clash royale hack pixel gun 3d hack mobile legends
HomeAbout Billiards DigestContact UsArchiveAll About PoolEquipmentOur AdvertisersLinks
From the Publisher
By Mike Panozzo
Mike became editor of Billiards Digest in 1980 and liked it so much that he bought the company. He has served on the Billiard Congress of America board of directors and as president of the Billiard & Bowling Institute of America.

• September 2017
• August 2017
• July 2017
• June 2017
• May 2017
• April 2017
• March 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• July 2016
• June 2016
• May 2016
• Apr 2016
• Mar 2016
• Feb 2016
• Jan 2016
• Dec 2015
• Nov 2015
• Oct 2015
• Sept 2015
• August 2015
• July 2015
• June 2015
• May 2015
• April 2015
• March 2015
• February 2015
• January 2015
• October 2014
• August 2014
• May 2014
• March 2014
• February 2014
• September 2013
• June 2013
• May 2013
• April 2013
• March 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• August 2012
• July 2012
• June 2012
• May 2012
• April 2012
• March 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• July 2011
• June 2011
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
November: License to Confuse
November 2016

Notes and musings from the 41st U.S. Open 9-Ball Championships…

• It wouldn’t be the U.S. Open without a little controversy. This time, however, the controversy heated up a week before the tournament even began, and it did not center on the prize fund. Using colossally poor judgment, the World Pool-Billiard Association (through its North American federation member, the Billiard Congress of America) dropped an oh-by-the-way Facebook post reminding players that, because the Open was WPA sanctioned, they were required to sign a newly instituted WPA Player License. Not surprisingly, the edict included little information, answered no obvious questions and left no opportunity for discourse.

Naturally, the botched missive set off a wave of questions, allegations and criticism across social media. It also gave first-time U.S. Open producer Pat Fleming agita!

“There were a lot of complaints,” Fleming said prior to the Open. “Lots of, ‘What’s this?’ There’s not telling how many players who were on the fence decided not enter the U.S. Open.” Left to their own narrative, the response from the players was one of outrage and disgust. In fact, their level of overreaction was every bit as ridiculous as the WPA’s original effort. “I see only negatives and no positives,” one American player posted. “Nothing to help the players. Just fines and being excluded from events if they don’t comply with each and every part of the contract.” Several players threatened to “have my lawyer deal with them,” as if… And, in humorous irony, a few players who scoffed at the notion of signing a player license had already signed the very license in question earlier in the year in order to participate in other WPA-sanctioned tournaments! While the actual contract isn’t nearly as heavy-handed as the “slave agreement” label a few players gave it, the WPA’s lack of foresight and poor handling of the situation was comically predictable.

All of this was, of course, avoidable. While the players generally overthink, overanalyze and overreact, the WPA constantly exacerbates problems with its nonchalance.

“I’m really surprised that this has become such an issue,” said Ian Anderson, seemingly the WPA’s president-for-life. “The Player License has been working for some months now, and was a requirement at the men’s World 9-Ball Championship in July and the China Open. Virtually every foreign player attending the U.S. Open has already signed the license.”

Hello! The largest contingent of players at the U.S. Open were American, and only a handful of those players travel to overseas events. It seems unlikely that an American player like, say, Keith Hargrave spent much time discussing the pros and cons of the WPA Player License with Taiwan’s Pin Yi Ko or Austria’s Albin Ouschan. Add in the fact that players in the U.S. are notoriously the most skeptical, cynical and untrusting players on the planet, and it seems relatively obvious that the WPA should have announced the license requirement long before the U.S. Open and should have promised to have a representative at the event prior to the players’ meeting to explain the license and answer questions.

A modicum of foresight would have rendered the issue almost moot. Based on the text of the license, no one could blame players for wondering why the license was necessary in the first place, and what kind of restrictions it would place on their ability to play in various events.

Had the WPA been on hand (or even had the intelligence to post a few FAQs with answers online), the players would have learned that the license can be canceled at any time by the player. As for limitations on events in which a licensed player can participate, Anderson said the WPA is simply trying to protect promoters of WPA events from having their events undermined by other promoters. Additionally, the license only pertains to WPA events, meaning events that are not WPA-sanctioned are open to all players, so long as that event doesn’t meet the WPA’s sanctioning criterea and is run at the same time as a WPA event. In the end, the confusion resulted in virtually no licenses being signed at the U.S. Open. In fact, for the most part, players left Norfolk no more informed about the WPA Player License than they were prior to the event. Shocker!

• Is anyone really surprised that Pat Fleming ran a catastrophe-free U.S. Open in his first effort? Hardworking, level-headed and detail-oriented, Fleming gave the players exactly what they’d hoped for — a tournament that ran smoothly, treated them with respect and paid them promptly and in full. Were there hiccups? Sure. A few players noted that the tables were too close together. And the lack of seeding is surely an issue that Fleming will want to rectify in 2017, should he agree to return as the event’s producer. The live-stream was a problem the first few days, but that is an Accu-Stats issue, not a U.S. Open issue.

Barry Behrman’s legacy tournament appears to be in good hands.