If you didn't want to continue the discussion, you could have posted only that from the start instead of posting a string of attacks along with it.
Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
If you didn't want to continue the discussion, you could have posted only that from the start instead of posting a string of attacks along with it.
scsuxci stated:
Hunting is not even in the same realm as pool.Pool is suppose to be a gentlemans game.Like I've posted
earlier,rules are for the game,honesty is about the person.
I find it odd that this is even a debate.If you foul you foul and that's that.
There's no way to sugar-coat it or make it acceptable.
Don't get me wrong,the person still might get the win cause nobody noticed
the foul but it still doesn't mean a foul didn't occur.IMO its a crappy way to get
the W.
scsuxci, you may be looking a little too deep into the analogy. It was designed to portray the application of laws and rules in general.
BTW..Hunting was and still is a gentlemans spot in Great Britian.
Regarding the second part of your comment.....The foul occurred, this is not disputed; however the rules revise the foul to a non foul in the event the non-shooter doesn't call the foul.
It basically redefines the act.
Think of it this way........
If you meet a pretty girl at a bar...you have a few drinks...you get a little tipsy and you take her home and make mad passionat love to her, then it's consentual sex.
If she wakes up in the morning and can't remember how she got there or who you are...then it's rape.
The sex occured...there's no disputing that. It's the the conditions or context of the situation that redefines the event.
It cannot be both consentul sex and rape at the same time....it must be one or the other.
Just as it cannot be both a foul and a nonfoul event...it must be one or the other.
If the non shooter calls the foul it is a foul.
If the non-shooter fails to call the foul, it is no longer a foul....it never happened.
If she doesn't call the police...then no rape charges and all assumption are that it didn't happen. If she calls the police....it's the same as if your opponent called the foul....you're in trouble
Hunting is not even in the same realm as pool.Pool is suppose to be a gentlemans game.Like I've posted
earlier,rules are for the game,honesty is about the person.
I find it odd that this is even a debate.If you foul you foul and that's that.
There's no way to sugar-coat it or make it acceptable.
Don't get me wrong,the person still might get the win cause nobody noticed
the foul but it still doesn't mean a foul didn't occur.IMO its a crappy way to get
the W.
scsuxci, you may be looking a little too deep into the analogy. It was designed to portray the application of laws and rules in general.
BTW..Hunting was and still is a gentlemans spot in Great Britian.
Regarding the second part of your comment.....The foul occurred, this is not disputed; however the rules revise the foul to a non foul in the event the non-shooter doesn't call the foul.
It basically redefines the act.
Think of it this way........
If you meet a pretty girl at a bar...you have a few drinks...you get a little tipsy and you take her home and make mad passionat love to her, then it's consentual sex.
If she wakes up in the morning and can't remember how she got there or who you are...then it's rape.
The sex occured...there's no disputing that. It's the the conditions or context of the situation that redefines the event.
It cannot be both consentul sex and rape at the same time....it must be one or the other.
Just as it cannot be both a foul and a nonfoul event...it must be one or the other.
If the non shooter calls the foul it is a foul.
If the non-shooter fails to call the foul, it is no longer a foul....it never happened.
If she doesn't call the police...then no rape charges and all assumption are that it didn't happen. If she calls the police....it's the same as if your opponent called the foul....you're in trouble
Last edited:
You make it sound like the attacks were one-sided.
What attacks did I make?
your attacks came in two forms......a degree of sarcasm and a willingness to over exagerate rebuttle positions to the point that they lacked context.
So I didn't attack you, you just didn't like my tone or use of reductio ad absurdum...
If you combine moral concepts with reducto ad absurdum and then contend that my beliefs or position would have to comply with this extreme "absurd" criteria ...it would be easy to percieve an indirect attack.....but more directly than that ....it's just insulting. If your going to debate, then do so on a relative scale that makes sense.
Get rid of the Absurdum.
If you've noticed throughout this discussion I've included numerous positions on the nature and application of rules relative to self calling fouls and suggested that morals have no position in the debate. The rules addresss all possible outcomes. Moral codes need not apply.
I've even included a section that demonstrates that the most fair approach to the game is one where both players hold their opponent accountable to call all fouls.
You on the other hand have not really created a substantial position to support the application of morals within the rules relative to self calling fouls but rather you have devoted most of your efforts to simply denouncing my position.
I sense that you enjoy debating and it seems you're still fishing for something. Hence, the persistence in defining the nature of our debate despite the fact that it is apparent we will not agree on this topic.
If you're looking to keep it alive....I would suggest you read my recent responses where the language of the rules set the standard to justify why a player should not be held accountable to self call a foul.
If you can debate this issue on it's merits and the written rules without subjecting them to a moral code, then I'll be happy to discuss the matter and I'll make every effort to be as civil as possible.
In the end....the rules prevail in all decisions.....moral interpretations never carry the day if a rule superceeds it.
As such debating the language of the rules offers much more value to defining their application than attempting to impose a subjective moral code because we may lack a full understanding of the rules.
Last edited:
rrick33 -- This is my 18th post in this thread. That far exceeds what I think is reasonable to make one's point(s). My position was stated reasonably clearly (I think) in post #69 five days ago. Nothing you have said has affected my view on this matter. At this point, we are just going around and around to, I expect, no one's betterment. I'm tired of it.
As a pretty good pool player and AzB poster sometimes says, "Be at choice."
As a pretty good pool player and AzB poster sometimes says, "Be at choice."
You only take offense to it because its true. If we go by complete subjective morality like you said, all the absurd scenarios that were mentioned would also be permissible. Unless you believe that those scenarios are morally permissible, what you stated would be incorrect. Claiming that reductio ad absurdum isn't taking into account relative scale doesn't invalidate the argument, it means that you need to rethink your position or reword your argument so that it falls in line with what you actually think. Its not my fault you wrote something that falls down in the face of scruitiny. Also, concerning relative scale, I'm guessing its okay for you to disregard that with your reference to the Salem witch trials, but not for me. Nice double standard.
Yes, most of us are in agreement about the current rules not requiring self called fouls. The discussion at hand was whether or not to include a rule requiring it.
My position was that players should abide by certain ethical standards regardless of the rules and that rules of that nature would only serve to be taken advantage of. Players not abiding by those ethical standards should be labelled as such.
You claimed that we are wrong in passing judgement on them because morals are subjective.
Well, if morals are truely subjective and not able to be subjected to judgement, you are just as wrong for passing judgement on me passing judgement on them and so on.
How would that approach be any different than requiring self called fouls? It would just make it easier for those that would be dishonest to take advantage of the rule by calling foul when no foul occurred. You also mentioned that it is how the current rules operate, but that is far from the case. In the current rules, the non-shooter can ask if a foul occurred or claim that a foul occurred, but ultimately, if the shooter does not agree with the claim, no foul will be called. Therefore the non-shooter does not actually have the right to call a foul.
Considering that was not my stance in the first place, it would be quite odd that I woudl do so. My stance was that the rules in place are good enough for various reasons and that players lacking morals should be socially ousted rather than punished in game.
I do, actally, I don't see why you would post on a discussion board if you didn't.
I'm not fishing for anything, I just don't see why I should let you have the last word while you criticize me for having the last word.
Normally I would, but your posts directly addressing me have kept me busy.
Your position posits that there is no right or wrong when playing by the rules. I think my posts have already demonstrated that not to be the case, but in case you missed it, if a murderer is acquitted of a crime, it doesn't mean that he didn't do it, it just means that there was not enough evidence to convict him. Wrong was still done either way.
By the rules posted already, if a shot is not called it is ASSUMED not to have occurred. That is a big difference from it actually not occurring.
Why should we not subject them to morals? Rules are in place to protect those morals. If everybody was completely moral, there would be no need for rules on who calls fouls in the first place.
In game, yes. In the greater pool culture, no. As I have said before, it is wrong to punish dishonest people in game if they are not breaking rules. It is not wrong, however to expose them and warn others of their behavior.
Nobody is debating the application of the current rules. It is pretty clear as daylight that the current rules don't require self calling fouls. The debate was on a change of the rules to require self-calling. My argument was that self-calling should not be required, but players, especially pros, should hold themselves to a higher moral standard regardless of the rules.
Last edited:
Hi Joey,
You will always have my respect, and nothing will ever change that.
You make some strong points in your reasoning.
I will say that I agree with part of your proposition: that the rules should specify exactly who is responsible for calling a foul. However, the rules can only assign the ultimate responsibility for calling a foul to one player or the other. If they are both assigned such a responsibility, the rule would still be open to interpretation. Perhaps more so.
If the rules were changed so that the shooter were responsible for calling his/her own fouls (instead of the opponent), how successful would such rules be, in ensuring that the shooter does in fact call their own fouls?
If the question were truly as simple as the thread title ("Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?"), then my answer would be a solid YES. I believe that all players should call their own fouls on themselves, pro or not.
Personally, I always do so, unless I truly didn't realize that I had committed a foul. If my shot was a close call, I always ask my opponent for their opinion. I might say something like, "I believe that was a clean hit. What do you think?" I will respect their answer, although I may ask for clarification.
On the other hand, I honestly believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce ethical behavior by adding a new line or two to the official rules.
After a foul shot, the shooter could simply claim that he/she did not realize it was a foul, or they could insist that it wasn't a foul.
What would be the penalty for breaking such a self-call rule? How would it be enforced? Many modern rules have been put in place simply to remove the possibility of detail-oriented disagreement (such as the frozen-ball strike-through rule discussed in the recent US Open 1P SVB/JJ thread).
As I understand the current rules, the responsibility for calling fouls currently falls on the "opponent" (non-shooting player). If this is not explicitly stated in the rules, then I agree that it should be.
The reason I like the rules as they are is that the responsibility to call a foul also gives the opponent the right to approach the table before a potential foul-shot occurs, and even provides the right to verbally request a pause, during which the opponent may either move into position to observe the shot, or call for a referee/third party.
In my own experience, I have often played opponents whose foul-calling abilities I did not trust, and in such cases, I have paused and requested a referee (or neutral third party) to observe my own shot.
Please know that I meant no offense in my post. I was just attempting to propose a line of devil's advocate questioning, as well as introduce a touch of light humor.
I have truly enjoyed this thread, because your original question approaches the intersection of ethics and rules. Honestly, I don't know whether or not an amendment to the rules would have any effect on our desired outcome.
I would be very interested to discover the true pro players' opinions as well.
Sincerely,
-Blake
OK cutting to the chase... Call the foul on yourself of you are a POS... Even if most of the guys watching you would have not called it either you are still a POS for not calling it because some of the guys think you should have or imagine they would have.......
Well actually if ALL the guys watching were POSes and/or on your team and you CALL the foul... well now you are a POS but since it is a POS who calls you a POS you have the old double negative so you are not a POS after all....
Now I said all GUYS so lets add the women to the equation... They are after all the fairer sex.. (did I spell that right?) and there are always some of em in the crowd....
If the women called you a POS would that be fair? Being they are the fairest I would think so...
So without more women in this discussion I think you have reached an em-pass.(did I spell THAT right?).. You realize neither the virtuous nor the POS non-foul callers can advance from here...
I'd toss my ex-wife in to try and help you guys but one way or the other someone is going to get screwed and I am pretty sure she was dead set against that happening to anyone... or maybe it was just me....
Chris
Well actually if ALL the guys watching were POSes and/or on your team and you CALL the foul... well now you are a POS but since it is a POS who calls you a POS you have the old double negative so you are not a POS after all....
Now I said all GUYS so lets add the women to the equation... They are after all the fairer sex.. (did I spell that right?) and there are always some of em in the crowd....
If the women called you a POS would that be fair? Being they are the fairest I would think so...
So without more women in this discussion I think you have reached an em-pass.(did I spell THAT right?).. You realize neither the virtuous nor the POS non-foul callers can advance from here...
I'd toss my ex-wife in to try and help you guys but one way or the other someone is going to get screwed and I am pretty sure she was dead set against that happening to anyone... or maybe it was just me....
Chris
Well........I already gave you MINE :wink:!!!
Edit: Sorry, I thought the quote said "poor players".
Maniac
Last edited:
Mayoshi stated:
"Why should we not subject them to morals? Rules are in place to protect those morals. If everybody was completely moral, there would be no need for rules on who calls fouls in the first place. "
To protect what morals? Whos morals? It would seem that my morals are different than yours.....which one of us gets the protection?
Your statement would only apply if there was some univesal moral code that established that all shooting playes must call fouls on themselves. In this way we could apply this moral perspective to the event since it is universally interpreted as being amoral. I'm uaware of any such universal moral edict.
Since morals are subjective and applied independently to every situation, they cannot be the foundation for the establisment of rules.
The rules actually set the standard for the removal of moral interpretation.
In this way if something occurs that an individual believes is contrary to their moral code...the rules define how that situation will be interpreted and they take president over any moral interpretation.
As I see this debate....infusing moral judgements into the rules at any level whether self calling fouls or any other morally contrived event, creates absolutely no impact on the outcome of the event. The rules always prevail.
If individual morals were of any value in applying the rules then we would have multiple outcomes for the application of many rules based on the morality of the players involved. If morals applied, then if a player disagreed with a rule on a moral basis, he could claim that some rules do not apply to him. This would be contrary to the reason we have rules and establish universal standards.
I see that you decided not to pick up the gauntlet and continue the debate on the essecence of the language within the rules; however this one response fit the spirit of that topic so I decided to address it.
I wonder if applying a moral code upon an opponent would be considered a from of sharking? Is sharking against the rules?
"Why should we not subject them to morals? Rules are in place to protect those morals. If everybody was completely moral, there would be no need for rules on who calls fouls in the first place. "
To protect what morals? Whos morals? It would seem that my morals are different than yours.....which one of us gets the protection?
Your statement would only apply if there was some univesal moral code that established that all shooting playes must call fouls on themselves. In this way we could apply this moral perspective to the event since it is universally interpreted as being amoral. I'm uaware of any such universal moral edict.
Since morals are subjective and applied independently to every situation, they cannot be the foundation for the establisment of rules.
The rules actually set the standard for the removal of moral interpretation.
In this way if something occurs that an individual believes is contrary to their moral code...the rules define how that situation will be interpreted and they take president over any moral interpretation.
As I see this debate....infusing moral judgements into the rules at any level whether self calling fouls or any other morally contrived event, creates absolutely no impact on the outcome of the event. The rules always prevail.
If individual morals were of any value in applying the rules then we would have multiple outcomes for the application of many rules based on the morality of the players involved. If morals applied, then if a player disagreed with a rule on a moral basis, he could claim that some rules do not apply to him. This would be contrary to the reason we have rules and establish universal standards.
I see that you decided not to pick up the gauntlet and continue the debate on the essecence of the language within the rules; however this one response fit the spirit of that topic so I decided to address it.
I wonder if applying a moral code upon an opponent would be considered a from of sharking? Is sharking against the rules?
Last edited:
First of all,I've never made love...well I have been
mad during the moment but definitely not passionate:wink:Seriously though,I
still can't compare your scenario.
Its a slippery slope with sex.Sex can be consentual and rape, not at the same time
but in the same incident.There's been umpteen cases based on the testimony
of the women,that she consented but during the act changed her mind
and wanted to stop.
Well,the guy doesn't want to stop and keeps going.Now,it becomes rape or assault.
Many people turn themselves in,due to guilt and knowing the act they committed
earlier on was wrong and should pay the price.
I think it just comes down to the ethics of the individual.In pool,we should try
to preserve the little we have left.
Its just really hard to compare your scenarios.A foul in pool is an accident,
a rape is not.
Not who's morals, but what morals. Those morals would be the morals backed by society. Especially the ones that are pretty much set in stone like honesty is more ethical than dishonesty.
Dishonesty in terms of most sporting events (save those for which dishonesty is the point of the game) is considered by pretty much every human culture in existence to be unethical. Not calling your own fouls is dishonesty plain and simple.
All morals are not subjective. If they were, the terms moral and immoral would have bit practical meaning whatsoever.
No, the rules are there so that people play fair, fairness being a moral value.
Of course the rules will prevail in the game, but sacrificing your integrity to win one game will have far longer lasting effects in your pool playing career.
Nobody is suggesting that a person's moral beliefs override the rules, some are suggesting a change in rules to fit their support of honesty. I, however, would perscribe other methods of dealing with those that are not playing with a certain standard of ethics.
That was never my argument to begin with. I don't see the point of you bringing it up with me, bring it up against the people who were addressing that point.
Considering nobody ever suggested that you should bring your morals up in game, I don't see how it could be considered sharking.
In the simplest of terms the question is if you are a cheater or not? The rule book does not say that a foul is only a foul if your opponent sees it, calls you on it etc.
If you know you fouled and decide not to call it, you are a cheater.
If you decide to pull a deliberate move to Shark your opponent, you are a cheater.
This boils down to whether or not someone is dishonest and cheats to try to gain an advantage.
If you know you fouled and decide not to call it, you are a cheater.
If you decide to pull a deliberate move to Shark your opponent, you are a cheater.
This boils down to whether or not someone is dishonest and cheats to try to gain an advantage.
Mayoshi stated "All morals are not subjective. If they were, the terms moral and immoral would have bit practical meaning whatsoever."
The truth is that all morals are subjective and only exist relative to their context. That's why there are always two sides to the coin...moral or immoral and a thousand degrees in between. Otherwise they would be more in nline with facts or laws of nature and would not be subject to individual modification.
Hot is relative only to our perception of cold.
Black relative to the shade of white.
Good relative to Evil.
These exemplify the essence of subjectivity.
Not to go into puns again but there are far too many shades of grey for any level of objectivity to exist within moral interpretations.
The basis of your argument is that failure to self call a foul is morally dishonest.
You claim that your position is well supported because society hates dishonesty.
Therefore ...failing to self call a foul is dishonest and society backs you up.
If even one of the first two premisses is untrue...the entire statement is untrue.
Using your logic:
It's like saying all pineapples are yellow.
Society likes the color yellow
Therefore all society likes pineapples
It doesn't pass the test of logic. We know that not everyone likes pineapples.
I hate dishonesty as well but I don't believe that failure to self call a foul is dishonest.
For you to prove your point ,you would have to prove that failure to self call a foul is dishonest.
I can see why you are so dilligent in trying to make morallity an objective concept.
Since honesty, in this case , is a moral or value judgement...the only way you can prove your point is to prove that morallity is objective.
If you can prove that morallity is objective... you can then apply it universally to all people and then qualify this event as dishonest.
here's the definition of "Objective Morallity"
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God; no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.
All I can say is....good luck in your quest. You would have to redefine the world as we know it by proving this theory in order to support your case.
The truth is that all morals are subjective and only exist relative to their context. That's why there are always two sides to the coin...moral or immoral and a thousand degrees in between. Otherwise they would be more in nline with facts or laws of nature and would not be subject to individual modification.
Hot is relative only to our perception of cold.
Black relative to the shade of white.
Good relative to Evil.
These exemplify the essence of subjectivity.
Not to go into puns again but there are far too many shades of grey for any level of objectivity to exist within moral interpretations.
The basis of your argument is that failure to self call a foul is morally dishonest.
You claim that your position is well supported because society hates dishonesty.
Therefore ...failing to self call a foul is dishonest and society backs you up.
If even one of the first two premisses is untrue...the entire statement is untrue.
Using your logic:
It's like saying all pineapples are yellow.
Society likes the color yellow
Therefore all society likes pineapples
It doesn't pass the test of logic. We know that not everyone likes pineapples.
I hate dishonesty as well but I don't believe that failure to self call a foul is dishonest.
For you to prove your point ,you would have to prove that failure to self call a foul is dishonest.
I can see why you are so dilligent in trying to make morallity an objective concept.
Since honesty, in this case , is a moral or value judgement...the only way you can prove your point is to prove that morallity is objective.
If you can prove that morallity is objective... you can then apply it universally to all people and then qualify this event as dishonest.
here's the definition of "Objective Morallity"
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God; no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.
All I can say is....good luck in your quest. You would have to redefine the world as we know it by proving this theory in order to support your case.
Last edited:
If you break the law but don't get caught...are you a criminal? Are you dishonest?
When is the last time you drove over the speed limit but didn't get caught?......You just cheated the law....are you a cheater? Are you dishonest?
If you answered yes to these statements then.....you're a dishonest cheater.....congradulations. Apparently there are quite a few of us in this boat.
If you answered no, then it's possible that you are applying your own personal code of ethics to your own benefit and you may wish to rethink the premis of your argument.
Last edited: