Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?

[The Renfro]

Absolutely... I have even stopped a game and re-racked when I saw that I had inadvertently slug racked..The 1 had rolled off.... The re-rack was league play and I likely would not have done it in a tournament since you need to look at the rack you are breaking!!!!

Chris

 

[rrick33]

This question was debated about a year ago and there were two schools of thought. One group injected their perspectives based on a personal code of ethics. The other group founded their perspective on the context of the situation and the specific language in the rules..or lack there of.....to set the standard.

Everyone has their own moral code but unfortunately, these codes can vary greatly and are often influenced by external factors. Some players were adamant about calling the foul on themselves but freely admited that if there was a lot of money on the line, then their pespective would be different.

The "rules" on the other hand are written and easily referenced. If the rule requires you to self call the foul then there's no argument. If the rule does not require you to self call a foul, then this too is clear.

So why would there be such great debate? Clearly, morals are very subjective while the rules are specific and objective. It should be a no brainer.....abide by the rules and there can be no misunderstanding. And yet, the majority of people responding to this thread seem to be on the side of morality and some have even resorted to name calling.....

The reason there are far fewer people condeming the moral approach is because you can't change someone's moral perspective on a message board. It's simply not a fight worth fighting.

But here's the crux of the problem...The rules do not require a player to self call a foul. Plain and simple.

The real question that should be under debate is whether a players choice to abide by the rules and not self call a foul, contrary to their opponents sense of morality, should be an issue at all?

If the rules do not require to self call a foul and if your opponent fails to call the foul, then by some rules....no foul has actually occured.

I know many of those on the "moral" side will debate this vigorously but in the last debate, it was ultimately concluded that in the end...the rules prevail. Moral perspectives do not carry the day when there is a dispute on the pool table.

 

[John Novak]

I have never heard or saw a basketball, football, baseball, boxer, tennis player calling a foul on themselves. That's my answer. If there is money involved.......Johnnyt

The sports youve mentioned usually has a ref to call fouls.........Rarely does pool during a tournament unless its down to the semi finals. So, you should call a foul if you have an ounce of pride

 

[Masayoshi]

This question was debated about a year ago and there were two schools of thought. One group injected their perspectives based on a personal code of ethics. The other group founded their perspective on the context of the situation and the specific language in the rules..or lack there of.....to set the standard.

Everyone has their own moral code but unfortunately, these codes can vary greatly and are often influenced by external factors. Some players were adamant about calling the foul on themselves but freely admited that if there was a lot of money on the line, then their pespective would be different.

The "rules" on the other hand are written and easily referenced. If the rule requires you to self call the foul then there's no argument. If the rule does not require you to self call a foul, then this too is clear.

So why would there be such great debate? Clearly, morals are very subjective while the rules are specific and objective. It should be a no brainer.....abide by the rules and there can be no misunderstanding. And yet, the majority of people responding to this thread seem to be on the side of morality and some have even resorted to name calling.....

The reason there are far fewer people condeming the moral approach is because you can't change someone's moral perspective on a message board. It's simply not a fight worth fighting.

But here's the crux of the problem...The rules do not require a player to self call a foul. Plain and simple.

The real question that should be under debate is whether a players choice to abide by the rules and not self call a foul, contrary to their opponents sense of morality, should be an issue at all?

If the rules do not require to self call a foul and if your opponent fails to call the foul, then by some rules....no foul has actually occured.

I know many of those on the "moral" side will debate this vigorously but in the last debate, it was ultimately concluded that in the end...the rules prevail. Moral perspectives do not carry the day when there is a dispute on the pool table.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the rules prevail" if you mean "Players are allowed to get away with not calling fouls on themselves" then yes, I will agree that it was pretty much unanimously agreed upon in previous threads. That however is not what most people were debating. The debates centered upon whether or not it was moral to not call a foul on yourself, which was generally concluded to be in favor of the "moral side" as you say.

Strictly following the rules is not always the ethical thing to do. Most of the time in life, sports, business, etc. rules are weighed in favor of the person who has supposedly committed the act to minimize punishment of those that are falsely accused because it is a greater evil to punish the innocent. This does not make it okay to murder someone as long as you are acquitted, it just makes you unable to be punished under the law.

By the same logic, if you have knowingly committed a foul and do not call it on yourself, you are being dishonest to your opponent. Where I am from, dishonesty is considered unsportsmanlike and unethical to use to your advantage in a sporting contest.

One final thought: Morals do not change based on how much money is riding on the game, just the motivation to go against morality.

 

[bmsclayton]

fouls

I am a terrible player but gamble a lot and I always ask if we are calling fouls on ourselves or not. My best gambling buddy won't call them on himself so I won't let him shoot when I go get a drink or take a piss etc. Trusting a pool player is how pool hall sluts are created, get pregnant, fat, and are then no good anymore.

 

[Badbeat13]

I can't stand cheaters

I've called many fouls on myself, because I never cheat to win. If you have to cheat to win then you are a POS.

I'd rather be respected and lose than be considered a cheater and win every match.

Most of the cheaters out there think that everybody is so stupid and doesn't think that you notice their shananegins(spell check). When in reality it does get noticed and they will carry that bad reputation everywhere they go.

Integrety means something to me and it always will. Some guys will try to win at all costs and couldn't give 2 shits about integrety.

Watch out for these types. They'll screw their best friend's girl and act like nothing ever happened if they get called out on it.

Joey A, I don't consider myself a pro, but I have and will match up with them. It might not be the mother of all wagers, but they can win something.

 

[JoeyA]

Rules should dictate if a player should call a foul on themsleves.

I understand the morality side of the argument pretty well. That's where I pretty much stand.

BUT, how can I compete against a player on equal footing when he plays by the rules and doesn't call a foul on himself but I do? (I'm talking about gambling, tournament play or just simple friendly competitive practice.)

I think the game's rules should stipulate very clearly that a player is required to call fouls on themselves.

We've all seen professional players and league players make a foul and NOT call the foul on themselves and continue shooting. It happens a lot more than I would like it to happen.

Maybe one day, the rules will specifically state that a player is REQUIRED to call any fouls on himself. When that day comes, pool will be advanced to a higher level. Until that day, there will be professionals and amateurs who will have the option to allow their moral compass to dictate whether they call fouls on themselves or not.

I say no options. Let the rules speak more clearly.

JoeyA

 

[Masayoshi]

I understand the morality side of the argument pretty well. That's where I pretty much stand.

BUT, how can I compete against a player on equal footing when he plays by the rules and doesn't call a foul on himself but I do? (I'm talking about gambling, tournament play or just simple friendly competitive practice.)

If you suspect that your opponent is that type of person, call a ref on him at every opportunity. Any shot that looks like it might even have a chance at producing an ambiguous outcome, don't give him the benefit of the doubt and call somebody over to watch him. If he asks you why you are being such a dick tell him that he acted like a dick first by not calling a foul on himself.

I think the game's rules should stipulate very clearly that a player is required to call fouls on themselves.

We've all seen professional players and league players make a foul and NOT call the foul on themselves and continue shooting. It happens a lot more than I would like it to happen.

Maybe one day, the rules will specifically state that a player is REQUIRED to call any fouls on himself. When that day comes, pool will be advanced to a higher level. Until that day, there will be professionals and amateurs who will have the option to allow their moral compass to dictate whether they call fouls on themselves or not.

I say no options. Let the rules speak more clearly.

JoeyA

I disagree. Such rules would lead to far too much ambiguity and potentially lead to more arguments than is necessary. Letting a douchebag think that he is getting away with something is a much better "evil" than the potential false accusations that the same type of people would use against you if the rules were situated in the other direction. At least with the rules as they are now, it limits those of poor character to only being able to take advantage of situations where they mess up in the first place.

 

[JoeyA]

If you suspect that your opponent is that type of person, call a ref on him at every opportunity. Any shot that looks like it might even have a chance at producing an ambiguous outcome, don't give him the benefit of the doubt and call somebody over to watch him. If he asks you why you are being such a dick tell him that he acted like a dick first by not calling a foul on himself.



I disagree. Such rules would lead to far too much ambiguity and potentially lead to more arguments than is necessary. Letting a douchebag think that he is getting away with something is a much better "evil" than the potential false accusations that the same type of people would use against you if the rules were situated in the other direction. At least with the rules as they are now, it limits those of poor character to only being able to take advantage of situations where they mess up in the first place.

I like the way you think about what you said in the second paragraph.

I think that players not calling a foul on themselves, does not by itself, necessarily make them a douchebag or person of poor character. In life we all have had "moral" break-downs where we could have made a fairer decision, but instead chose a decision that favors our own.

If the rules stated that the players were responsible for calling fouls on themselves, where is the ambiguity?

Arguments continue to go on between those who would purposefully cheat without any such rule. How do you think this would add to the arguments that already exist with those who would cheat to win?

What situations are you thinking of that a person of poor character might take advantage of if the rules stated that the shooter had to call fouls on himself? (this being true, only if no referee was present). It seems to me that people of low character can attempt to take advantage of their opponent at any time they choose, regardless of the rules, AND DO.


Thanks,
JoeyA

 

[CreeDo]

This was one of the most lengthy debates on AZ back when Chris Banks posed the question.
I don't think the "pro player" twist changes the question or the various points people made for/against.

The argument seems to be "the player cannot afford to be a white knight and we shouldn't expect him to
because it's his livelihood."

Well, there are plenty of situations where a person may lose money or their job if they voluntarily
report something. I'm not required by law to report my company if I see sexual harassment or
I find out they're working around environmental standards. But I should anyway.
There are always other jobs.

And in the pool player's case, he doesn't lose his entire job, just a chunk of income.
And the loss of income is not guaranteed, it's theoretical. Unless it's giving up BIH
on the case ball for the whole tournament, who could say what the outcome will be or would have been?

Besides, being forced to find another job is something most pool players will do, or have already done.
The money is so small that only a handful of players are truly feeding and housing themselves with pool.
Would you consider a $20,000/year job worth selling your integrity?
Any earnings you get by not calling a foul is taken directly out of the opponent's pocket.

As for your bolded statements:

The thinking seems to be: Because the rulebook failed to clarify who should call the foul...
fouls therefore don't have to be called. This is incorrect. The rules of the games
don't get temporarily suspended just because it's unclear who's been tasked with enforcing them.

The fact that the rules are fuzzy on who should call the foul if nobody else sees it...
is an oversight. A loophole. The rulemakers left it out because it didn't occur to them
someone might try to lawyer their way out of calling fouls. They had enough faith in human
nature to assume people will abide by the rules without a special rule stating "make sure
you follow the rules even if nobody sees you break them."

Some players exploit this loophole as a way to justify cheating.

 

[rrick33]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the rules prevail" if you mean "Players are allowed to get away with not calling fouls on themselves" then yes, I will agree that it was pretty much unanimously agreed upon in previous threads. That however is not what most people were debating. The debates centered upon whether or not it was moral to not call a foul on yourself, which was generally concluded to be in favor of the "moral side" as you say.
Strictly following the rules is not always the ethical thing to do. Most of the time in life, sports, business, etc. rules are weighed in favor of the person who has supposedly committed the act to minimize punishment of those that are falsely accused because it is a greater evil to punish the innocent. This does not make it okay to murder someone as long as you are acquitted, it just makes you unable to be punished under the law.

By the same logic, if you have knowingly committed a foul and do not call it on yourself, you are being dishonest to your opponent. Where I am from, dishonesty is considered unsportsmanlike and unethical to use to your advantage in a sporting contest.

One final thought: Morals do not change based on how much money is riding on the game, just the motivation to go against morality.

I think perhaps you and I have a different perspective on what was really under debate in last years discussion. I know that you think it was about morality but we already know that everyone operates on different levels of "morality". So how can anyone define what level of morality was applicabale?

While you seem to think that the general concensus was that the "Moral" side prevailed in the previous debate. I didn't think so. Just because the majority of responses chimed in on a moral perspective does not mean that the logical and rational conclusion was in their favor. Majority opinion is not a prerequisite for justification. Moral codes change over time. The fact that we don't stone women in public is a teatement to the progression of reason despite the fact that at one time it was morally acceptable.

Your statement about knowingly committing a foul and not calling on yourself as being dishonest is perplexing. It goes back to applying self imposed moral judgements. If you believe that you are being dishonest, then call the foul. It's your moral code that you're operating on; however, if someone else is operating on a different moral perspective, who gives you the right to judge them?

This is why the rules take president. We don't have to weed our way through a multitude of value judgements.

Some rules actually account for this disparity on moral perspectives to the point that if a player doesn't self call a foul and their opponent doesn't call the foul then it never happened. If it didn't happen then there is no moral conflict except those which are self imposed.

 

[Masayoshi]

I like the way you think about what you said in the second paragraph.

I think that players not calling a foul on themselves, does not by itself, necessarily make them a douchebag or person of poor character. In life we all have had "moral" break-downs where we could have made a fairer decision, but instead chose a decision that favors our own.

If the rules stated that the players were responsible for calling fouls on themselves, where is the ambiguity?

Arguments continue to go on between those who would purposefully cheat without any such rule. How do you think this would add to the arguments that already exist with those who would cheat to win?

What situations are you thinking of that a person of poor character might take advantage of if the rules stated that the shooter had to call fouls on himself? (this being true, only if no referee was present). It seems to me that people of low character can attempt to take advantage of their opponent at any time they choose, regardless of the rules, AND DO.


Thanks,
JoeyA

If there was a rule that stated that you have to call your own fouls, the only way to enforce it would be to give the other player the power to call them out on it. If that was the case, a person of low character could potentially accuse their opponent of not calling their own foul anytime the opponent is at the table, which would obviously provide many more opportunities to gain an unfair advantage than simply not calling a foul on themselves.

Of course, some people accuse others of fouling while being in the chair regardless of the rules. Luckily, the current rules don't give those accusations any weight unless the accused person actually agrees with him.

 

[JoeyA]

This was one of the most lengthy debates on AZ back when Chris Banks posed the question.
I don't think the "pro player" twist changes the question or the various points people made for/against.

The argument seems to be "the player cannot afford to be a white knight and we shouldn't expect him to
because it's his livelihood."

Well, there are plenty of situations where a person may lose money or their job if they voluntarily
report something. I'm not required by law to report my company if I see sexual harassment or
I find out they're working around environmental standards. But I should anyway.
There are always other jobs.

And in the pool player's case, he doesn't lose his entire job, just a chunk of income.
And the loss of income is not guaranteed, it's theoretical. Unless it's giving up BIH
on the case ball for the whole tournament, who could say what the outcome will be or would have been?

Besides, being forced to find another job is something most pool players will do, or have already done.
The money is so small that only a handful of players are truly feeding and housing themselves with pool.
Would you consider a $20,000/year job worth selling your integrity?
Any earnings you get by not calling a foul is taken directly out of the opponent's pocket.

As for your bolded statements:

The thinking seems to be: Because the rulebook failed to clarify who should call the foul...
fouls therefore don't have to be called. This is incorrect. The rules of the games
don't get temporarily suspended just because it's unclear who's been tasked with enforcing them.

The fact that the rules are fuzzy on who should call the foul if nobody else sees it...
is an oversight. A loophole. The rulemakers left it out because it didn't occur to them
someone might try to lawyer their way out of calling fouls. They had enough faith in human
nature to assume people will abide by the rules without a special rule stating "make sure
you follow the rules even if nobody sees you break them."

Some players exploit this loophole as a way to justify cheating.

I have seen players of very high moral character have a lapse in judgment and remain silent when it is quite apparent to everyone in the world that a foul was committed except it wasn't seen by their opponent. I've seen much worse and so have all of us.

This calling a foul on yourself business isn't the end of the world and it's not going to save any souls.

I have never seen a pool rule book which states that the shooter is required to call a foul on themselves and that is where the rubber meets the road. Players desperate to support their family and their needs will PLAY BY THE RULES and if the rules don't state that the shooter must call all fouls when a referee is not present, there will continue to be "lapses" in judgment by good and decent people as well as the people of low moral fiber. What dictates "moral" action or inaction anyway?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and you are no different. Everyone has brought up some great points and my only regret is that the pro players of the world seldom ever voice their opinion in threads like this.

I just believe strongly that if you expect pro players to call fouls on themselves, you SHOULD make it part of the rules.

JoeyA

 

[robsnotes4u]

I do.

I am not a pro, but when playing Michael Perron, Jr two years ago during the Four Bears Classic, I was up 2-1 in a ace to 5. It was a simple three ball stop shot out playing bar box 8 ball. I was shooting directly at him and on my last practice stroke, getting into set position I touched the cue ball with my tip. I have the chance to go up 3-1 against a very good player, whom I have little chance of beating. By the way he went on and beat SVB.

I stood up walked over and sat down. Jr asked if I was taking a break and I said I fouled and explained it. With a dumb founded look, all he could say was , Really?

If I wouldn't of called it on myself, and I ended up winning I would have felt like shit.

Right for me.

 

[Masayoshi]

[/B]

I think perhaps you and I have a different perspective on what was really under debate in last years discussion. I know that you think it was about morality but we already know that everyone operates on different levels of "morality". So how can anyone define what level of morality was applicabale?

While you seem to think that the general concensus was that the "Moral" side prevailed in the previous debate. I didn't think so. Just because the majority of responses chimed in on a moral perspective does not mean that the logical and rational conclusion was in their favor. Majority opinion is not a prerequisite for justification. Moral codes change over time. The fact that we don't stone women in public is a teatement to the progression of reason despite the fact that at one time it was morally acceptable.

Morality in terms of judging others is relative to the society we live, not to the individual. Moral codes do change over time, but fortunately for my argument, we live in a time where stoning women and using dishonesty to gain an advantage in sporting events is looked upon as immoral (although obviously stoning women is far more reprehensible unless it involves weed). Moral judgements can and should be rationally made by any group of people that hopes to function as a society.

Your statement about knowingly committing a foul and not calling on yourself as being dishonest is perplexing. It goes back to applying self imposed moral judgements. If you believe that you are being dishonest, then call the foul. It's your moral code that you're operating on; however, if someone else is operating on a different moral perspective, who gives you the right to judge them?

Society gives itself the right to judge them, just like society judges thieves, wife beaters, drug abusers, etc. even if none of those people are convicted of crimes, they can still be fairly judged to be morally inept by those around them (provided they are conclusively known to commit those acts)

Some rules actually account for this disparity on moral perspectives to the point that if a player doesn't self call a foul and their opponent doesn't call the foul then it never happened. If it didn't happen then there is no moral conflict.

No, there is a moral conflict. There may not be a conflict in the rules, but morality and the rules do not always go hand in hand. Also, those rules are not made to accommodate people of lower moral character, they just prioritize the moral idea of "innocent until proven guilty" over punishment of the offender.

 

[hang-the-9]

I have never heard or saw a basketball, football, baseball, boxer, tennis player calling a foul on themselves. That's my answer. If there is money involved.......Johnnyt

Even counting tennis, pool is much more of a "gentelman's sport" than those, in theory at least, so good sportsmanship should be practiced. All those sports also have a several refs watching for fouls, where in a pool tournament there may be one guy for the whole room. If there is no ref at the table, I'd say it's up to BOTH players to police themselves. If not, any foul called by the other player would be disputed by the shooter and we get no-where.

If there is a ref watching your match, in that case not calling a foul when a ref missed it would be OK. Although I have seen players, especially Earl, say that either the foul on the other player was wrong or call a foul on themselves when the ref was not sure and did not call a foul right away.

I don't think this could be a rule that could be enforced. If you were in a situation where the only way a foul would be called if the player commiting it had to call it, who could say the rule to self call a foul was broken when the player could just not say anything about fouling?

 

[bdorman]

From a practical standpoint: No, players in tournament matches should not be required to call a foul on themselves for two reasons:

1) Responsibility and authority have to be equal. If I'm responsible for calling my own foul -- and I say no foul occurred -- then my decision is the final authority. The authority and responsibility for calling fouls has to be with the opponent or referee.

2) Sorry, but I'm busy making this difficult shot. I'm not going to distract my focus by looking at potential fouls. My eye is laser-focused on the contact point of the object ball and will remain there until the OB drops in the pocket. I'm not going to avert my eyes (which will move my body and my head) to see if I grazed another ball along the way --that's my opponent's responsibility.

Should I call a foul on myself if my opponent or referee missed it? Sure, but the rules should not give me authority over fouls, or burden me with the distraction of watching for them.

 

[tucson9ball]

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

Absolutely "YES".

If we want pool to grow, we need to show some integrity.

 

[Masayoshi]

From a practical standpoint: No, players in tournament matches should not be required to call a foul on themselves for two reasons:

1) Responsibility and authority have to be equal. If I'm responsible for calling my own foul -- and I say no foul occurred -- then my decision is the final authority. The authority and responsibility for calling fouls has to be with the opponent or referee.

2) Sorry, but I'm busy making this difficult shot. I'm not going to distract my focus by looking at potential fouls. My eye is laser-focused on the contact point of the object ball and will remain there until the OB drops in the pocket. I'm not going to avert my eyes (which will move my body and my head) to see if I grazed another ball along the way --that's my opponent's responsibility.

Should I call a foul on myself if my opponent or referee missed it? Sure, but the rules should not give me authority over fouls, or burden me with the distraction of watching for them.

The rules give the shooter authority over fouls unless a third party is watching the shot. Any disputes are settled in favor of the shooter. The reason for this is that it is too easy to take advantage of being able to call a foul from the chair.

 

[elvicash]

If a pro golfer fouls and doesn't call it on himself, he risks being totally ostracized from the sport.

The pool players I know who do call fouls on themselves seem to be a lot classier people in general than the ones who don't.

I agree with you Bud.