If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?

[justadub]

I guess being honest is very complexed.I thought the truth shall
set you free?I guess it might but not in the poolroom.

This is hilarious....though sad, cuz its true.

Nicely done.

 

[ENGLISH!]

BOY! Am I glad I went out & actually played pool instead of getting stuck in this thread today.

Who are you Chris Banks?

 

[zeeder]

If it's not unethical, why do you call them?

pj
chgo

Because I most always play for fun and under circumstances where it's not expected that the opponent be watching every single shot.

 

[JB Cases]

Because it illustrates the point that the moral in question is fundamental and universal, John, just as you interpreted it.

pj
chgo

But having or not having parents shouldn't be part of the discussion. I always hear people say that their mother taught them "right" or their daddy said to do it this way. But how do you explain people who didn't grow up with parents or some other figure teaching them right from wrong?

Or how do you explain people who grew up with parents who very strictly taught right from wrong and despite that turn out to be people who act unethically?

My point is that while I agree that people do learn from adults growing up when those people themselves become adults and they are of average intelligence they know full well what the rules are and make their own choices as to how much they are going to conform to the rules.

 

[ChrisBanks]

BOY! Am I glad I went out & actually played pool instead of getting stuck in this thread today.

Who are you Chris Banks?

This thread is helping many people to understand some important concepts that come up during a game. Do you wish not to be a part of it all?

 

[EagleMan]

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm in no danger of being convinced I should stop calling fouls on myself. Probably nobody in this thread is about to do a 180.

The key point dividing parties seems to be who is responsible for foul enforcement.
To some people, it's apparently 100% someone else's job and 0% the shooter's job.
I feel it's the shooter's job. Others might help me with that job, but ultimately it's up to me.

--

When I play with someone, there's an unspoken contract that both players will be honest with each other. Not calling a foul on yourself is dishonest... a lie of omission is still a lie.
I don't need an explicit written instruction to not lie, it's a given.
You can point to other facets of life where I tell 'little white lies', and maybe I could improve in those parts of my life (such as driving). But all the proves is, nobody's perfect and most of us only follow the rules when it's convenient. Well, there's nothing especially inconvenient about calling my foul in pool. 99% of them will get called anyway, because the opponent will see it. Why should I handle the other 1% differently? It's no skin off my back. And I won't feel right if I won by cheating anyway.

I honestly don't mind doing it because I consider it a screwup, the same as if I hit the cueball poorly and missed the shot, or played lousy position and hooked myself. If I screw up, I deserve to lose, I don't like the idea of ducking the penalty... that just encourages future screwups and sloppy play.

---

I guess one of the other major points of contention is the use of the word "cheater". I recently got offended when someone labelled me a cheater for disagreeing with how you'd mark a safe in the APA. So I can empathize with people who feel 'cheater' is too strong a word to use in this situation.

Nonetheless, I think it's a fair term to use here. Someone broke the rules and found a way to turn it to their advantage (by not subjecting themselves to the written penalty for their foul). They may not have broken the rules intentionally, but it's certainly no accident when they see it and don't tell me. Deceiving someone intentionally is pretty much the textbook definition of cheating.

Creedo....will you PLEASE play a GAME of Liar's Poker with me....thousand dollar bills....10 ahead? I'll travel anywhere in the U.S. to match up with ya!

But you HAVE to play with the same set of ethics as you impose on the game of pool. You lie...you lose.

BET?

I know...I know...your reply is that in Liar's poker, you are SUPPOSED to lie. But if that is correct, it is only because that is a RULE.

Then you will say that in pool, you are not SUPPOSED to lie...which you equate with not calling a foul.

But show me the RULE that EXPLICITLY imposes the obligation of self-calling a foul. No one has been able to do so. Can you? All anyone else has suggested is that not self-calling is CHEATING and that it is self-evident that people shouldn't cheat.

But in a GAME...there is NO SUCH THING as "cheating" if NO RULE IS BROKEN. Show me the RULE that EXPLICITYLY imposes a NECESSARY AND REQUIRED PENALTY on someone who doesn't self-call a foul.

SIMPLE request.

(-:

EagleMan

 

[EagleMan]

None of these prohibit a player from calling a foul on himself - they just say the ref can overrule it if he disagrees.

I don't recall stating that there was a rule that PROHIBITS a player from admitting to a foul. If I did, I was in error. Please point out where I made such a remark. What I've been saying is that there is no rule REQUIRING self-called fouls...not one that PROHIBITS them.

And yes...I agree with you that the ref (or area ref...or TD) can not "overrule" because that implies "authority" on the part of the self-calling player which is clearly non-existant....but rather can elect to AGREE that there was a foul...or...with respect to unsportsmanlike conduct...agree that there WAS a foul but decide NOT to impose any penalty.

I doubt that this would be applied to a player calling a foul on himself - unless it somehow benefitted him (I can't imagine how it could).

Shooter is on the 6 ball. The 7 and 8 are frozen to each other an the 7 to the rail leaving a VERY small portion of the 7 to make good contact on.

The balls are situated such that any legal shot would be UNLIKELY to result in either potting one of the balls or ending up safe. Shooter would like to DUCK the issue of having to contact the 7...breaking it away from the 8 and leaving the opponent an easy run out.

So, he declares a foul on himself (he could just as easily foul intentionally and obviously) thinking that such an unusual action might "psych" the opponent into taking BIH and proceed with his inning....instead of fouling back which eventually...due to the 3 foul rule...forces the original shooter to break up the 7/8. He takes the self-called foul route to DISGUISE that he really wants no part of the 7/8 whereas an intentional/obvious foul would reveal EXACTLY why the shooter fouled.

Who knows how smart the opponent is. At least, in the above scenario, the shooter has a CHANCE of disguising his intentions vs. making them OBVIOUS by tapping the CB.

We're talking about fouls, which are broken rules by definition.

Sorry, but that is not entirely correct. If an ACT isn't CALLED as a foul prior to the next shot the ACT which might otherwise be considered a FOUL.... "IS PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE HAPPENED." In that case...there was a FOUL by your definition but which can BY RULE be deemed NOT have have even taken place!

But the ISSUE is not whether a foul was or wasn't committed. The ISSUE is whether there is any RULE requiring self-calling of fouls...as opposed to a rule stating that...if the opponent thinks there was a foul HE must call it.
OR...if a player THINKS he committed a foul (just because he THINKS he did does NOT mean that he DID!!!) he MUST call it on himself.

I think I have shown quite conclusively that there IS NO self-called foul RULE...WHICH NECESSARILY REQUIRES THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY OF ANY KIND...anywhere in the WPA rule set.

The rule against the foul itself is enough for me. Where's the rule that explicitly says it's OK to foul if you can get away with it?

I've already posted the REGULATIONS for ref'd events wherein you have already been shown what you asked to be shown.

And I've already posted the RULE which states that if the next shot is played before a PURPORTED FOUL is called then YOU GET AWAY WITH IT...PERIOD.

Next question! (-:

But of course, you can, will and SHOULD behave in any way you see fit...and if you FEEL that there is a RULE then you will proceed accordingly.

But tell ya what. In a MONEY GAME...barring the settlement of disputes with violence...if a player doesn't self-call a foul...the opponent doesn't see a foul...but a bystander announces that there WAS a foul that a player didn't call...I don't think that money would change hands in any pool hall on the planet and the non-calling player EVEN IF HE REALIZED THAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A FOUL.

First...because any subsequent shot EXTINGUISHED the foul BY RULE and second because as this thread proves beyond reasonable doubt there is widespread and genuinely held opinions that there is no RULE requiring self-calling.

In a TOURNAMENT....I assume we agree that the REF...or other on-site authority has the FINAL judgement as to whether a foul was committed...not either of the players.

In either scenario, those who feel that self-called fouls are REQUIRED BY RULE and that therefore, not self-calling is cheating simply haven't cited any EVIDENCE and only rely on their own personal sensibilites while WITHOUT DOUBT holding the GAME of pool to a VASTLY higher standard than any other game with the POSSIBLE exception of Golf.

IMHO, the above is an exceptionally weak platform upon which to base an argument.

And for the UMPTEENTH time +1...I personally would self call a foul under any realistic scenario.

BUT I WOULD DO SO FOR THE ONE AND ONLY REASON THAT I FELT LIKE IT...NOT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS ANY RULE REQUIRING IT AND WOULD NEVER IMPOSE MY SENSIBILITIES ON ANYONE ELSE WHICH IS A WRONGHEADED ATTITUDE IN MY PERSONAL OPINION.

(-:

EagleMan

 

[Noodle]

I stopped reading after the first three pages so sorry if I missed something similar to what I'm about to say.

There have been many times playing league where you have an opponent not paying attention. Messing with the jukebox, chatting with friends, etc. Now if I foul and this is going on two things will happen.

1. they will not be paying attention enough to notice and I won't say a word.

2. they will still not notice or maybe catch a brief moment of the shot where they then ask "was that a foul" I will then be honest and say yes or no depending.

Either way it is the obligation of the opponent to be paying attention at the time of the shot. Sure if I'm playing someone who doesn't really know league rules and they are watching and ask if it was a foul I will then refer to situation 2 and tell them.

I will also take the foul (if it is in my favor) and proceed to explain to the person who does not know the rules why that was a foul as a learning experience.

Ultimately it depends on the situation. It should never be a blanket policy of always tell the person, especially if they know the rules and the game and are to busy doing other things.

People mention integrity and respect but if someone is not paying attention and screwing around during your match that is disrespectful as well.

Just my $0.02

 

[EagleMan]

PAGING BOB JEWETT!!!

For some reason, I seem to recall that Mr. Jewett has an intimate familiarity with the WPA/BCA rule set and have a vague recollection that he might have even served on the "panel" which considers rules and changes to rules at some point in the past.

In any event...my sense is that Mr. Jewett has an exceptionally thoroughgoing knowledge of the rules...and would forthrightly state them...letting the chips fall where they may.

So, I would VERY respectfully ask Mr Jewett to render his personal opinion on the following question.

Is there any EXPLICIT RULE or any rule that OUGHT to be construed by a reasonable person seeking guidance from the RULES (as opposed to personal moral/ethical preferences) obligating a player to self-call a foul...

A. In a refereed match

B. In a non-refereed match.

THANKS!

And in spite of the quite lengthy analyses I've presented, I will CONCLUDE that the RULES say what Mr. Jewett says they say!

(-:

EagleMan

 

[rrick33]

Let me pose a question....

The rules state that if you miss a shot, your inning is over.

In the same arguable tone, if you commit a foul, your inning is over.

When you miss a shot and your inning is over....do you regularly inform your opponent as to the status of the game? I don't know of any players that do. If they did so after every miss it would become quite annoying IMHO.

So, If you foul and your inning is over, do you now inform your opponent as to the status of the game? If I don't self call a miss ...why should I self call a foul?

If I miss but keep on shooting it is essentially the same thing as if I foul and keep on shooting so if I'm held to some mysterious standard to call a foul on myself, why not call all misses on myself.

Am I now labeled a cheater if I don't inform my opponent that I just missed the shot?

What's the difference?

Why should I coach my opponent when my inning is over by advising him on the status of the game? Are we to assume that all opponents are blind vegitables and unaware of intelligent observation?

In the first scenario when we miss, we hold our opponent accountable to be aware of the status of the game and yet suddenly in the second example, when we foul we assume he has been sleeping during our inning and impose some varying moral interpretation that mandates we coach our opponent on the status of the game.

Very odd.....

 

[JB Cases]

I don't know why paying attention is the criteria for calling a foul on yourself. I have played with people who were intently paying attention and still not seen the foul. When I gave them ball in hand they looked surprised and asked me why.

The point here is I know what I am doing. I do not want to win because I fouled and my opponent did not get the benefit of that. It doesn't matter if I am playing for $1000 it's the same thing.

If my opponent is dinking around doing other things then I feel I have an advantage already. I don't need to take fouls on top of it.

As to the idea that there should be a rule where you have to call fouls on yourself that is just silly. Because the whole conversation is about fouls that no one but you sees. With or without an actual rule the choice to call a foul on yourself remains the exact same.

The rules state what the fouls are and what the penalties are. If you commit a foul then by NOT calling it you are breaking the rules. There is no grey state of being here. The incoming player should get ball in hand if that's the rule and you should give it to him.

But more importantly it preserves the peace if you call fouls on yourself. Imagine that you don't and you feel twinges of guilt over it? That messes with your head. Now imagine that someone else saw it and you don't know that they did and they don't say anything to you but tell everyone else. Or imagine they tell your opponent and now you're in an argument?

All this is avoided by calling the foul and letting the game flow as it should. No arguments, no guilt, no tension....and best of all a great reputation for honesty.

 

[Noodle]

Why should I coach my opponent when my inning is over by advising him on the status of the game?

In the first scenario we hold our opponent accountable to be aware of the status of the game and yet suddenly in the second example we assume he has been sleeping during our inning.

Very odd.....

This is how I look at it. 95% of the time I don't inform my opponent of a foul is because they aren't paying attention to the game and aren't aware.

In our leagues there are no ref's and unless you have a first time player on your team no 3rd party is allowed to call a foul even if they see it. It's the responsibility of the player to pay attention to their game.

We do have a rule for the first time league players where they can designate a foul caller since they do not know the rules but in that situation their designated foul caller becomes them. Even the new player at that point can no longer call fouls for themselves only the designate.

 

[JB Cases]

Let me pose a question....

The rules state that if you miss a shot, your inning is over.

In the same arguable tone, if you commit a foul, your inning is over.

When you miss a shot and your inning is over....do you regularly inform your opponent so that he now knows the status of the game? I don't know of any players that do. If they did so after every miss it would become quite annoying IMHO.

So, If you foul and your inning is over, do you now inform your opponent as to the status of the game? If I don't self call a miss ...why should I self call a foul? My inning is over in either event and it is no longer my turn.

What's the difference.

Why should I coach my opponent when my inning is over by advising him on the status of the game?

In the first scenario when we miss, we hold our opponent accountable to be aware of the status of the game and yet suddenly in the second example, when we foul we assume he has been sleeping during our inning.

Very odd.....

I guess this is framed in the event that the opponent is not aware that it is his shot. So the question I have is when you miss and you know that the opponent is not aware of the miss do you keep shooting?

I have always played that when my turn is over, whether through a miss or a foul, I inform my opponent of anything that he might not be aware of.

 

[RG1]

You also have to remember that your opponent may have seen you foul but does not want to call you on it and wants to see if you call it on yourself. An experienced player can see a double hit coming or going. If you do not call it on yourself, you will leave an impression you are a cheat and not just a cheater at pool but a person that is willing to cheat at a game. People also like to talk about others bad habits, it make them feeeeel good

added: I have also noticed the lower level player will not call a foul on themselves, my experience.

 

[Noodle]

I guess this is framed in the event that the opponent is not aware that it is his shot. So the question I have is when you miss and you know that the opponent is not aware of the miss do you keep shooting?

I have always played that when my turn is over, whether through a miss or a foul, I inform my opponent of anything that he might not be aware of.

I'm glad I skipped over 20 pages of this thread. :smile:

I see where you and others are coming from but anyone who says they call 120% of their fouls on themselves I think is full of it.

I consider myself a fair player. However I will admit I won't call fouls on myself in certain situations. That's just it. It depends on the situation.

As you said before you can have someone paying attention to a shot and not see a foul. 99% of the time these are people who don't know the game very well. In this situation many people will give up the foul.

Then you have the people who are too drunk, not paying attention and will miss a foul. Nope I'm not going to offer up this information. Would I do this with just a missed shot and keep shooting... no because at that point I would expect an all out brawl to erupt from both teams for blatant cheating. Fouls are one thing if you aren't paying attention because if your own teammates see it but you are the only one who can call it then it is your fault and your fault alone.

Most of the time if I foul I will be so frustrated by the foul I grab the cue ball and just hand it over. If it's something where I think I may have hit his/her ball first but it may have been a close call with one of my object balls then I'm not just going to give up the foul just because I think I might have, especially if my opponent wasn't paying attention.

Ultimately I don't think there is ever a correct answer for this and plenty of times where you may think you might have fouled but aren't 100% sure yourself so why should you call yourself. Especially if there is no rule stating you have to.

Either way there are obviously many arguments to be had and I'm ducking out of this one now It's a good debate though.

 

[EagleMan]

I stopped reading after the first three pages so sorry if I missed something similar to what I'm about to say.

There have been many times playing league where you have an opponent not paying attention. Messing with the jukebox, chatting with friends, etc. Now if I foul and this is going on two things will happen.

1. they will not be paying attention enough to notice and I won't say a word.

2. they will still not notice or maybe catch a brief moment of the shot where they then ask "was that a foul" I will then be honest and say yes or no depending.

Either way it is the obligation of the opponent to be paying attention at the time of the shot. Sure if I'm playing someone who doesn't really know league rules and they are watching and ask if it was a foul I will then refer to situation 2 and tell them.

I will also take the foul (if it is in my favor) and proceed to explain to the person who does not know the rules why that was a foul as a learning experience.

Ultimately it depends on the situation. It should never be a blanket policy of always tell the person, especially if they know the rules and the game and are to busy doing other things.

People mention integrity and respect but if someone is not paying attention and screwing around during your match that is disrespectful as well.

Just my $0.02

Interesting perspective...and my GUESS is that quite a few players...if not a large majority would behave exactly as you have stated you would.

You raise another INTERESTING "ethics" question. Should we deal with people they way they DESERVE to be dealt with...or should we always be Boy Scouts...even when interacting with complete jerks...or if not jerks, those who obviously don't care much about the game of pool or the match they are playing.

There are LOTS of "pool players" who use the game as an excuse to get out of the house and toss back some brewskis...which is WHY you can go to a HUGE amateur tournament in Vegas with THOUSANDS of players who are within 200 feet of a match between Reyes and Django with an audience of 20 PEOPLE! I know...I was one of the 20!!!

(-:

EagleMan

 

[rrick33]

JB Cases stated: "The rules state what the fouls are and what the penalties are. If you commit a foul then by NOT calling it you are breaking the rules. There is no grey state of being here. The incoming player should get ball in hand if that's the rule and you should give it to him."




This is not true.

The rules identify what is a foul.

There is no rule that states you are obligated to self call a foul.

This has "grey" area written all over it.

 

[OPQ]

Justadub stated: "Contrast that with folks like you who want to say that if their opponent doesnt see it, its ok to let it go. I believe there is nothing about it that isn't easy to understand.

You either feel its ok to cheat, or you don't. And when the time comes to uphold that, there will likely be those who choose not to uphold their moral stance. But that doesn't take away from those of us who actively try to make things better by doing the right thing. And it doesn't justify those who mock that stance. "




I think you have made the classic mistake that so many others have when accusing their opponent of "cheating" should they fail to call a foul on themselves.

You assume that if I fail to call a foul on myself that I just continue to keep shooting. This is not the case.

These are two separate events.

The fact that I will not call a foul on myself doesn't mean I will stay at the table. As cited in a previous post....when I foul I simply sit down and allow my opponent to take his inning.

If he's not paying attention and fails to realize that he has BIH, that's on him. It's not my responsibility or even my place to tell him how to play his inning. Once a foul occurs, my inning is over.

I'm not in the habbit of coaching my opponent by giving him critical info once my inning is done.....Are you?

Apparently there are many here who seem content to do just that though I suspect they are unaware their turn was over so they let some mysterious sense of honor guide their misdirected decision.

Let's suppose your opponent is about to shoot the wrong ball and a foul will insue. The competetion is steep but you can see that your opponent is about to make a huge mistake.

Do you step in and advise him? Do you coach him on the error of his ways?

Based on the logic of several posters to this thread, failure to inform him would be a "dishonorable" act. As for me....I stand by the simple premise. When I commit a foul, my turn is over. When my turn is over, it's his turn....I'm not his coach! There's no reason I should call a foul on myself.

I suppose now there will be those who wish to debate when the inning is actually over......

I think you're seeing this the wrong way.

What if you just slightly touch an object ball in a way your opponent couldn't notice it? You still will not call a foul but just sit down? And sometimes do you even sit down when you made a legal shot, wait for your opponent to take bih and then call a foul on them?

It's just better for everyone to somehow show a foul has been committed. For example I tend to always move the cueball slightly after I make a foul by tapping it with my cue to make it clear I thought it was a foul also. This is most relevant in shots where I just barely fail to hit the object ball and want to clarify I don't think it was a good hit.

 

[EagleMan]

I don't know why paying attention is the criteria for calling a foul on yourself. I have played with people who were intently paying attention and still not seen the foul. When I gave them ball in hand they looked surprised and asked me why.

The point here is I know what I am doing. I do not want to win because I fouled and my opponent did not get the benefit of that. It doesn't matter if I am playing for $1000 it's the same thing.

If my opponent is dinking around doing other things then I feel I have an advantage already. I don't need to take fouls on top of it.

As to the idea that there should be a rule where you have to call fouls on yourself that is just silly. Because the whole conversation is about fouls that no one but you sees. With or without an actual rule the choice to call a foul on yourself remains the exact same.

The rules state what the fouls are and what the penalties are.

With respect....you and others keep repeating that statement but it is just FLAT not correct in every instances. Read the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule which I and others have posted here.

If you commit a foul then by NOT calling it you are breaking the rules.

WHICH RULE????? That is what I've been begging for!! Quote which one...exactly. By not calling you may well be violating YOUR OWN attitudes about what is ethical or moral...but those are YOU OWN.

If the player is obligated to call his own fouls...isn't the opponent equally required to do...under the theory that "God helps those who help themselves?"

What if the opponent doesn't KNOW a foul was committed? Well...WAS HE PAYING ATTENTION? If not...wouldn't that be "unsportsmanlike conduct" in the sense that 6.16 (g) EXPLICITLY states that delaying the game is unsportsmanlike? If the guy isn't paying attention...and you have to EXPLAIN why it's his inning, that delays the game.

The same rule bars any "disruption" of the game....DITTO the above.

The same rules bars behavior that "brings disrepute TO THE GAME BEING PLAYED (empnasis added) NOT the game of pool...but the GAME BEING PLAYED. So, isn't NOT PAYING ATTENTION VERY DISRESPECTFUL of the game being played? If so...then there are offsetting fouls and the REF decides which one to penalize!

There is no grey state of being here. The incoming player should get ball in hand if that's the rule and you should give it to him.

But more importantly it preserves the peace if you call fouls on yourself. Imagine that you don't and you feel twinges of guilt over it? That messes with your head. Now imagine that someone else saw it and you don't know that they did and they don't say anything to you but tell everyone else. Or imagine they tell your opponent and now you're in an argument?

How does the shooter always KNOW FOR A FACT...that he committed a foul. As anyone who has ever been trained as a ref knows...it is often VERY difficult to determine whather a push shot or double tap has taken place and there have been debates as endless as this one on those very subjects.

So, it just isn't so that there is no "grey state of being here." In fact, this thread is living proof that there IS.

All this is avoided by calling the foul and letting the game flow as it should. No arguments, no guilt, no tension....and best of all a great reputation for honesty.

Bottom line...as those fans of Padraig Harrington believe...he didn't KNOW he had improperly replaced his ball on the putting green. But to ME, it was blatantly obvious and I will go to my grave believing that he figured that if the Marshall wanted to call a foul he would...and if not GREAT!

But I don't KNOW what he thought and neither does anyone else on planet Earth except Harrington. So all this stuff about people's reputation for honesty being tarnished is just bogus...because if the foul wasn't obvious to the opponent or any bystander...how do you KNOW it was obvious to the shooter??

In fact, you DON'T and all the debate to the contrary is nonsense.

Play games by the RULES. If the rules are AMBIGUOUS which is absolutely the case here...then the fault lies with the rulemakers and the PLAYERS are left to interpret the rules in any reasonable fashion and not be called "cheaters" by people who cannot post ANY RULE which EXPLICITLY requires the self-calling of fouls AND that a penalty MUST be imposed....PERIOD.

Am I wrong???? POST THE RULE!


No one has in 23 or however many pages this thread has gone. All we've read are people saying what THEY feel obligated to do...or suggesting that not self-calling is just fundamentally WRONG....when THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that in GAMES...the only things that can POSSIBLY be wrong are actions/inactions WHICH VIOLATE A REASONABLY DISCERNABLE RULE!!!

Even in civil and criminal cases....AMBIGUOUS RULES ARE UNENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW!!!!

Anyone who won't at least admit that the RULE (if any) requiring self-calling of fouls is ambiguous is just hopelessly biased.

(-:

EagleMan

 

[JB Cases]

Bottom line...as those fans of Padraig Harrington believe...he didn't KNOW he had improperly replaced his ball on the putting green. But to ME, it was blatantly obvious and I will go to my grave believing that he figured that if the Marshall wanted to call a foul he would...and if not GREAT!

But I don't KNOW what he thought and neither does anyone else on planet Earth except Harrington. So all this stuff about people's reputation for honesty being tarnished is just bogus...because if the foul wasn't obvious to the opponent or any bystander...how do you KNOW it was obvious to the shooter??

In fact, you DON'T and all the debate to the contrary is nonsense.

Play games by the RULES. If the rules are AMBIGUOUS which is absolutely the case here...then the fault lies with the rulemakers and the PLAYERS are left to interpret the rules in any reasonable fashion and not be called "cheaters" by people who cannot post ANY RULE which EXPLICITLY requires the self-calling of fouls AND that a penalty MUST be imposed....PERIOD.

Am I wrong???? POST THE RULE!


No one has in 23 or however many pages this thread has gone. All we've read are people saying what THEY feel obligated to do...or suggesting that not self-calling is just fundamentally WRONG....when THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that in GAMES...the only things that can POSSIBLY be wrong are actions/inactions WHICH VIOLATE A REASONABLY DISCERNABLE RULE!!!

Even in civil and criminal cases....AMBIGUOUS RULES ARE UNENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW!!!!

Anyone who won't at least admit that the RULE (if any) requiring self-calling of fouls is ambiguous is just hopelessly biased.

(-:

EagleMan

The penalty for a foul is loss of turn and ball in hand for your opponent. If you fail to award that penalty to your opponent when you know you have fouled then my interpretation is that you have violated the rules.

A foul is clearly defined. If you, the shooter, fouls and you are sure you did then ethically you must pass your turn and award the incoming player with ball-in-hand. Not doing so is taking an unfair advantage. Has nothing whatsoever to do with any rules on unsportsmanlike conduct as far as I see it.

The same applies to missing and continuing to shoot, moving balls to your advantage, and any other sort of conduct that is against the rules.

As to the idea that perhaps the shooter does not know that they fouled this is covered as well by OFFERING it to the other player. As in I am not sure if I touched that ball, what do you think? Then the other player can decide to take it as a foul or to say that they are not sure or that they think it wasn't a foul. Ethically the shooter is covered both ways.

You don't need a rule to tell you you should report yourself when you foul and no one else sees it.

If there were such a rule would it matter? How would anyone but you know whether you adhered to it? This is why such a rule is silly to even have.

All this reminds me of the story in Winning One Pocket. As I remember it Jersey Red was playing someone one pocket and Red accidentally moved a ball and the other player insisted that this was a foul and that Red owed a ball for it. (in one hole this is not a foul, you just move the ball back in place) Red said it's not a foul but the other guy insisted until finally Red asked him if he really meant to say that moving a ball is a foul. The other guy said yes so Red took his cue and swept all the balls to his pocket and said, "I owe two".