Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?

[Shooter08]

Pro Calling Fouls

I believe that if you are playing a competition match the opponent is obligated to call fouls, if they do not have the time to pay attention to the game at hand it is their own fault. In practice I can see calling a foul on yourself as you are trying to improve.

 

[JoeyA]

It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

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.......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.

If you answered no, then you are clearly applying your own personal code of ethics and have undermined the premise of your argument.

We all apply our own personal code of ethics and it varies from one person to another.

Let he who has never cheated, cast the first condemnation.

You have explained many of the things I attempted to do.

Thanks for sharing your perspectives so succinctly.

JoeyA

 

[rrick33]

Joey A, from what I can tell, there are very few who are willing to chime in with comments that seem contrary to the prevailing moral perspective.

I give you credit and thank you for letting me know I'm not the only person who sees the world through a different lense.

Thanks.

 

[JoeyA]

Joey A, from what I can tell, there are very few who are willing to chime in with comments that seem contrary to the prevailing moral perspective.

I give you credit and thank you for letting me know I'm not the only person who sees the world through a different lense.

Thanks.

Rick,
There are times when some of us discuss different sides of the issue.

I don't have a problem with anyone saying that all pool players should call fouls on themselves.

My perspective is, until the rules communicate far more clearly about this rule, good and decent players as well as the not so nice players will read the rules and say that the rules don't require the shooter to call a foul on himself. The silence from all of the pro players is deafening but understandable and expected.

Most of us that read this forum don't play pool for a living. I try to imagine myself as a professional player, trying to make a living, trying to feed my family, pay my bills, trying to be honest and ethical in this sport and I feel like I can't fault the professional player for not calling a foul on themselves. I certainly can't call them scurrilous names or even call them dishonest as long as the rules (concerning calling a self-foul) are written the way they are.

JoeyA

 

[backplaying]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but what about if a players is on two fouls playing one pocket and the players tells him he's on two fouls when he make's the second one, but doesn't tell the player he's on two fouls before he shoots again? This came up with Corey and another player in tournament play. Is this a pos move since by the rules he has to let him know he's on 2 before he shoots the third shot?

 

[JoeyA]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but what about if a players is on two fouls playing one pocket and the players tells him he's on two fouls when he make's the second one, but doesn't tell the player he's on two fouls before he shoots again? This came up with Corey and another player in tournament play. Is this a pos move since by the rules he has to let him know he's on 2 before he shoots the third shot?

That question should be for another thread but here's what the one pocket rules state:
5-13 Three Successive Fouls - Penalty
You lose the game if you commit three successive fouls in one game.

I didn't find where the rules state that you must tell the player they are on "TWO". The point could have been covered in the Players Meeting.

Again, this rule could be beefed up by simply stating that, just before a player's inning begins (or when it happens), you must tell the player that he is on "TWO".

I think when a player is on "TWO", the opponent should tell them immediately when it happens and not just before the player on "TWO" begins his inning. It then becomes the responsibility of the player on "TWO" to make sure he doesn't foul again. I don't think you should have to hand-hold your opponent by constantly reminding him that he is on TWO" Once the player is on "TWO" and it is announced, there should be no more need to make any other announcements or to remind them just before they shoot in their next inning.

JoeyA

 

[hang-the-9]

That question should be for another thread but here's what the one pocket rules state:
5-13 Three Successive Fouls - Penalty
You lose the game if you commit three successive fouls in one game.

I didn't find where the rules state that you must tell the player they are on "TWO". The point could have been covered in the Players Meeting.

Again, this rule could be beefed up by simply stating that, just before a player's inning begins (or when it happens), you must tell the player that he is on "TWO".

I think when a player is on "TWO", the opponent should tell them immediately when it happens and not just before the player on "TWO" begins his inning. It then becomes the responsibility of the player on "TWO" to make sure he doesn't foul again. I don't think you should have to hand-hold your opponent by constantly reminding him that he is on TWO" Once the player is on "TWO" and it is announced, there should be no more need to make any other announcements or to remind them just before they shoot in their next inning.

JoeyA

I am pretty sure the rule is that you have to notify the player he is on two fouls when he starts his turn. Because of the simple fact that there could be several shots taken, a break taken, someone orders a drink, then you get to the table and you don't remember you are on two and take a silly hit. Many players like to say "you're on two" right after the foul, especially in 9 ball. The way I like to do it is to tell them they are on two when they make the second foul, that way we both know that it happened and there is no arguing when I say it later, then I warn them again when it's their turn.

 

[JoeyA]

I am pretty sure the rule is that you have to notify the player he is on two fouls when he starts his turn. Because of the simple fact that there could be several shots taken, a break taken, someone orders a drink, then you get to the table and you don't remember you are on two and take a silly hit. Many players like to say "you're on two" right after the foul, especially in 9 ball. The way I like to do it is to tell them they are on two when they make the second foul, that way we both know that it happened and there is no arguing when I say it later, then I warn them again when it's their turn.

That wording (however it is supposed to be handled) should be underneath the rule stated above imo.
JoeyA

 

[hang-the-9]

That wording (however it is supposed to be handled) should be underneath the rule stated above imo.
JoeyA

Yes it should be. I wonder if the rule for telling the opponent at the start of his first turn is a "standard" rule for fouls and could therefore be omitted from being written in every spot or maybe whoever wrote those rules just did not put it in through neglect.

 

[Masayoshi]

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.

Speculation. Again, if all morals were subjective, morality has no meaning whatsoever. Morals are only valid within the context of society, just like economic principles are only valid in the context of an economy. It doesn't mean that they are all subjective and based on the whims of the individual.

Hot is relative only to our perception of cold.
Black relative to the shade of white.
Good relative to Evil.

And yet, when there is both hot and cold, which is hot and which is cold is always clear and unquestionable. The same goes for black and white and good and evil. Although technically, black and white should be reversed.

These exemplify the essence of subjectivity.

No, temperature is certainly not subjective considering there is something called absolute zero (and absolute hot). Black and white also have their own definitions that are not subjective at all.

Good and evil are judged based on what morals we value in society. As long as society exists, morality will have its objective, unchangeable values and the ones that fluctuate. Although the ones that fluctuate are generally just extrapolations and implementations of those base moral principles.

Your example of abortion, for example, is not a debate on whether killing babies is wrong, everybody knows that killing babies is wrong. It is a debate on whether or not those fetuses in question are actually babies.

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.

Shades of grey do not make black and white meaningless.

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.

Luckily, they are both true, so I guess we are in agreement. Except, I would add "in the context of sportsmanship" somewhere in there.
Using your logic:

It's like saying all pineapples are yellow.
Society likes the color yellow
Therefore all society likes pineapples

No, that analogy is not correct, dishonesty in pool, isn't somethig other than dishonesty.

It doesn't pass the test of logic. We know that not everyone likes pineapples.

Considering its a poorly constructed strawman, of course it wouldn't pass the test.

I hate dishonesty as well but I don't believe that failure to self call a foul is dishonest.

There we go! You finally have admitted dishonesty in pool is wrong and not relative to our subjective whims.

For you to prove your point ,you would have to prove that failure to self call a foul is dishonest.

I agree, I was just waiting for you to concede that earlier point.

Main Entry: 1hon·est
Pronunciation: \ˈä-nəst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin honestus honorable, from honos, honor honor
Date: 14th century
1 a : free from fraud or deception : legitimate, truthful <an honest plea>

Pronunciation: \di-ˈsēv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ceived; de·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take — more at heave
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1 archaic : ensnare 2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill 3 obsolete : cheat 4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid

If a foul has occurred and you willingly do not call it, you are causing what is false, the assumption that a foul has not occurred, to be taken as true. That is by definition deceiving your opponent. Because honesty requires you to be free from deception, this act cannot be taken as an honest act and would thus be 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.

Not all morality, just some. If you want to prove that morality is completely subjective, point to me a case of genocide being moral.

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.

Objectivity is meant in the sense that it applies to all humans, not in the sense that it would continue to exist if humans went extinct. If society has accepted a moral value since antiquity without exception, that moral can be viewed as objective, not subjective because it is ultimately society that decides the main morals that we live by.

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.

Again, stop constructing strawmen. I never claimed that all morals were objective, nor that they are applicable beyond human society, you came up with those conclusions on your own.

 

[rrick33]

Mayoshi, I'm going to keep this simple.

The entire foundation of your argument is that failure to self call a foul is dishonest because you and society percieve it to be so and therefore it is by definition....dishonest. Your entire argument is based on the theory of objective morallity.

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.

Mayoshi stated:

Objectivity is meant in the sense that it applies to all humans, not in the sense that it would continue to exist if humans went extinct. If society has accepted a moral value since antiquity without exception, that moral can be viewed as objective, not subjective because it is ultimately society that decides the main morals that we live by.

It seems that you would redefine an estabished universal definition in an effort to salvage your crumbling argument. Does Webster know that you are rewriting his book?

The definition of Objective Moarallity essentially knocks the legs out from under your assumptions and litteraly puts a bullet through the head of your premise.

Morality is subjective .......it is anything but objective and therefore it cannot be applied universally. It is nothing more than YOUR opinion which happens to be one of many opinions.

There's really nothing more to say. Your argument died in a pool of rhetoric but at least it looked pretty as it crumbled.

If Webster adopts your revised version of reality.....let me know and we can further the debate.

Until then...it's clear that our discussion has reached its natural conclusion.

 

[David Marcus]

This is really a question for the pro players out there.

It's not really for us.

We don't have to pay our bills with short money earned by playing pool.

We've all seen many of our pool champions foul without their opponent seeing the foul and they haven't called the foul on themselves, when they clearly knew they fouled. Personally, I don't think they should be vilified for not calling a foul on themselves, except for the following:

If the answer is yes, then it should clearly be part of the rules; that each player is indeed required to call a foul on themselves.

If the answer is no, then I think the rules should clearly state that each player is not required to call a foul on themselves.

What do you think about the "If yes"/If no" then statements?

JoeyA

Just my 2 cents, but if you play, pro or not, play the game the RIGHT way , remember it's a Gentlemen's Game....

 

[Maniac]

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.


It seems that you would redefine an estabished universal definition in an effort to salvage your crumbling argument. Does Webster know that you are rewriting his book?

The definition of Objective Moarallity essentially knocks the legs out from under your assumptions and litteraly puts a bullet through the head of your premise.


If Webster adopts your revised version of reality.....let me know and we can further the debate.

My very last post on this thread (because obviously, the cows aren't coming home).

Rick, you keep referring to Webster and his definitions in your postings. I have a question for you.

Just WHO in the heck is Webster (yes, I know who Daniel Webster is ), and who put HIM (or now, his company) in charge of defining anything? In a world where people think freely, his definitions are just as subjective as any other argument on this thread. In your very definition of "Objective Morality" which I quoted above, it mentions that there are "proponents of this theory", which means that there are also opponents. So, in the big picture, NOBODY is right nor wrong, just opinionated. This, I opine, is what JoeyA was looking for when he started this thread. He got plenty of opinions that are greatly different. For two people to go back and forth on their opinions on a computer keyboard, both side claiming victory, is absurd. Opinion cannot be neither right nor wrong but simply an opinion. Btw, see how your Mr. Webster defines opinion.

Why don't you just use the PM feature for your petty squabbles? You and Masayoshi remind me of two male gorillas pounding their chests in front of all the other apes.

You guys could end this thing a lot faster if you'd just pull down your pants and compare penises.

Maniac

 

[rrick33]

Maniac, I think you may have lost sight to the fact that Webster doesn't define everything in our language. Quite often he compiles established definitions. In this case the definition is not some arbitrary word that can be interpreted in many ways....it is a specific Theory that currently limmited to immutable laws. Laws that have not been revised to accommodate alternate interpretation.

In reality I think you are on my side in that you contend that it is simply an opinion. This is what I've been arguing for over the last several days. Mayoshi cotends that it is not a matter of opinion.

I offered to end the debate days ago on the premise that neither opinion would be swayed.....Apparently he could not walk away.

I can't blame him...If a guy was beating the crap out of you in a race to 11 would you just pack up and go home when he was on the hill?

Unfortunately your reccommendation for resolution comes a bit late since my last post finished it off. There can be no Logical response to contend that Objective Morallity exists and therfore multiple opinions carry the day.

 

[cbi1000]

Think about this.....

If I was a pro, and wanted the best for the tour, to bring in sponsors, and make the sport grow and get bigger and better...... YES. Call the foul, even if there is a ref. if you know you fouled call it.

To be honest everyone should do this no matter their rank. It will only benifet the game.

I call all fouls when I comment them, even if it costs me money. Karma is a MF'er...