PDA

View Full Version : Earl explained



LARRY_BOY
09-28-2005, 11:44 AM
Maybe Earl is smarter than we give him credit for. I wonder if Earl had a side bet on himself to loose? That would explaine a lot of things that went on at the open.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Fran Crimi
09-28-2005, 12:09 PM
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Earl may be a lot of things but he's no sell-out. Just ask all the other players who ask him to do savers.

This kind of speculation is hurtful and malicious. Accusing someone of cheating is going too far.

Fred Agnir
09-28-2005, 12:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LARRY_BOY:</font><hr> Maybe Earl is smarter than we give him credit for. I wonder if Earl had a side bet on himself to loose? That would explaine a lot of things that went on at the open.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote> Winning means too much for Earl to ever consider dumping.

Fred

LARRY_BOY
09-28-2005, 12:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote LARRY_BOY:</font><hr> Maybe Earl is smarter than we give him credit for. I wonder if Earl had a side bet on himself to loose? That would explaine a lot of things that went on at the open.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote> Winning means too much for Earl to ever consider dumping.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Is there a differance between not giving your best or dumping....it has the same result. Don't forget (and I don't encourage this sort of thing) the most dedicated, tenatious, serious baseball player of all time did the same thing and no one in a hundred years would have expeceted it. Everone has their price....even Earl.

LARRY_BOY
09-28-2005, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> ABSOLUTELY NOT. Earl may be a lot of things but he's no sell-out. Just ask all the other players who ask him to do savers.

This kind of speculation is hurtful and malicious. Accusing someone of cheating is going too far. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know what planet you have been living on but I have a dvd at home I can send you of EARL cheating in the skins match against Charlie (I think that is his name the dragon guy). This was on ESPN not in someones basement room. Earl hit a object ball with his cue after making his shot and when his oponant called him on it Earl said "it doesn't count because the offical didn't see it". That my friend is admision of guilt and cheating. Earl CHEATED ! There is no two ways about it.......Earl is a cheat. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Fran Crimi
09-28-2005, 01:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LARRY_BOY:</font><hr>
I don't know what planet you have been living on but I have a dvd at home I can send you of EARL cheating in the skins match against Charlie (I think that is his name the dragon guy). This was on ESPN not in someones basement room. Earl hit a object ball with his cue after making his shot and when his oponant called him on it Earl said "it doesn't count because the offical didn't see it". That my friend is admision of guilt and cheating. Earl CHEATED ! There is no two ways about it.......Earl is a cheat. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Finish the story. What did the ref do? Did Earl get charged with a foul?

Barbara
09-28-2005, 02:19 PM
Fran,

Earl did not get charged with a foul. Scott Smith was poorly positioned to watch the hit.

Barbara

Fran Crimi
09-28-2005, 02:56 PM
OK, thanks, Barbara.

Earl was right and the call was right.

One of the things we miss out on by not having 14.1 pro events as much anymore, is the understanding of the relationship between players and referee when the referee is presiding over an entire match.

Everything changes when that happens. The ref has the right to call a foul on a player at any time, not just when the player or opponent asks for a call. In fact, there's no asking for a call, because the referee's job is to watch every shot.

Because of the fact that the ref's job is to watch every shot, the rule that applies is that if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen. It doesn't matter if both players think a particular shot was a foul or not. The ref has to see it happen.

Even if Earl wanted to call a foul on himself, it shouldn't have mattered. The ref didn't see it. Earl has played in enough 14.1 events to know the rule. He was stating it correctly. To people who aren't familliar with the rules about referees presiding over matches, it looks like poor sportsmanship. It's not. It's the rule. It's very similar to tennis.

The problem is, that in 9 Ball, the rules have been a little relaxed regarding the relationship between referee and players in the TV matches. I think it's because people don't know any better. Players have been getting away with (and yes, I mean getting away with) calling the occasional foul on themselves. Others praise them for good sportsmanship, but the referee is supposed to disallow it unless he saw it himself.

I've both refereed and played in plenty of 14.1 pro events. That's how it works.

Fran

1Duke_in_Pa
09-28-2005, 06:14 PM
One of the funniest thing to happen in a situation similar to have a foul called was: player number 1 says to player number 2...Was that a foul ?...Player number 2 says: pick up the cueball and find out !!Player number 1 was lost because he wasn't paying 100% attention the whole time like he should have been doing...so the number 1 player shot his next shot from where the cueball had stopped....and Yes it was a foul and would have been ball in hand, but that's what he got from not paying attention to his own match.

Barbara
09-28-2005, 07:01 PM
Fran,

I hear where you're coming from.

In a match between two opponents where a referee is officiating, it is "all balls foul", just like in a 14.1 match. It is up to the Referee to call the fouls, not the player.

Earl did not have to call a foul on himself as Scott Smith was standing behind him and unable to watch the hit.

As a side note - short story. I was watching a 1997 match of the Challenge of Champions between Oliver Ortmann and Allen Hopkins. The BCA referee was John Delaveau from NYC. I used to love reading his "You Be The Ref" columns in the All About Pool mags I subscribed to, and he was a long standing Ref at the SBE. John positioned himself very strategically for each and every shot during the match to evaluate the shot, questionable or not.

After having gotten to know John and his wonderful wife Marty after a couple Expos, I told John that I wanted to be a Ref, because he inspired me so with his fluent style of moving around the table to watch, and not being a disturbance in the game for the players. He had a knack for it that. He just moved quietly and efficiently.

He told me that his greatest compliment came when he was refereeing a 14.1 tournament in NYC, and this guy in the crowd was videotaping it, and John never blocked his view with his camera. He actually told John this. And John replied, "I know where I have to stand."

Fran, I knew he had some heart troubles and I would hate to hear any more bad news, but let me know privately.

And also, I know of your loss, too. My sincere condolences.

Barbara

Combinator
09-28-2005, 10:27 PM
Hmm... regarding 1Duke_in_PA's story, it seems to me that if Player 1 was at the table and there was no referee, it is incumbant on him to answer Player 2's question. The player at the table gets to make the call and when asked should answer straightforwardly.

LARRY_BOY
09-29-2005, 03:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> OK, thanks, Barbara.

Earl was right and the call was right.

One of the things we miss out on by not having 14.1 pro events as much anymore, is the understanding of the relationship between players and referee when the referee is presiding over an entire match.

Everything changes when that happens. The ref has the right to call a foul on a player at any time, not just when the player or opponent asks for a call. In fact, there's no asking for a call, because the referee's job is to watch every shot.

Because of the fact that the ref's job is to watch every shot, the rule that applies is that if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen. It doesn't matter if both players think a particular shot was a foul or not. The ref has to see it happen.

Even if Earl wanted to call a foul on himself, it shouldn't have mattered. The ref didn't see it. Earl has played in enough 14.1 events to know the rule. He was stating it correctly. To people who aren't familliar with the rules about referees presiding over matches, it looks like poor sportsmanship. It's not. It's the rule. It's very similar to tennis.

The problem is, that in 9 Ball, the rules have been a little relaxed regarding the relationship between referee and players in the TV matches. I think it's because people don't know any better. Players have been getting away with (and yes, I mean getting away with) calling the occasional foul on themselves. Others praise them for good sportsmanship, but the referee is supposed to disallow it unless he saw it himself.

I've both refereed and played in plenty of 14.1 pro events. That's how it works.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Let me show you how ridiculas you sound. If I steal your car from your driveway and the ref, I mean, cop doesn't see me then it's ok?! I don't think so....wrong is wrong.

100andout
09-29-2005, 04:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LARRY_BOY:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> OK, thanks, Barbara.

Earl was right and the call was right.

One of the things we miss out on by not having 14.1 pro events as much anymore, is the understanding of the relationship between players and referee when the referee is presiding over an entire match.

Everything changes when that happens. The ref has the right to call a foul on a player at any time, not just when the player or opponent asks for a call. In fact, there's no asking for a call, because the referee's job is to watch every shot.

Because of the fact that the ref's job is to watch every shot, the rule that applies is that if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen. It doesn't matter if both players think a particular shot was a foul or not. The ref has to see it happen.

Even if Earl wanted to call a foul on himself, it shouldn't have mattered. The ref didn't see it. Earl has played in enough 14.1 events to know the rule. He was stating it correctly. To people who aren't familliar with the rules about referees presiding over matches, it looks like poor sportsmanship. It's not. It's the rule. It's very similar to tennis.

The problem is, that in 9 Ball, the rules have been a little relaxed regarding the relationship between referee and players in the TV matches. I think it's because people don't know any better. Players have been getting away with (and yes, I mean getting away with) calling the occasional foul on themselves. Others praise them for good sportsmanship, but the referee is supposed to disallow it unless he saw it himself.

I've both refereed and played in plenty of 14.1 pro events. That's how it works.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Let me show you how ridiculas you sound. If I steal your car from your driveway and the ref, I mean, cop doesn't see me then it's ok?! I don't think so....wrong is wrong. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm going with Larry on this one. If the "Ref" sees it or not it's WRONG!..........a foul is a foul no matter who you are.

Does anybody remember Bobby Jones calling the foul on himself and losing the open championship by 1 stroke? His response was" that's the only way I know how to play the game!"

Maybe some people know how to play the game "2 ways"...........G

Brian in VA
09-29-2005, 05:04 AM
While it may be "wrong" in the sense of the word, it isn't wrong according to the rules. Fran is saying that the rules state that only the referee may call the foul and if the ref doesn't, it isn't a foul. (I could possible argue that the player was wronged by the rules.)

The golf analogy is not germaine to this as golf is played under different rules one of which is that the player should call penalties on himself. Failure to do so results in further penalties if discovered. No such rule exists in pool.

Brian in VA - freak about the rules of golf and still learning the rules of pool.

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 07:19 AM
Doesn't matter what you think. Earl didn't cheat. Lassiter, Mosconi, Crane, Balsis, Miz, Sigel, Rempe and all the others understood it and respected it---only in those days, the player didn't have to remind the referee that he didn't see the shot. The ref knew the rule and would act accordingly.

Barbara
09-29-2005, 07:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brian in VA:</font><hr> While it may be "wrong" in the sense of the word, it isn't wrong according to the rules. Fran is saying that the rules state that only the referee may call the foul and if the ref doesn't, it isn't a foul. (I could possible argue that the player was wronged by the rules.) <hr /></blockquote>

That's exactly what Fran was stating. When a match is being refereed, it is up to the Ref to call the fouls.

Barbara

LARRY_BOY
09-29-2005, 07:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Doesn't matter what you think. Earl didn't cheat. Lassiter, Mosconi, Crane, Balsis, Miz, Sigel, Rempe and all the others understood it and respected it---only in those days, the player didn't have to remind the referee that he didn't see the shot. The ref knew the rule and would act accordingly. <hr /></blockquote>

Earl was lucky the cameras were on or he might have spent the rest of the week recouperating from a cracked skull.....

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 09:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brian in VA:</font><hr> While it may be "wrong" in the sense of the word, it isn't wrong according to the rules. Fran is saying that the rules state that only the referee may call the foul and if the ref doesn't, it isn't a foul. (I could possible argue that the player was wronged by the rules.)

The golf analogy is not germaine to this as golf is played under different rules one of which is that the player should call penalties on himself. Failure to do so results in further penalties if discovered. No such rule exists in pool.

Brian in VA - freak about the rules of golf and still learning the rules of pool. <hr /></blockquote>

If you think about it, Brian, rule enforcement in pool is very similar to other sports, even golf. In order to properly referee a golf tournament, you'd probably need one ref for each player in golf due to the amount of movement around the golf course. Even one ref per group wouldn't be enough. He'd have to run back and forth between each player. Pool rules are the same when there's no ref at the table. You have an obligation to police yourself and your opponent. You are even obligated to call a foul on yourself, the only difference from golf being that there aren't additional penalties for not doing so. I don't know of any other sport that does that.

But in other sports, where the action is basically in one place, when there's a ref, the ref makes all the calls. In basketball, for instance, if the ref failed to notice a player who's traveling, that player doesn't stop the game and call a traveling foul on himself. The game just continues. You don't see the spectators jumping up and down screaming that the player cheated. They're yelling at the ref for missing the call.

All kinds of problems arise when the players are allowed to overule a ref. You just can't allow that to happen. As a result, there will be the occasional bad call or missed call. For a player who's been on the bad side of that, which is everyone, btw, it's perfectly understandable that he would want to stand up for the rule when the error or mishap is in his favor. The audience doesn't get to think about all the calls that went against him in past matches, but the player remembers them, every one of them.

Fran

Brian in VA
09-29-2005, 10:39 AM
Fran writes:
If you think about it, Brian, rule enforcement in pool is very similar to other sports, even golf. In order to properly referee a golf tournament, you'd probably need one ref for each player in golf due to the amount of movement around the golf course. Even one ref per group wouldn't be enough. He'd have to run back and forth between each player. Pool rules are the same when there's no ref at the table. You have an obligation to police yourself and your opponent. You are even obligated to call a foul on yourself, the only difference from golf being that there aren't additional penalties for not doing so. I don't know of any other sport that does that.

But in other sports, where the action is basically in one place, when there's a ref, the ref makes all the calls. In basketball, for instance, if the ref failed to notice a player who's traveling, that player doesn't stop the game and call a traveling foul on himself. The game just continues. You don't see the spectators jumping up and down screaming that the player cheated. They're yelling at the ref for missing the call.

All kinds of problems arise when the players are allowed to overule a ref. You just can't allow that to happen. As a result, there will be the occasional bad call or missed call. For a player who's been on the bad side of that, which is everyone, btw, it's perfectly understandable that he would want to stand up for the rule when the error or mishap is in his favor. The audience doesn't get to think about all the calls that went against him in past matches, but the player remembers them, every one of them.

Fran

Excellent points Fran. In fact, at most major golf tournaments, there is one referee per group whose job it is to make rulings or provide guidance on the rules when there is a question not necessarily call a foul - the belief being that the players will call the penalty on themselves. (e.g. Do I get relief from this TV cable or do I play the ball as it lies? If I get relief, where is the proper drop area?) And I don't know of another game like that.

I was always taught not to argue with the ref or umpire because it never was overturned and you nearly always look stupid. I agree that the fans always yell at the ref for missing the call not at the player for cheating. Pool shouldn't be any different when there's a ref. Am I correct that when there isn't a ref that it's the shooter that makes the call, not the opponent? That could make it a game of honor. Or not in some cases. Which, I guess, is Larry Boy's point that Earl behaved dishonorably when in fact he played by the rules and the ref blew the call.

Pool, like life, if rarely simple.

Brian in VA

Barbara
09-29-2005, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brian in VA:</font><hr> Am I correct that when there isn't a ref that it's the shooter that makes the call, not the opponent? That could make it a game of honor. Or not in some cases. Which, I guess, is Larry Boy's point that Earl behaved dishonorably when in fact he played by the rules and the ref blew the call.

Pool, like life, if rarely simple.

Brian in VA <hr /></blockquote>

Brian,

When a Ref is not presiding over a match it is the non-shooting player's responsibility to call over a Ref to watch any hit that may be questionable.

However, if the shooting player indavertantly fouls and does not own up to it, there's nothing much the non-shooting player can really do except inform the TD or Ref of the situation.

Barbara

LARRY_BOY
09-29-2005, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brian in VA:</font><hr> While it may be "wrong" in the sense of the word, it isn't wrong according to the rules. Fran is saying that the rules state that only the referee may call the foul and if the ref doesn't, it isn't a foul. (I could possible argue that the player was wronged by the rules.)

The golf analogy is not germaine to this as golf is played under different rules one of which is that the player should call penalties on himself. Failure to do so results in further penalties if discovered. No such rule exists in pool.

Brian in VA - freak about the rules of golf and still learning the rules of pool. <hr /></blockquote>

If you think about it, Brian, rule enforcement in pool is very similar to other sports, even golf. In order to properly referee a golf tournament, you'd probably need one ref for each player in golf due to the amount of movement around the golf course. Even one ref per group wouldn't be enough. He'd have to run back and forth between each player. Pool rules are the same when there's no ref at the table. You have an obligation to police yourself and your opponent. You are even obligated to call a foul on yourself, the only difference from golf being that there aren't additional penalties for not doing so. I don't know of any other sport that does that.

But in other sports, where the action is basically in one place, when there's a ref, the ref makes all the calls. In basketball, for instance, if the ref failed to notice a player who's traveling, that player doesn't stop the game and call a traveling foul on himself. The game just continues. You don't see the spectators jumping up and down screaming that the player cheated. They're yelling at the ref for missing the call.

All kinds of problems arise when the players are allowed to overule a ref. You just can't allow that to happen. As a result, there will be the occasional bad call or missed call. For a player who's been on the bad side of that, which is everyone, btw, it's perfectly understandable that he would want to stand up for the rule when the error or mishap is in his favor. The audience doesn't get to think about all the calls that went against him in past matches, but the player remembers them, every one of them.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

I'm begining to understand why more people are leaving pool to go to poker. When pool players tolerate or even in some cases exalt cheating in our sport I guess we as an industry deserve our back alley gutter mentality. Poker would not tolerate this type of behavior one second. Good luck on atracting new sponsers!

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Brian in VA:</font><hr>
Am I correct that when there isn't a ref that it's the shooter that makes the call, not the opponent? That could make it a game of honor. Or not in some cases. Which, I guess, is Larry Boy's point that Earl behaved dishonorably when in fact he played by the rules and the ref blew the call.

<hr /></blockquote>

You're exactly right, Brian. In the absence of a ref, the shooter has the obligation to finalize the call. As we know, this can be honest or dishonest. Just like golf.

That's why I brought up 14.1. When that was the game, spectators, players and refs all knew the rules because every match in a tournament was refereed. But now with 9 Ball, all matches except for TV matches are without referees. Players, spectators and even the refs sometimes, don't realize the major differences between the two types.

Unfortunately, I fear that unless someone steps up to the plate and reaffirms the rules of refereed matches, those matches will become a mish-mash of a little of this and a little of that, with no consistency.

And everyone can take this to the bank...Earl is a rule maven. Don't try to challenge him on a rule because you'll lose.

Fran

wolfdancer
09-29-2005, 12:12 PM
"...just like Golf"
Surely, you are not comparing a gentlemen's game to pool?
There's the old story of Bobby Jones, calling a stroke penalty on himself ....and losing the open by a single shot. Can't see that ever happening in pool.
And my favorite story from Jimmy Reid's website:

126 of the 128 man field had been eliminated, two players left in the finals.


Game = Straight Pool 150 Points
Joe Balsis vs. Willie Mosconi
Referee = Arnie Satin


Play begins, Willie wins the lag - Balsis breaks, and does so perfectly. They each play a few super safeties jockeying back and forth trying to get a shot, they both take a couple of scratches during this opening rack, then Balsis is near the end rail and calls a ball behind the stack thathe must cut backwards, he makes it, and receives a thunderous ovation. Joe (the butcher) waits for the noise to stop, then proceeds to run balls and finally misses a difficult break shot, this makes the score Balsis +138 to Mosconi -2. Joe had run 10 racks, surely Willie would fold...


Like Joe, Willie waits for the well deserved applause and cheering that Balsis had earned to cease. He then gets up out of his chair, comes to the table and begins to run balls as smoothly as Fred Astaire could dance. Rack after rack he runs balls with a confidence, skill, and knowledge of straight pool that only Willie posessed. Willie makes an unusually difficult break shot. Now the score is Willie Mosconi 139, Joe Balsis 138, but lo and behold, the cue ball has frozen to the top of the stack, it looks like Willie doesn't have a shot, there are 3 balls all in line frozen together on the right side of the pack with the cueball frozen to the top ball and in the same line, counting the cueball this makes it 4 balls in a row all frozen together. After studying the shot in depth, Willie announces to the referee (Arnie Satin), that he is going to play the middle ball in the corner pocket. The crowd is on their feet, he elevates his cue, hits the cue ball at 10:30 (high left english), and the middle ball splits the wicket.

The crowd starts to go crazy cheering, then Arnie Satin yells foul, Mr. Mosconi has committed an illegal push. Balsis gets up runs 12 and wins the match...


Arnie Satin also had the honor of calling out all those players names who had finished in the money, having them come forth and present them with their prise money envelope. After completing that. He asked if Willie Mosconi and Joe Balsis would come up together, well the audience, which consisted of some of the biggest names in Hollywood, went wild displaying their appreciation of the quality of pool they had just witnessed. Willie was on Arnie's right Balsis on Arnie's left...


Arnie began by saying. &amp;quot;And now to Willie Mosconi who played brilliantly - that's all he got out, Willie grabbed the 2nd place envelope with his left hand and hit Arnie with a right sucker punch uppercut, knocking him out cold! Willie - what a scene, what a temper...

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 12:19 PM
HA!

Well, at least Mosconi waited until the game ended.

Too funny.

Fran

Deeman3
09-29-2005, 12:57 PM
Maybe we take Earl's bad boy behaviour a little too seriously. I don't remember hearing of Mosconi or anyone else getting sanctioned for the things like Wolfdancer pointed out. I certainly remember Hurricane Higgins of snooker fame being downright wild and it probably only enhanced his fame (or infamy).

So, although I've now ageed to join the anti-Pearl defamation club, I don't think the success or "gutter" image of pool rests very much with wierd outbursts from Earl.

Many of us have said, "Hey, folks, maybe we just picked a sport that is not of major interest to most human beings and we will always suffer that others don't see the joy in it that we do. "

Everytime anything is done on pool, on TV, half our crowd complains about it's impact on our game's image. I think we had the BallBusters being derided a few weeks ago. Do we really think that has any impact on the image of pool? Come on, If a major pool player's hair was on fire it would not make the six o'clock news.

Let Earl rant, shark a little, yell at some defenseless woman in the stands. We can all boo him but don't think it matters to pool. I hate to see any great player's skill decline, hell I hate to see mine do so as well. However, if you want to just ban Earl from tournaments because he is no longer a gentleman and may have lost a little heart, be careful. There are more than a few players in many sports who would, by those criteria, be shown the door. Would tennis have been better off without Johnny Mac. His behaviour was terroristic in comparison to Earl. Have you seen the way some PGA golfers treat the public when the camera is not on them? One hits 1 irons into crowds, at speed, to bounce back onto the green when he can't hold a shot.

Maybe the good side of this will be that everyone will behave perfectly and lower the excitment level to interest only those of us who love the details. the safety play, the long battles. That might turn these nine ball tournaments into more like one pocket tournaments where there are more players than spectators. Then, we can all have the peace and quiet we all deserve and long for.

Heck, we'd all be so happy then. Earl would no longer offend and we could look for deeper levels of excitement in this sport. I know they are out there.

Just curioous, how many spectators were so incensed by Eral's behaviour that they when over to watch a better match. Maybe watching Earl lose can become a more popular form of the sport for us. Sorta like a GWB thing for some.....


Deeman
looking so forward to the new age chummy pool crowd....

100andout
09-29-2005, 01:07 PM
Well, I did some rule reading today and I have to admit Frans rule school is correct. So I guess what I need to get off my chest is I want to be involved in cuesports in a manner more closely related to Golf. I'd much more enjoy seeing a player call a foul on himself, and give up the table then say " hey screw my opponent the ref missed it, so I get to legally cheat". You have to have as much respect for the game AND your opponent as you do for yourself IMHO...............Gerry

Deeman3
09-29-2005, 01:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 100andout:</font><hr> Well, I did some rule reading today and I have to admit Frans rule school is correct. So I guess what I need to get off my chest is I want to be involved in cuesports in a manner more closely related to Golf. I'd much more enjoy seeing a player call a foul on himself, and give up the table then say " hey screw my opponent the ref missed it, so I get to legally cheat". You have to have as much respect for the game AND your opponent as you do for yourself IMHO...............Gerry <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Gerry,

I feel for you in a non-democrat sort of way. I think a much more interesting proposition is this: Why do you have a sport where only the TV rounds have a referee? I mean, we trusted these felons to make it throuogh uncounted rounds with little outside help. The referee, by the observations here, didn't work out anyway (was not in position, missed the call). Are they just there to get in the way of TV or other spectators? I know the TV matches are suposedly more important than the other rounds, but maybe not. I bet, if we only called the referees over for close hits in TV matches, nothing would change one iota with the possible exceptions of less referee's view being "obstructed" and better viewability by the audiences..... </font color>

Deeman
what's the football referee's shirt for anyway? Are people often confused about who they are?

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 01:37 PM
Gerry, I hear what you're saying but you're missing the most important part about refereed matches. The player isn't supposed to say anything. There's no 'screw my opponent' type of thing that's supposed to be going on.

Here's the way the scenario with Earl should have gone: Earl commits a foul. The opponent asks the ref about it. The ref says, sorry, I didn't see the shot. No foul. Earl says nothing because he has no say in the matter. It's over.

But if the ref isn't familliar with the rule, then someone has to correct him. The real show of sportsmanship here would have been for Earl's opponent to step up and say OK, if you didn't see it, then let's move on. He didn't do that, either because he didn't know the rule or because he DID know the rule.

Fran

Brian in VA
09-29-2005, 01:43 PM
Quote Larry Boy:
I'm begining to understand why more people are leaving pool to go to poker. When pool players tolerate or even in some cases exalt cheating in our sport I guess we as an industry deserve our back alley gutter mentality. Poker would not tolerate this type of behavior one second. Good luck on atracting new sponsers! "

No one is exalting cheating. I think we're pointing out that the game, as all are, is played by the rules and those rules change in certain circumstances. If you choose to see it differently, that is your prerogative. I don't think any of this has anything to do with pool's ability to attract sponsors.

Brian in VA

SPetty
09-29-2005, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Just curious, how many spectators were so incensed by Earl's behaviour that they went over to watch a better match?<hr /></blockquote>I've done that on numerous occasions. I can't stand to watch him.

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 02:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>
<font color="blue"> Gerry,

I feel for you in a non-democrat sort of way. I think a much more interesting proposition is this: Why do you have a sport where only the TV rounds have a referee? I mean, we trusted these felons to make it throuogh uncounted rounds with little outside help. The referee, by the observations here, didn't work out anyway (was not in position, missed the call). Are they just there to get in the way of TV or other spectators? I know the TV matches are suposedly more important than the other rounds, but maybe not. I bet, if we only called the referees over for close hits in TV matches, nothing would change one iota with the possible exceptions of less referee's view being "obstructed" and better viewability by the audiences..... </font color>

Deeman
what's the football referee's shirt for anyway? Are people often confused about who they are? <hr /></blockquote>

Beats me about the football shirt. They used to wear tuxedos.

Good question, Deeman. Why have refs preside over matches at all? There's no doubt that it was more important back when 14.1 was the game when they played all ball fouls.

One thing we can't deny is the showmanship of having a ref preside in front of the cameras to make it all look official. But besides that, I think that if the ref really understands his obligations and responsibilities, he'd be extremely conscientious during the match. When it's like that, it's a real asset to have someone around to watch every shot. It also takes the burdon off the players to decide whether or not to ask for a call on a hit. Plus it eliminates the potential for distracting the shooter with play stopping to wave over the ref. Believe it or not, it's actually less distracting if the ref is always there than with the ref walking in and out of the playing area.

Fran

100andout
09-29-2005, 06:11 PM
Here's the way the scenario with Earl should have gone: Earl commits a foul. The opponent asks the ref about it. The ref says, sorry, I didn't see the shot. No foul. Earl says nothing because he has no say in the matter. It's over.

Fran, you said it right there! EARL COMMITS A FOUL! why call it a foul if you can get away with it?! why have ANY rules? should we have a disclaimer on all rules saying "ONLY IF YOUR FOUL IS WITNESSED?" come on! a foul is a foul and Earl knew it. What does it say about the rules if they have to be seen by anyone to count? What it does say is here's the rules unless you can hide a foul or block someones view of you cheating!

It sounds very similar to pro wrestling, when the guy blocks the view of the ref, then pokes the other guy in the eye or something. Because there is a rule interpretation that makes what happened "ok" does not make it right no matter how you spin it!..Gerry

Fran Crimi
09-29-2005, 09:50 PM
Gerry, you feel this way because you're passionate about pool. Me too. But it's no different than how a coach feels watching his tennis prodigy have to sweat a bad call at a critical point in the Wimbledon finals. The injustice of it nearly kills him. He wants to scream at the opponent to own up to the foul and lay down his racket and refuse to continue unless the judge reverses the call. But he also knows it won't do any good.

If you have a gripe about the referee process, then you're going to have to gripe about referees all over the world in all different sports because that's the way it is.

The reason it hasn't changed in other sports like tennis is because the consequences of taking away the referee's ability to judge are far greater than correcting the occasional mistake. Sports fans and players alike understand that, and grudgingly accept the occasional unfairness that goes along with it.

Fran

Deeman3
09-30-2005, 04:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Just curious, how many spectators were so incensed by Earl's behaviour that they went over to watch a better match?<hr /></blockquote>I've done that on numerous occasions. I can't stand to watch him. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

SPetty,

I know that you feel strongly about him and know you are one who would do exactly that. However, most stay and watch his antics and let themsleves get very upset over it. I'm just saying it may be a big deal to a few of us who watch pool and to many who are thinking this would change the image of pool. I just don't think most care that much, outside hard core fans/players and I don't think it is doing any damage to the sport.

I just don't see droves of people saying, Wow, if Earl Strickland would clean up his behaviour, I'd watch/play/support more pool.

I know you will get up and leave but I bet someone took your seat when you did and you were not joined by a thundering heard walking off from the match. Maybe I'm wrong as, of course, I was not there. </font color>

Deeman
missing the Point? sure missing PettyPoint...

eg8r
09-30-2005, 04:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Earl was lucky the cameras were on or he might have spent the rest of the week recouperating from a cracked skull..... <hr /></blockquote> Ha. Charlie is smart enough to not even think about cracking anyone's skull.

eg8r

jjinfla
09-30-2005, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> OK, thanks, Barbara.

Earl was right and the call was right.

One of the things we miss out on by not having 14.1 pro events as much anymore, is the understanding of the relationship between players and referee when the referee is presiding over an entire match.

Everything changes when that happens. The ref has the right to call a foul on a player at any time, not just when the player or opponent asks for a call. In fact, there's no asking for a call, because the referee's job is to watch every shot.

Because of the fact that the ref's job is to watch every shot, the rule that applies is that if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen. It doesn't matter if both players think a particular shot was a foul or not. The ref has to see it happen.

Even if Earl wanted to call a foul on himself, it shouldn't have mattered. The ref didn't see it. Earl has played in enough 14.1 events to know the rule. He was stating it correctly. To people who aren't familliar with the rules about referees presiding over matches, it looks like poor sportsmanship. It's not. It's the rule. It's very similar to tennis.

The problem is, that in 9 Ball, the rules have been a little relaxed regarding the relationship between referee and players in the TV matches. I think it's because people don't know any better. Players have been getting away with (and yes, I mean getting away with) calling the occasional foul on themselves. Others praise them for good sportsmanship, but the referee is supposed to disallow it unless he saw it himself.

I've both refereed and played in plenty of 14.1 pro events. That's how it works.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

That was a great post Fran. And a great explanation. I was surprised at Allen Hopkins when he made such a big deal about it. All pro players know, or should know, that when they are playing with a referee only the referee can make the call. It is either fair, or it is foul, but it is nothing until the referee calls it. I am sure that CW knows that. And the other players just smiled and really didn't make a big stink about it.

In fact if a player does call the foul he is in fact insulting the ref and could be reprimanded for that.

A similar shot occurred with Karen Corr. She was jumping a ball and the CB hit the jumped ball moving it a few inches. The ref did not see it so it was not called a foul. She just went on shooting (as she should have). And no big deal was made about it.

Jake

rukiddingme
09-30-2005, 10:58 AM
Pool like other sports is not a PERFECT sport.
Earl, in this situation, abided by the rules. Hopkins knew that and was out of line getting on Earl's case. He should have explained the rule to the audience and likened it to an unseen travel or out of bounds in basketball.
If Hopkins did not know the rule then he has no business being a commentator...but that is a totally different issue...lol
I've got no problem with this incident.
If a player throws a tantrum (regardless of the sport) I have a problem with that...THAT is unsportsman like conduct.
ruk

Jim Walker
09-30-2005, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Gerry, you feel this way because you're passionate about pool. Me too. But it's no different than how a coach feels watching his tennis prodigy have to sweat a bad call at a critical point in the Wimbledon finals. The injustice of it nearly kills him. He wants to scream at the opponent to own up to the foul and lay down his racket and refuse to continue unless the judge reverses the call. But he also knows it won't do any good.

If you have a gripe about the referee process, then you're going to have to gripe about referees all over the world in all different sports because that's the way it is.

The reason it hasn't changed in other sports like tennis is because the consequences of taking away the referee's ability to judge are far greater than correcting the occasional mistake. Sports fans and players alike understand that, and grudgingly accept the occasional unfairness that goes along with it.

Fran

<hr /></blockquote>

Can anyone here picture in their mind "Shaq" calling a foul on himself? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

100andout
09-30-2005, 03:00 PM
Maybe in my head the foul thing is different in pool because even though you may have an opponent, you are all alone on the table and no one can do anything while it's your turn. Unlike most sports where theres 2 teams on a field, or a golf course, or court where the most efficient way to keep the peace is to have a ref with the final say....Gerry

Chopstick
10-03-2005, 09:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Just curious, how many spectators were so incensed by Earl's behaviour that they went over to watch a better match?<hr /></blockquote>I've done that on numerous occasions. I can't stand to watch him. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

SPetty,

I know that you feel strongly about him and know you are one who would do exactly that. However, most stay and watch his antics and let themsleves get very upset over it. I'm just saying it may be a big deal to a few of us who watch pool and to many who are thinking this would change the image of pool. I just don't think most care that much, outside hard core fans/players and I don't think it is doing any damage to the sport.

I just don't see droves of people saying, Wow, if Earl Strickland would clean up his behaviour, I'd watch/play/support more pool.

I know you will get up and leave but I bet someone took your seat when you did and you were not joined by a thundering heard walking off from the match. Maybe I'm wrong as, of course, I was not there. </font color>

Deeman
missing the Point? sure missing PettyPoint...
<hr /></blockquote>

Well, I can only compare the aforementioned incident to something that occurs all too frequently in another of our finest sports. RASSLIN! Them refs never see anything. Where do they get those guys? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

You wanna spice up pool? Get Vince McMahon to run the BCA. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Think I care about what those yahoos in the control room think the next shot should be? I'd give em both the 8. Shaddup! I wanna see bikini clad babes walking around the table holding up the number of the next ball they're ganna shoot! Although, the babe they had leaning over that Sardo the other week wasn't bad.

What about an infield? Put the tables in a circle and put a bunch of drunken rowdies in the middle so Earl will have someone to hollar with. Give a whole new meaning the the phrase "The railbirds are singing." Now that's what I call fun! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Deeman3
10-03-2005, 09:11 AM
Chopstick,

i knew you were brought up right in Memphis! I vote for the same set-up and rules as you want but somehow firearms should be involved as well.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Deeman

sterlinggaming
10-04-2005, 03:33 PM
Blatantly giving up in a match is the same as dumping. The only difference is that you are not earning any money or fans for it.

As for Earl cheating because he did not acknowledge the foul he committed it just goes to prove that his ethics are nearly nonexistent. If he feels that he must win under those circumstances then it speaks volumes about his character.

The truth is that he cheats the fans every time he steps to the table. He is a carnival act now. Half the people come just to see what antics he'll put on now.

He ought to do just fine in the IPT. The way I see it the IPT encourages some acting up so Earl ought to be just fine with his derogatory and racist comments.

John

Chopstick
10-05-2005, 06:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Chopstick,

i knew you were brought up right in Memphis! I vote for the same set-up and rules as you want but somehow firearms should be involved as well.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

Firearms, my third favorite f-word, right behind free. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

jjinfla
10-08-2005, 05:13 PM
Hey people, Karen Corr did the exact same thing in her match. Why is it no one is calling her a cheat?

But like Vivian told a fan who was heckling her, "That's why you are over there and I am over here". And the crowd roared.

And of course no one says anything to Rodney because he will pick you up and snap you like a twig.

Jake