View Full Version : Monica Webb vs Kim Shaw

01-06-2005, 11:28 AM
Just watched them play. Very painfull. Both missed a lot of shots. In the final rack Monica played a combination on the 9-ball and made it but the cue ball went two rails and scratched. Monica then picked up the cue ball and slammed it into the side rail. It rebounded and hit another ball. When the camera came back. Kim Shaw the balls had been reset and Kim Shaw was shooting.

Why was this not a foul and a concession of that rack?


01-06-2005, 11:47 AM
Why would it be a concession of the rack? I haven't seen the match yet, but from what you describe it was an unintentional foul (disturbing another ball) but she was already on a foul for scratching, so Kim would get BIH anyway. If they were playing under WPA/BCA rules, the disturbed ball must be returned to it's original position as judged by the referee. BCA 9-ball rule 5.7 states "If a player commits several fouls on one shot, they are counted as only one foul."

And I'm assuming you weren't suggesting that Monica lose the rack because she scratched on the 9, because that isn't a loss. The 9 is spotted and the incoming player shoots BIH.

01-06-2005, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DavidMorris:</font><hr> ... from what you describe it was an unintentional foul (disturbing another ball)... <hr /></blockquote>

She slammed the cue ball intentionally /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think Steve could have warned her about her misconduct (maybe he did) but I think he used good judgement in just resuming the game and not making a scene.

Jake, this was discussed ad nauseum at AZB back around August or so if you feel like searching for it.

01-06-2005, 12:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>She slammed the cue ball intentionally /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif<hr /></blockquote>
Ahh, I see. I figured she just slammed the CB on the table in anger, not meaning for it to actually hit another ball. So the question is should she have been disqualified for unsportsmanlike (unsportswomanlike?) conduct, then?

As I said, I didn't see it, but just on what you guys are saying I wouldn't think disqualification was in order unless she was truly being vicious about it. Perhaps being the hill game Steve just let it go (I assume it was the hill game, since jjinfla said "final rack").

01-06-2005, 01:45 PM
Just a wild guess, but if Earl had done this I bet there would be 25 posts already calling for his summary execution.

01-06-2005, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> Just a wild guess, but if Earl had done this I bet there would be 25 posts already calling for his summary execution. <hr /></blockquote>

Geez, no $hit...

01-07-2005, 06:22 AM

You caught me. That was the reason for my post. Just to see if everyone would treat her equally as they would Earl. And of course everyone gave her a pass. But then can we really compare her playing ability to Earl?

ESPN should have edited out that portion where she slammed the cueball. I wonder why they didn't?

But it just shows that everyone has emotions, and sometimes they are hard to control.


01-07-2005, 06:49 AM
Okay, you caught ME. She's easier on the eyes than Earl, therefore she gets a pass. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Her actions were certainly worthy of being called a foul, and you know it would have been treated as one had she not already been on a foul for scratching. But neither event warranted concession or disqualification as you seemed to suggest. I don't think anybody has suggested Earl should've been DQ'ed either, only that he should have admitted the foul on himself then let the ref make the ruling, rather than bristle up and squeal "He didn't see it!"

It was a different attitude completely, under completely different circumstances, so it's difficult for me to compare them as similar. If Monica had done the same as Earl -- blatently fouled during a shot and then whined "He didn't see it!" -- I think everyone's reactions would have been similar. Of course Earl, with his reputation, is going to draw more scrutiny however; human nature tends to be more forgiving of those who don't have a reputation of acting like jerks.

&lt;~~~ not an Earl hater at all, just wish he'd have acknowledged the foul himself