game. In the case you mentioned the Tourney director should disqualify you from the tournement, if he didn't see it, then the opponent should declare it, the TD should inquire to have confirmation of this and then disqualify you from the tournement.

But what I find most interesting is the fact that you ask the ref the rest. Again, we use them as if they were rack boys.... Maybe this is where the problem lays, instead of seeing them as servant, maybe we should see them as authority...

eg8r
01-03-2005, 12:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This is just silly! You are talking team players in professional sports over an individual playing for his own income. Golf is more like pool than the NBA or MLB. <hr /></blockquote> I think you are missing his point. He is not comparing the games, he IS comparing the choice the athlete makes knowing there was a bad call in his favor. His analogies are just fine.

I also think Charlie did the stand up thing. Instead of make a scene, he just waited for his chance.

eg8r

nhp
01-03-2005, 12:17 PM
Lets say in the "all balls foul" rule, a player is taking the pressure pretty hard, and after he shoots, the back end of his cue taps the chalk that was resting on the rail, very slightly, but enough for the player to feel the tap. Lets say he's an honest player, and since he felt something, he figures his cue tapped the 7 ball resting at the end of the table near the chalk. So before the ref says anything, he picks up the cueball and hands it to his opponent. What happens if the player's honesty costs him 5 racks? Do you see my point now?

I'll say it again, if you do something unintentional, that was a foul, and it doesn't really affect the game much, (like moving an OB 3 millimeters), and the Ref doesn't call it, it shouldn't be a foul. You people are too quick to call Earl a cheater, and yet I guarantee that if Efren or Robles were in Earl's place, everyone would be making any excuse they could think of to save face.

FastJoey
01-03-2005, 02:12 PM
to me ..when Earl fouled..he looked like the Cat that got caught in the chicken coop.or the little kid that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar when he was told don't go in there...after this Earl will ALWAYS be remembered for not being trusted.....no class at all................i can remember back in the 70's playing a professional roadie by the day of Big D..up in a hall in Chicago...$100.00 a game was big money 30 years ago..well Big D was a great player but also a gentleman to the sport..he would play all day and into the night straight pool ..on a critical shot he was in his stance when he got up and called a foul on himself as he thought his blazer Might have hit the ball...nobody watching thought anything of it...now that was a classy guy....Big D if your still alive come back and teach some of thse people true eticate and sportsmanship......thanks

tateuts
01-03-2005, 02:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Rich, I,m surprised at you.
Lets say, the hand rest is under the table. I ask the ref to hand me the rest and while he is down there I move a ball. The Ref hasnt seen it, but everybody else has. Should I play on? I that OK with you?

If you know you have fouled and you play on, you are cheating.

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

I like your analogy. I guess some people don't know the difference between right and wrong.

I remember reading about Ben Hogan, who was as grumpy as all get out but one of the greatest golfers of all time. In a tournament, he went into the woods to find his ball. It was resting on some pine straw. He found it and hit it out of the woods with nobody watching. When they were done with the hole, his partner marked up a 4 and Hogan corrected him, "it was a 5". He explained that the ball moved after he addressed it, so he took a penalty stroke.

The partner was astonished and thanked Ben for telling the truth, since nobody else could possibly have known. Hogan looked at him oddly and said "you may as well thank a man for not robbing the bank!".

Chris

RedHell
01-03-2005, 02:59 PM
It's interresting but I make a great deal of difference between a golf player calling a stroke on himself and a match refered.

In most of the analogy there is no ref assigned at checking if the ball moved, while in the case that concerns us there was one...

I'd rather see an analogy when a ruling is made by a ref at golf that favors the golfer but was a wrong ruling. Do you think that the golfer will remind the ref that the rule stipulates that he shouldn't have a relief or that a stroke should be added ?

I know what's wrong and what's right... I truly believe that if no one is clearly assigned to make rulings (ie a ref), it is wrong not call a foul on yourself. I also believe that when a ruling is made by a ref that it is wrong to argue, reverse or discredit the ruling.

We all agree that Scott made a bad call, we don't agree that Earl decided to accept this call...

Let say the same thing happend with Earl shooting a near simultaneous hit, the ref call the shot foul and Williams think the shot was good, do you really think he will say no the shot is good and not get up ????

Its a ruling, you have to leave with it !

DavidMorris
01-03-2005, 03:12 PM
I dunno guys, I have mixed feelings about putting all the responsibility on Scott to call it else it isn't a foul. Earl was immediately defensive before Scott even had a chance to answer as far as I could tell. Charlie jumped up and got Scott's attention, then Earl turned and almost yelled "He didn't see it!" If Earl had been accepting of the foul, but Scott had insisted on not calling it, then I could see Earl saying "okay" and continuing. But to me Earl was obviously defensive and taking advantage of Scott and Charlie. Scott didn't seem to push the issue either way and seemed to just go along with it.

I understand that it's pretty much a rule (written or unwritten) that in a dispute where the ref didn't see the shot, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt by default. But I think in this case there shouldn't have been a dispute in the first place: if Earl had said "I fouled, Scott" I'll bet Scott would have accepted it, thanked him for his honesty, and let Charlie shoot.

I don't blame Scott here, because he was watching from behind trying to stay out of the shooter's sight line and had his eye on the CB/OB hit -- it's not like he was chatting with a spectator or cameraman and not paying attention.

I still like Earl as a player, but his integrity took a hit there IMHO.

Donovan
01-03-2005, 04:29 PM
<hr /></blockquote> I think you are missing his point. He is not comparing the games, he IS comparing the choice the athlete makes knowing there was a bad call in his favor. His analogies are just fine.

I also think Charlie did the stand up thing. Instead of make a scene, he just waited for his chance.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I don't really think I missed the point. I was talking about the players. I was pointing out that those players can't be compared, because of the kind of sport and money they are making. Those players can not be used due to their situations and their sport.

A pro golfer not making the big sponser money is playing for his life. Sponsers look for folks that will make their products and the sport look good. Their behavior and honor means alot more in money and for the sport than some little thing like this. So you think a cheating golfer is going to get a sponser? Do you think golf will like having a guy that is not playing honorably? No, of course not.

Our sport has been plagued by this kind of stuff on the intentional side for so long and it is tough to overcome. This kind of stuff will not help it.

Think about it, does anyone really care if Jordan travels on his way to dunking a ball? Yeah they do actually. But will the sport be condemed if it happens? No, well it has in some ways. Some folks won't even watch it because of it. But my point is, no one is running around and saying Golf is just a bunch of guys getting away with cheating. And that is exactly what we are striving for in our sport.

Strickland has been around for a long time. He knows the whole game. You don't need to make excuses for the guy's screw ups or behaviors. Just except the way he is or don't. Period.

I just prefer not to except it.

Ross
01-03-2005, 04:38 PM
I agree completely with your take on it David. It was Earl's defensiveness and almost child-like "he didn't see it!" exclamation that turned me off.

Remember this is the same Earl who berated a referee who really DID pay attention and correctly call a foul - Michaela Tabb (? is that her name) in last year's Mosconi Cup.

FastJoey
01-03-2005, 04:39 PM
Straight pool and BIG D rules !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tateuts
01-03-2005, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RedHell:</font><hr>
I know what's wrong and what's right... I truly believe that if no one is clearly assigned to make rulings (ie a ref), it is wrong not call a foul on yourself. I also believe that when a ruling is made by a ref that it is wrong to argue, reverse or discredit the ruling.

We all agree that Scott made a bad call, we don't agree that Earl decided to accept this call...

<hr /></blockquote>

I wasn't saying you personally don't know the difference between right and wrong, and I apologize if it sounded that way.

We don't know if Earl does and we actually don't know enough about this situation to ever know if Earl does. While it is my suspicion that he knew he fouled and hid behind the bad call, he may well be innocent.

The question boils down to this which I asked before: If you knew you fouled, but the ref couldn't see it, would you take advantage of the situation and disregard your opponents objection? Or would you call it on yourself?

That is knowing the difference between right and wrong. Individually, only we know the answer. It would take a lot of composure and a lot of character to call it on yourself in that situation. In my opinion, that would be the right thing to do. However, I can certainly see where the knee jerk reaction might be to let it go and (hopefully) regret it later.

Chris

bomber
01-04-2005, 08:36 AM
I believe that this arguement can be looked at two different ways...ethically and technically.

Ethically: Of course, Earl should have called the foul on himself. That is the moral thing to do...BUT.

Technically: Earl, in my opinion, didnt really do anything wrong. A ref was present and it was his call, not Earl's. If we were in a local tournament and a questionable hit might occur we would call on a ref and his call would be the final say. To me, Scott's call (even though it was wrong) was the final say.

So, technically speaking, Earl didnt do anything wrong. It is the same as if Barry Bonds took a pitch on a 3-2 count and it was obviously a strike but the ump called it a ball. It isnt up to Bonds to say "that was strike three not ball four and now I am out." It is the umps call.

Maybe something should be put into the rule book that says a player cannot call a foul on himself if an official ref is present. That, to me, would take out the ethically situation. In my opinion, you shouldnt have to call a foul on yourself if a ref is present anyways. That puts to much added pressure on the opponents. I wouldnt have called it on myself. That may be wrong ethically but it really isnt my fault. It wasnt Earl's screw-up, it was Scott the Shots mess up.

eg8r
01-04-2005, 10:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really think I missed the point. I was talking about the players. I was pointing out that those players can't be compared, because of the kind of sport and money they are making. Those players can not be used due to their situations and their sport. <hr /></blockquote> You are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with the sport or the money that is being made. What is being compared is one player knowingly accepting a bad call in his favor. You are trying to argue a strawman (or however the saying goes).

eg8r

doncartmill
01-04-2005, 12:21 PM
I agree with you 100%. Ethics are ethics if you fouled and you knew you fouled you are duty bound to call it ref or no ref. The analogy of Barry Bonds is a judgement call of something both witnessed though percieved differently (ethics aside). This would be the equivalent of the foul mentioned in the Melissa Herndon match. A judgement call in which the ref was proven correct after the match via slow motion video. It was too close to call and everyone thought the ref blew it. Had it not been called Melissa would have continiued to shoot ,confident she had executed a proper shot,NOT that she had got away with a bad hit. The analogy of the player who nudged a piece of chalk and thinking he had hit a ball with his cue after the shot picked up the cue ball and declared a foul ( is dumb on him...he did not know he fouled only that he touched something). He could have ask ,"Did I foul the 7 ball",and accept the decision of his opponent or the ref. All that being said ,be glad pool rules have yet to be subject to the insidious interpretations that golf has seen (prompted by viewer call ins and ,tv replays) Craig Stadlers shot from beneath a bush played from his knees,where he placed his rain suit on the ground to avoid staining his pants (would have been a legal shot if he had pulled the rain pants partially on,then played the shot) rule XXX says you cannot build a stance. NOT at all the intent of the rule,but some butthead viewer called in and ref the rule,which was reviewed and Stadler was acessed 2 ?? stroke penalty that cost him the tourney. Go figure

bsmutz
01-04-2005, 01:05 PM
As I read these posts, I see that there is still plenty of disagreement here and valid arguments can be made for both sides. Earl is a great pool player and every sport has its good and bad boy images. We have to take the good with the bad no matter what we are into. In fact, we have to have the bad to know what is good, just like everything else in life. Personally, I don't think the foul really affected the outcome of the match. Certainly it could have, but the way things worked out, it didn't. I foul way more than I would like to, but look at it as part of the game. If someone calls a foul on me, or argues about what I perceived as a foul, I will always play it their way. On obvious fouls such as a bad hit or nudging the cue ball while stroking, I will call the foul on myself. If I move a ball with the butt of my cue or my stroking hand, I will point it out and let them make the call. Incidental or accidental contact like this is part of the game and I think everyone does it from time to time. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal and has little or no influence on the outcome. I like the cue ball only foul format. I really liked seeing this skin game format and hope that we will see more in the future. To me, it is more fun to see a variety of players and not know the probable outcome until the end. I wish we could see live pool with coverage of the whole event. Cramming a match into an hour slot instead of allowing three or four hours like they do for football, basketball, and baseball makes it far less enjoyable. Just seeing the interest that this one shot has generated is exciting. If only we could get more people interested...

jjinfla
01-04-2005, 02:30 PM
I've watched Earl play a couple times in person and on TV and in my opinion he didn't realize he nudged the 5 ball. The look on Earl's face? He always looks like that. Where is Kieth? Surely he talked with Earl and can fill us in.
And was calling fouls discussed in the pre-game meeting? Was it stated that all fouls would be called by the ref and his decision would be final?
But does it really matter? Should play have been stopped? Should a vote have been taken to see if the foul should have been called?

When I am coaching my APA team and my player kicks at a ball and hits it but nothing hits a rail and neither player realizes that that is a foul should I open my mouth and call the foul? Hell No. That is up to the other player and her teammates. So am I being unsportmanlike?

But then whenever I am watching a match (non-APA), anywhere, I keep my mouth shut and let the players call the fouls. Especially when they are playing for money. I really don't want my hair parted with a cue stick.

Sorta like the baseball coach and the third base umpire watching the player round third and miss the bag and go on home and score. If someone from the opposing team does not call for the ball and touch third neither the ump nor the coach will say anything. Until the next pitch and then they will both tell the third baseman.

Then there is wrestling: How come the ref never sees the "arn" in the bad guy's hand? And he is always talking to someone at ringside when the good guy is getting stomped. LOL

Jake

arn is southern for iron

Donovan
01-04-2005, 03:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote doncartmill:</font><hr> Craig Stadlers shot from beneath a bush played from his knees,where he placed his rain suit on the ground to avoid staining his pants (would have been a legal shot if he had pulled the rain pants partially on,then played the shot) rule XXX says you cannot build a stance. NOT at all the intent of the rule,but some butthead viewer called in and ref the rule,which was reviewed and Stadler was acessed 2 ?? stroke penalty that cost him the tourney. Go figure <hr /></blockquote>

This is a great example. this did happen and I truely don't think that rule was looked at quite the same way again. Craig would not have done it if he thought he was intentionally breaking a rule when he did it. It is true every golfer knows that rule perfectly well now, but it wasn't until after that was it really look it so closely. I remember being a Asst Pro at the time and I was like. "Wow, that would be against the rule wouldn't it?" Although when it happened live it just seemed odd in the moment.

What strickland did was not like that incident at all. Everyone in the building knew it was a foul including him.

Ives
01-04-2005, 05:19 PM
Let me ask everyone a question, i'm no pro or don't play in a lot of tourneys so i'm not sure about this, but is there ever a time when your at the table that it would be an advantage to call a foul on yourself whether there was one or not. Say for instance if after making a shot the next object ball gets snookered in a way that even with ball in hand theres not much you can do about it. Could a dishonest person just say my cue touched that ball after shooting so that the next person would have to break out the snookered ball. I guess my point is that should players be allowed to call fouls on themselves when a ref is present, even if Earl called it on himself ( which i would of but thats just me) would Scott have said ok even though i didn't see it i'll call it. Whats everyone think ?

DavidMorris
01-04-2005, 05:27 PM
Intentional fouls are a common strategy in 14.1 and I believe 1P, also in 8 Ball when playing BIH in the kitchen, to put your opponent in a bad spot. But I don't believe I've ever seen it when playing 9 ball or 8 ball with BIH anywhere. I don't think rules specifically prevent it, at least not that I recall from reading various versions of the rules, but it would be trivial to force a foul if you really wanted to. Shoot into a pocket, hit a bad ball, or just tap the CB forward an inch without hitting anything. Then say "Awww shucks, look what I did!" and blame the cue like everybody else does. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Ives
01-04-2005, 05:39 PM
Yeah, I see your point, you wouldn't have to make up some foul, just make an intentional foul on your next shot. Thanks

So what do you think Scott would of done if Earl actually called it on himself?

DavidMorris
01-04-2005, 05:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ives:</font><hr> Yeah, I see your point, you wouldn't have to make up some foul, just make an intentional foul on your next shot. Thanks

So what do you think Scott would of done if Earl actually called it on himself? <hr /></blockquote>
Well, I have to think that Scott would have accepted Earl's call. Has anyone ever heard of a ref (in any game or sport) declining an immediately admitted foul? I haven't.

recoveryjones
01-04-2005, 09:18 PM
Love him or hate him, Earl's one populiar guy.If Efren Reyes was involved in this foul, this thread would have died a long time ago. RJ

ps. Have you ever seen a thread regarding Strickland that didn't get a lot of hits?

TAFKaENIGMA
01-05-2005, 01:33 PM
2 words for fouls that are questionable.

Instant replay!

Deeman2
01-05-2005, 02:09 PM
You said it brother, he generates more interest than any other player..

Deeman

woody_968
01-05-2005, 03:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DavidMorris:</font><hr> Intentional fouls are a common strategy in 14.1 and I believe 1P, also in 8 Ball when playing BIH in the kitchen, to put your opponent in a bad spot. But I don't believe I've ever seen it when playing 9 ball or 8 ball with BIH anywhere. <hr /></blockquote>

Depending on the level of the players it is not uncommon to see this in 8 or 9 ball. If someone is locked up with a very tough hit it is often the best move to take the foul and tie up some balls or move the nine ball to prevent a combo.

Woody

FauxKing
03-10-2005, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote woody_968:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote DavidMorris:</font><hr> Intentional fouls are a common strategy in 14.1 and I believe 1P, also in 8 Ball when playing BIH in the kitchen, to put your opponent in a bad spot. But I don't believe I've ever seen it when playing 9 ball or 8 ball with BIH anywhere. <hr /></blockquote>

Depending on the level of the players it is not uncommon to see this in 8 or 9 ball. If someone is locked up with a very tough hit it is often the best move to take the foul and tie up some balls or move the nine ball to prevent a combo.

Woody <hr /></blockquote>Naw dude, this was blatant. He was simply being a bitch with something that was a bit of a clumbsy moment. There was nothing defensive about the foul being discussed here ... it was purely "offensive." (har har, very punny) He accidently hit a ball close to the cueball and basically told his opponent to piss off when questioned about it by way of saying, "Hey, the judge didn't see it." Morris got screwed, plain and simple... sodomized, even.

Seoulpooljunkie
03-10-2005, 09:11 AM
Yeah, that foul was pretty ridiculous. I've watched pool on TV for only a couple of years, but that was the first time I ever saw 1)a player cheating and 2)a ref missing a foul. Now, it would be understandable if Strickland was as unaware of the foul as the ref, but after he committed the foul and got away with it, he said something along the lines of, "He didn't call it," referring to the ref's ignorance. And besides, the foul was really clear and easy to see unless you happened to block your view with Earl's body. Another bad thing about that game was that when Williams won, Earl went up to him and started explaining himself, and man, Charlie looked quite put off. Maybe it's just because I'm a relatively new pool player, but I lost a lot of respect for Earl when that happened. I always thought that he was the man, but if he were, he wouldn't have needed to cheat - that sounds cheesy, sorry /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Well, it's just that among the people that I play with, only the somewhat good players that have issues with self esteem cheat consistently. The best players around me never, ever cheat. They know if they're good or not, even if they don't win, I suppose.

TomBrooklyn
03-18-2005, 02:19 PM
In any competition I've personally played in, in any sport - with no referee it is generally expected that you will call fouls on yourself when you are in a position that only you could see it. The people that do this are honored with trust and a feeling a good sportsmanship. Those that don't or will even lie about a foul are held in low regard.

However, in every sporting event conducted with a referee or umpire, amature or professional, I have never seen or heard of a player calling a foul on themselves.

Sometimes a ref will make a wrong call and incorrectly penalize a team/player. No amount of arguing can change the refs call. Maybe the errors and missed calls even out over time.

poolgoogin
03-19-2005, 01:35 PM
In snooker I have seen many players call fouls on themselves that the ref had missed.And this is televised snooker,it is just part of the way you are taught when learning the game.
Earl on the other hand is a disgusting racist pig and a cheat.