PDA

View Full Version : $50K is on the line - what would you do?



Vicki
10-28-2002, 12:46 PM
In following the JoeBlow's post titled "Insult to Pool" a curious question has come up. Seems there are people out there who would risk $50K for morality or righteousness or what ever. This question comes from the International Challenge of Champions match between Mika Immonen and Steve Knight.

The rules stated that you had to call the pocket for all shots on the nine. Steve forgot and shot the nine in the corner - 12 inches from the pocket - without calling the shot. In these rules, the cue ball stayed where it was and the nine was spotted and the opponet shot the nine from there. Mika got up, called the nine, and shot it in the side. Remember that in this match a referee was used and he was the one to make the call that the nine had not been called and so was spotted... the resulting outcome, Mika wins the game. In fairness, it should also be mentioned that Steve Knight didn't seem to recover mentally from this so the rest of the match was effected for him.

The question is this:

If you were Mika, what would you do?

Some say he should have tapped the cue ball with his stick, and given ball-in-hand back to Steve, since, after all, the shot was obvious, and Steve deserved to win.

Others say rules are rules and Steve knew the rules. A mental lapse is effectively the same as a miscue on a straight in shot. Game - Mika.

What do you think?

Vicki

10-28-2002, 12:52 PM
Rules are rules, and Steve knew them. We are responsible for our own actions and choices. When we screw up, we live with the consequences. If it was me that made a massive blunder like that, I would not expect my opponent to give it to me. It would be my mistake, my fault, my doing.

10-28-2002, 12:57 PM
I don't know when that argument became part of the post. For the record, I don't fault Mika for anything. I think the fair thing to do would have been for the ref to give Steve a warning. The shot was extremely obvious (it was practically hanging), and I think the sportsman-like thing to do would have been for the ref to let Steve know that he has to call every 9-ball, no matter how obvious. But at this point, who cares. Most of you think this was fine, and the outcome was ok. You all happen to represent the majority of the people who watch pool on ESPN, and go to professional events, so perhaps that carries some weight. If it were a vote, the majority wins (unless voting for the U.S. President), so the rule is probably fine.

bluewolf
10-28-2002, 12:58 PM
I would have taken the win. Something kind of close to this happened in one of my games.The other player said 'i hate to win like this' and our teamates grinned and said it is all in the game.

I would have felt bad about it, but to just give the game to the other player would undermine the rules that were announced to everyone well in advance.

bw

10-28-2002, 01:00 PM
The U.S. Presidential election isn't SUPPOSED to be "majority wins". It's an electoral college system. Why is that so hard to understand?

Rich R.
10-28-2002, 01:01 PM
Playing with a friend, I would give him/her the game.
Playing in a league, I would give my opponent the game, although other team members would probably not let that happen.
Playing for $50k, I take the win. Rules are rules, even stupid rules.
Rich R.

Vicki
10-28-2002, 01:02 PM
In answer to my own question - for the record...

For $50K I would have thanked the pool gods on my knees and taken the shot at the nine. There is no way I would give the shot back to Steve - not even for $10K - not even for $5K.

And I am not ashamed of it one bit.

eg8r
10-28-2002, 01:04 PM
Rules were agreed upon when entering the tournament. If the player did not agree, then they would not have played. Since all the players were held to the same rules and they all called the 9 then why is it a problem when a person does not call the 9?
One positive Steve can take from this, is that he has learned something. He needs to work on his mental game.

eg8r <~~~~ Needs to work on his entire game, mental and physical

Rich R.
10-28-2002, 01:09 PM
Joe, let's be clear about the issues here. I believe the issue is whether the rules should be enforced. The answer to that is YES.
Another issue is whether this is a stupid rule. On that issue I agree, it is stupid to require a player to call an obvious shot, but if you require the 9-ball to be called, it should be called on all shots.
Rich R.

stickman
10-28-2002, 01:13 PM
If I were playing a regular league match league, or playing for fun with friends, I would give them the game. If I'm playing for $50K, well then, sorry Steve, your bad.

Vicki
10-28-2002, 01:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Mike:</font><hr> The U.S. Presidential election isn't SUPPOSED to be "majority wins". It's an electoral college system. Why is that so hard to understand? <hr></blockquote>

Most people couldn't pick the vice president out of a line up. most people don't know who would run the country if the president and vice president died. most people couldn't name 2 supreme court justices. you think they can understand the electoral college system?? lol

10-28-2002, 01:22 PM
AHA! A Republican! A little defensive, are we? /webbbs/images/icons/wink.gif It isn't hard to understand. Most of us do. Don't feel like the lone ranger in your understanding of the election process.

Perk
10-28-2002, 01:25 PM
Happened in same tourney..next match. This time it was Efren Reyes...he lost the game, but won the match. Of course ya take the damn game if it happens. Kinda like your opponent running out in eightball/nineball and scratching while shooting the last damn ball....hell yea ya take it...might make them think next time!

10-28-2002, 01:26 PM
Most people also don't understand the game of pool, but it doesn't stop them from talking about it endlessly.

10-28-2002, 01:43 PM
Not really defensive. I just get tired of (and I am not including you in this group, because I don't know anything about your views or knowledge on the subject) of constant whining from idiots who don't understand the electoral college system or the results of the Florida election.

1: It is an electoral college system. It is not a "majority wins" election.
2: Bush won Florida. After he was inaugurated, a few media groups decided to each go to Florida and recount the ballots. What did they find? They each found that, recounting the entire state (not just three heavily Democratic counties that Gore wanted counted), Bush won. Bush won Florida.

I am tired of hearing/seeing morons here in Seattle call into talk shows and writing into newspapers saying that the election was somehow "stolen", because Gore got more votes.

10-28-2002, 04:31 PM
I would have tried to get my opponents attention (assuming that I liked the person) to remind them to call the shot. If they didn't look up I probably would have vocalized my concern. The money would not sway me only my like/dislike for the person.

Vicki
10-28-2002, 04:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Duane Tuula:</font><hr> I would have tried to get my opponents attention (assuming that I liked the person) to remind them to call the shot. If they didn't look up I probably would have vocalized my concern. The money would not sway me only my like/dislike for the person. <hr></blockquote>

Suppose it was $100,000? Would your answer be different then?

stickman
10-28-2002, 05:31 PM
Playing a no stakes or low stakes competition is one thing, but when you're playing for $50K you should know the rules. Not that I'm insensitive or unkind, but that is the difference between amatuer and professional competition. IMHO

In professional competition, making unforced errors will put you out of competition. If you plan on making a living playing pool, there is no room for these types of errors. In professional competition the rules must be enforced consistantly. To do otherwise would cause outrage by fans and participants.

The referee makes the call based on the rules.

Intentionally fouling to give the ball back to your opponent isn't sportsmanlike, it's foolishness. (At least in my opinion) Maybe if you were independently wealthy and didn't need the money, you could be so generous. But if your checkbook is overdrawn and you don't know where the next house payment is coming from, thank God for your blessing and give condolences to your opponent, not BIH.

Ken
10-28-2002, 06:51 PM
The only reason Efren won is that the crowd told him to call the pocket in the game that would have given Mika the match. Steve Tipton tried in vain to get the crowd out of the match. That's how absurd this rule is.

I'm convinced that it was Steve's idea and he did not think it out properly. It should be the referee's responsibility to notify the player if he has not heard the call when only the nine is left. He should not take it upon himself to assume there has been no call. It's just like if a person is not told he is on two fouls the third does not result in loss of game.

If Steve had taken a little time to think about the rule there would be nothing wrong with it.

Mika didn't tell Efren and I wouldn't either. The crowd did tell him and cost Mika an easy $50k. That's no way to decide a pool match.

Number one way to tell if a rule is flawed: When the audience gets to determine who wins the $50K.
KenCT

10-28-2002, 08:22 PM
In the very unlikely event that this situation were to arise, I have to admit that it would depend on the person I am playing.

If that person was like most I play with and practices a high degree of sportsmanship, I would hand them the CB. I would much prefer to have a reputation as a good sportsman than a winner.

On the other hand, if I did not know the person or knew them to be a win-at-all-cost type, I would graciously accept the letter of the law. Sorry, but with no other guidepost, the rule would prevail.

In my copy of the BCA Rules, under the heading "Instructions for Referees", it states:

"The referee must warn a player who is about to commit a serious foul..."

and

"The referee should issue a warning as soon as the corresponding situation arises. A warning given just as a shot starts is not conisdered sufficient; the player must be given enough time to react."

IMHO, since not calling the game ball would certainly be considered a serious foul, it could be argued that the referee is responsible for insuring the player calls their pocket.

Common sense and logic should prevail to prevent such rules from determining the outcome of game. After all, if next January you happen to write 2002 on a check, should you be hauled into court for check fraud? Hey, you knew the date and you know how to write a check--the rules are the rules. Right?!

Anonymous_1, a.k.a. Tina from Tallahassee)

eg8r
10-28-2002, 11:58 PM
Not that anyone is listening anymore, but even during the proposed recount Bush won. After the Dems went through and only counted the ballots that were for democrats in predominently democratic counties, Bush still came out on top. This does not even count all the military ballots that Democrats did not want to count. Bush won fair and square and that is why he received the electoral votes for the state.

One more interesting story, (i cannot remember the university that did the study) after analyzing the areas that Gorey won the media began to get quiet. Everyone knows that the news media is slanted to the left so they did not want to point this out, but, the areas that Gore won heavily are the areas with the most crime.

eg8r

eg8r
10-28-2002, 11:59 PM
lol, and that would include those bloeing off at the fingertips.

eg8r &lt;~~~~considers the source

ted harris
10-29-2002, 03:25 AM
...and Vicki ain't one of them! You met her when you were out here.

Rich R.
10-29-2002, 05:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous_1:</font><hr> In my copy of the BCA Rules, under the heading "Instructions for Referees", it states:

"The referee must warn a player who is about to commit a serious foul..."

and

"The referee should issue a warning as soon as the corresponding situation arises. A warning given just as a shot starts is not conisdered sufficient; the player must be given enough time to react." <hr></blockquote>
This was NOT a BCA competition and no one stated that BCA rules were being used. Therefore, the BCA rule book does not apply to this tournament.
I believe the rules were set by the organizers and promoters and those are the rules that apply.
Rich R.

10-29-2002, 06:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Vicki:</font><hr> In following the JoeBlow's post titled "Insult to Pool" a curious question has come up. Seems there are people out there who would risk $50K for morality or righteousness or what ever. This question comes from the International Challenge of Champions match between Mika Immonen and Steve Knight.

The rules stated that you had to call the pocket for all shots on the nine. Steve forgot and shot the nine in the corner - 12 inches from the pocket - without calling the shot. In these rules, the cue ball stayed where it was and the nine was spotted and the opponet shot the nine from there. Mika got up, called the nine, and shot it in the side. Remember that in this match a referee was used and he was the one to make the call that the nine had not been called and so was spotted... the resulting outcome, Mika wins the game. In fairness, it should also be mentioned that Steve Knight didn't seem to recover mentally from this so the rest of the match was effected for him.

The question is this:

If you were Mika, what would you do?

Some say he should have tapped the cue ball with his stick, and given ball-in-hand back to Steve, since, after all, the shot was obvious, and Steve deserved to win.

Others say rules are rules and Steve knew the rules. A mental lapse is effectively the same as a miscue on a straight in shot. Game - Mika.

What do you think?

Vicki <hr></blockquote>


Why trade one stupid move for another? If you are playing one pocket and forget which pocket is yours, it doesn't mean you should get to spot the ball you made in your opponents pocket.

If it is "call the 9" then that rule is probably there so you can't just "ride the 9" and hope it goes in somewhere, so the rule is meant for good, but it just so happens that someone had a brainfart and didn't call an obvious shot on the 9, however, those were the rules.. the rules meant to keep things equal.

It would be unfair for anyone to expect Mika to "give" the game back because his opponent forgot the rule for a second. That is a learning experience. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Ken
10-29-2002, 08:33 AM
Rich,

I doubt very much that Steve Tipton wrote an entire set of rules just for that tournament. Since we were not at any players' meeting it is not possible to speculate whether they might have been using modified BCA, Texas Express or whatever, but I'll bet that some common set of rules was used.

It is not possible to conclude that they definately were not using BCA rules. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that the BCA guidelines do address this situation and in a manner directly opposite to Steve's actions.

I will speculate, however, that Steve came up with his "modifications" without giving them sufficient thought.
KenCT

Eric.
10-29-2002, 08:49 AM
Speaking for myself, without a doubt, take the gift and move on. While I do feel the "honorable" thing to do is to give it back, you have to remember that the rules of the tourney was such. Hell, if you can bend one rule, why not another?
I know this is a hard-assed view, but that's what a serious tourney is about, right? I fully agree if I were in a casual game or even a league nite match, I could say "yeah, whatever" but when you're talking about being a Professional, you're expected to follow the exact rules. Could you imagine Tiger Woods, in a PGA event, taking a mulligan?

Eric &gt;o.k., flame away...

Vicki
10-29-2002, 08:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ken:</font><hr> Rich,

I doubt very much that Steve Tipton wrote an entire set of rules just for that tournament. Since we were not at any players' meeting it is not possible to speculate whether they might have been using modified BCA, Texas Express or whatever, but I'll bet that some common set of rules was used.

It is not possible to conclude that they definately were not using BCA rules. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that the BCA guidelines do address this situation and in a manner directly opposite to Steve's actions.

I will speculate, however, that Steve came up with his "modifications" without giving them sufficient thought.
KenCT <hr></blockquote>
Ken,

Steve Tipton didn't write any of the rules. Steve was hired by the promoters to stand there in a tuxedo and follow the rules. He is paid by them and has nothing at all to do with the production. This was a Billiards International Ltd production and no BCA or similar rules were used. It is modified version of 9-Ball that is designed to make it more interesting for TV. Billiards International Ltd made the rules and I will vouch for them they gave it more than sufficient thought. Their money=their rules. Yes, they did write a special set of rules for this tournament. And at the players meeting the rules were explained clearly and all the players understood them before the start of their matches.

By the way, the BCA rule book applies to amateur BCA sanctioned events - not professional. Different rules in the big leagues.

Vicki

Rich R.
10-29-2002, 09:03 AM
Ken, I agree that a complete set of rules were not written for this event and they did use some general rules as a guide. However, Steve and/or the other organizers did create the specific rule that a player must call the 9-ball.
However stupid the rule may seem, with a short straight shot, it was the rule and all players were aware of it. The rule must be followed with out exceptions until the organizers decide to change it. That is the fair thing to do.
While watching the matches, it appeared that the players involved accepted the rule, and its consequences, better than many on this board.
Rich R.

Ken
10-29-2002, 09:07 AM
Well,

I guess I can't blame Steve then. I'll blame Billiards Internation Ltd. They have set up a situation that is flawed and is not working. The audience is more concerned with whether or not they see the player call the ball than they are in simply observing the match. They took $50,000 away from Mika and gave Efren another chance to win. There is no excuse for a rule set that enables the audience to affect who wins.

Hopefully Billiards International will recognize that this is NOT good television and they will make a minor change in their rules.
KenCT

Vicki
10-29-2002, 09:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ken:</font><hr> Well,

I guess I can't blame Steve then. I'll blame Billiards Internation Ltd. They have set up a situation that is flawed and is not working. The audience is more concerned with whether or not they see the player call the ball than they are in simply observing the match. They gave $50,000 to Efren and there is no excuse for a rule set that enables the audience to determine who wins.
KenCT <hr></blockquote>

Ken,

An event that earns a player $50K and makes money for the promoters &amp; ESPN, and gives enjoyment to fans is not flawed. Look at all the free press they are getting. The fans didn't decide the winner. You weren't even there... I WAS. The format is exciting. The fans were more than invested in the matches. Everyone was on the edge of their seats and when it was over everyone was talking about it. Everyone is still talking about it... and the International Challenge of Champions tournaments from years past. If you think about it... the only men's events on TV are the International Challenge of Champions and the Sudden Death 7-Ball... both are by the same promoters. Funny how they are so successfull but are doing it wrong... flawed.

If you think it's flawed then that is your right... and if you think you know better, well, I think you should try to do something better. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, 100% of the people who said they would give the shot back to Steve Knight are lying. There's no pool player on earth charitable enough to give someone else $50G's.

Vicki

10-29-2002, 09:55 AM
No. Still the same.

I play the game the same for $1 or $1000. The game is the game and the money is secondary.

If my opponent made a mistake and the ref made a call I would also accept that situation as well. I would take bih and make the shot and follow-up with my opponent accordingly to let them know how I felt. They may not want to hear it at that point but I would still make the effort.

10-29-2002, 10:33 AM
Oh alright. I'll be nice to Vicki /webbbs/images/icons/wink.gif. I still think taking the game away from Steve Knight was a little nitty though (which, my saying that is what caused all the bickering back and forth). Oh, yeah, and I still think I'd bust rackmup if we played! /webbbs/images/icons/wink.gif

Bob C
10-29-2002, 11:04 AM
Mika has gotten the short end of the stick before. Buddy Hall relates an incident on an Accu-stat tape (sorry, I don't remember which one) when he was playing against Mika in a tournament and Mika didn't call the pocket as required by the tournament rules. Buddy's solution was to ask Mika if he understood the rules they were playing under. When Mika said he did, Buddy claimed the foul, and as a result, the game. According to Buddy, Mika thought Buddy was out of line.

When the shoe is on the other foot it is often a different story.

Ken
10-29-2002, 01:16 PM
I said the rule is flawed. If you were there you must have been facing the wrong direction because I was indeed there. I have no idea how you could possibly tell me that I was not. Efren was facing me about to take the shot and the audience was yelling "CALL IT" or words to that effect. Efren got up with a big grin on his face, called the shot and after making it he smiled broadly at the audience. I have no idea how you could have failed to notice at least some of that.

Did you also fail to notice Steve's futile attempts to keep the audience out of the match? Did you even notice that I suggested only that the rule needs a slight modification?

I wish you would get your facts straight before you make a disparaging post that is meant only to stiffle discussion. This thread started out as a civil discussion and now has degenerated into the typical series of false accusations and stupid dares that pervade this board.

Don't let any facts get in the way of your opinions.
KenCT

10-29-2002, 03:15 PM
Vicki: I just got off the phone with Ted H. Apparently we've met before (it would have been like 7 years ago or so. When I was out there I was hanging around Ted and Danny Green). Sorry if I jumped on you a little bit. I'm actually not such an opinionated jerk ... I just play one on the internet! /webbbs/images/icons/laugh.gif

10-29-2002, 04:52 PM
You wrote this in response to Joe Bloe's comment:
"The U.S. Presidential election isn't SUPPOSED to be "majority wins". It's an electoral college system. Why is that so hard to understand?"

Who said or inferred that the presidential election is supposed to be "majority wins"....because it wasn't Joe. Perhaps you misread Joe's comment.

Joe said "... in voting situations, majority wins (unless it's a presidential election)...." I read that statement as an acknowledgement that the presidential election is an exception to the otherwise prevalent "majority wins" mentality. Nowhere do I see his comment inferring that it *should be* majority wins.

What exactly do you think he doesn't understand?

aldewey

Vicki
10-29-2002, 05:06 PM
Ken,

I do apologize. I know I can be an overbearing, opinionated, b11ch. I honestly meant nothing personal and I am sorry if I offended you.

We seem to have a different opinion about whether or not that rule is flawed - you think it is and I don't. I think it is a good rule and one that was properly enforced consistently. You don't see it my way and that's fine.

I do feel strongly that too many people (not any person in particular and not meant to you, Ken) are critical without offering anything constructive. If you ( I say "you" but mean folks in general ) can't offer a solution to the problem or at least some constructive ideas then you ( again, not any "you" in particular ) should not be complaining. Too often it happens that someone who is trying to do something good gets so much crap from the same people he/she is trying to help and they throw up their hands in a fit of desperate frustration and quit.

I don't think we have enough people out there advocating for pool to nit them with complaints about every aspect of what they are doing. It happens to everyone who starts the regional tours, league operators, pro event promoters, room owners... the list goes on.

I would hate it if the good people of Billiards International Ltd saw these threads. If anyone appreciates the fact that they had a tournament, and we got to watch it in person and again on ESPN, they sure haven't said "thanks". That's a shame.

Again, I feel terrible that I came on so strong in response to your post. I hope we can just agree to disagree :-)

Vicki

Vicki
10-29-2002, 05:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Joe Bloe:</font><hr> Vicki: I just got off the phone with Ted H. Apparently we've met before (it would have been like 7 years ago or so. When I was out there I was hanging around Ted and Danny Green). Sorry if I jumped on you a little bit. I'm actually not such an opinionated jerk ... I just play one on the internet! &lt;img src="/webbbs/images/icons/laugh.gif"&gt; <hr></blockquote>

You play the part very well. ;-) lol... You just never know who's on the receiving side... so it is wise to respond to everyone as if they are someone very very important. No harm done. Thanks for the note.

Vicki &lt;---- is learning the hard way sometimes

Vicki
10-29-2002, 05:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Bob C:</font><hr> Mika has gotten the short end of the stick before. Buddy Hall relates an incident on an Accu-stat tape (sorry, I don't remember which one) when he was playing against Mika in a tournament and Mika didn't call the pocket as required by the tournament rules. Buddy's solution was to ask Mika if he understood the rules they were playing under. When Mika said he did, Buddy claimed the foul, and as a result, the game. According to Buddy, Mika thought Buddy was out of line.

When the shoe is on the other foot it is often a different story. <hr></blockquote>

That is one of life's rules that applies to all of us. Unfortunate, but true... If you think of the tape let me know...

Vicki

Rod
10-29-2002, 07:33 PM
Vicki,

What do I think? I don't even think about it other than I don't care for the format. Every thing else is speculation or waisted verbiage IMO of course. There I just waisted some more./ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

10-29-2002, 07:57 PM
There's only one thing to do. Drive the ball home and try to put a few more on him before he recovers. This was not a stroke of hard luck or bad break. It was a mistake, a breach of a rule that had been made known to him. If you made a heroic gesture and it cost you the match and the $50G, you might very well wind up jumping off the bridge. You can feel bad for the guy but you can't adopt him and take him to raise. Think about it.

Ken
10-29-2002, 07:59 PM
Vicki,
I'm sorry to have come down on you so hard. There has been a lot of stuff going on here that is making the board very unpleasant. One of our most prolific posters has apparently now taken to posting things that he knows to be untrue. I guess his imagination is failing him.

I think the rule is a fine topic for discussion. It's effects are very interesting. I was in a perfect position in the audience to witness some of those effects. I won't bother with more details other than to say that instead of Steve Tipton exhorting the audience to make more noise, he was telling us peons in the cheap seats to shut up.

I certainly have a very simple solution: conduct the tournament in the manner that is the norm in other refereed professional tournaments. That is, the ref should call all obvious call shots. Two reasons: 1) the audience is informed of the shooter's intention and need not guess whether the shot has been called or not. 2) it takes the burden off the shooter to do something that is not normal in the course of the game.

By way of illustration, in straight pool nobody calls shots unless they are not obvious. In a refereed tournament the ref calls the shots and the shooter can inform him if he gets it wrong. In the ICOC it should be understood that anytime the shooter is not on the nine he would have to inform the ref if he intends to make it, otherwise he does not win the game.

Very simple change and it conforms to accepted practice. The rule as it is now implemented is more similar to tavern rules than it is to professional pool.

I believe the purpose of the rule is to take the luck out of the game. Unfortunately, it is having other effects that are making a farce out of the matches. If the purpose of the rule is to get the audience yelling while someone is shooting and to make them extremely nervous about whether or not the nine ball has been called then it is a success.

KenCT~~was not yelling but was tempted to yell at
Efren prior to his first loss to Mika under this rule.

11-01-2002, 06:35 PM
I would have done the same thing as Mika and after winning the 50k, give Steve Knight his entry fee back!