Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?

[scsuxci]

being dishonest would be you asking me was that a foul or calling a foul that occurred and me denying it knowing I fouled. I will always admit to a foul when asked or when an opponent calls one...but you have to call it. again that's your job as the sitting player to pay attention to whats going on.

That's like saying,that a crime is only a crime if caught.If I'm playing you,my job is to play
the best and most honest game I can.
Nobody should have to babysit there opponent unless there dishonest.
If Im understanding you correctly,your telling me that if you foul and I ask
you,you will do the honest thing and say yes you fouled.
Now the second scenario is that if you fouled and knew it but I didn't see
it,your telling me its no longer a foul?
Obviously its still a foul but since I didn't see it,you let it go and keep shooting.
That my friend is being dishonest!
Rules have to do with the game.
Honesty has to do with the person.Big difference.

 

[fathomblue]

I tend to not like it when people say this......and I rarely do it, but......I read the first couple of pages and just skipped to the end, as I'm under a time crunch right now.

Here's my take:

It's a somewhat slippery slope. Before anyone says that it's a black and white subject, without any traces of gray, let me say this......

If you have integrity and call a foul on yourself (and it's not expressly against the rules to do so), everyone will think you're a great sportsman. Your opponent will externally or at least internally acknowledge that they're playing against someone who they can trust will do "the right thing". It makes for a less stressful match-up regarding both players.

If you have zero integrity and actually purposefully cheat, well, we all know what anyone thinks about that.

HOWEVER, let's say you're a person of integrity. You call fouls on yourself everytime that you see it, BUT.......you're playing someone new one day. You shoot a ball and the opponent says, "That's a foul." However, you didn't see it. Do you concede the foul to the other player, simply because he said so? Remember, you don't know this person. This person doesn't know you. So, you can either "trust" that the opponent saw something that you didn't and give up your turn/BIH and risk losing the set........when they could truly be the shady one. Perhaps that opponent noticed that you weren't paying attention to something on the table and decided to see how you'd react if they called a foul on you. Maybe to get BIH. Maybe to start a bit of a tiff, back down, and then see how your mental game reacts.....basically sharking you.

On the other hand, what if you TRULY DID foul? But, YOU did NOT see it? And your opponent is an honest person, who calls the foul. Now, if you didn't notice it and you're a person of integrity, you face a dilemma. You either roll over for your opponent, because you want to appear as tho you're a good sportsman.....or you tell yourself that since you didn't see it/feel it, you don't know this opponent enough to trust them......you rock on and tell them to pound sand (politely or otherwise).

This has happened to me. I feel as tho I have this integrity quality that we're talking about. I call fouls on myself everytime THAT I NOTICE IT.

However, a situation arose in Tunica this year during my 1st round Banks match.....

I win the lag. I take the opening break and make a ball. I proceed to immediately bank 3 balls in before I miss. I spot up my ball made on the break. My opponent shoots once and misses. I get back to the table and bank 2 more right in. I'm up 1-0 before you can tie your Velcro shoes. I can already see the look on my opponent's face.

I quickly make a ball the next game and move to the next one. It's a long cross-over bank somewhat near a corner pocket, that travels the length of the table into the other corner. I smack it in. I'm rollin', folks.

I grab my chalk and immediately look for my next shot. Suddenly my opponent says, "That was a foul." I flinch and turn to him. I ask him what he's talking about. Not in a rude way. I'm just a bit shocked as I didn't see any foul and I have no idea what he's talking about. He says, "Your CB double-kissed the OB."

Now, I've seen enough pool to know that just about anything is possible on a table. However, when I immediately replayed the shot in my head, I thought to myself, "There is NO way that was a double kiss. If it had done that, the ball would never have gone. That bank was clean as a whistle."

So, I explain exactly that to my opponent. I told him that if I had fouled, I'd definitely call it on myself, and I relayed this to him in a polite manner. I then stopped for about a long, solid 5 seconds, looked down and thought to myself, "Do I give this stranger BIH to be a good sportsman, because he might have seen something I didn't.......or do I rock on, because in my heart of hearts, I feel it was a clean bank? I don't know this guy. He's on his heels right now. What if he's sharking me?"

I finally looked back up at him and said, "I'm sorry if you saw that as a foul, but I didn't. It just wouldn't have went like that if I had." Then I slowly chalked and went back to playing.

At this point it's 2 balls - 0 in my favor. I end up missing the next shot. I'm mentally off my game. I end up scratching a turn or two later and giving a ball back. He wins that particular game. So, we're tied 1-1. I tell myself that since he went ahead and won that game that no harm has been done AS LONG AS I KEEP DOING MY JOB AND WIN THIS DAMN MATCH.

So, I buckled down and finished him off the next game. Then I had to REALLY grind it out to take the last rack for a 3-1 victory. That was my first big win at a major tournament.

However, it almost feels tainted, because I think that the guy thought I didn't call a foul on myself. But, as I said, in my heart of hearts, I didn't think I had done anything wrong. While the guy was nice when it was over, I could tell he was pretty disappointed. The sad thing is that I'll probably never know what the guy thinks of me. That bothers me. Perhaps it shouldn't.

So, to my point........there's a gray area. I think you should call a foul on yourself, if you know you did it. But, if you DON'T know if you did something wrong or not, it could cause a sticky situation with an unfamiliar opponent.

Obviously pool isn't in good enough shape to have a ref at every table. It would be nice, but it's just not feasible at this point.

 

[Masayoshi]

Masayoshi, you just make this too easy for me to address.

1. You claim that your opinion is the prevailing opinion and must be "right" simply because you are you. Omnipotent as you may be. You try to support your position by listing society as being on your side. If society was always "right" we would still have the same laws society established 2000 years ago. If society was always right we would still apply laws like we did during the Salem witch trials. Clearly, using society to support your cause is more to my argument than yours. In any given election year 49% of society votes for the losing candidate.

The Salem witch trials were based on religious belief not moral.

Also, you could argue that actually selling your soul to the devil would in fact be immoral if the devil actually existed and it was possible to do so. The Salem trials decided that the people accused sold their souls to the devil and executed them for that. In that case, it was not a moral dilemma, but a judgemental error.

Elections are held to pick officials to decide upon legal issues that are up for debate and still undecided in our society. There are some moral issues that are not up for debate. For example, murder, as far as I know, has never been considered a moral act by any major society for your given time frame of 2000 years.

2. You cliam that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are not subjective....especially in this case, despite the fact that there are 6 billion people on this planet who see the world from many unique perspectives. Unless you live in a univese of robots all programmed to think the same way, then you have lost touch with reality. Perspectives on Right & Wrong will always be subjective.....especially in a free thinking society.

Actually, I claimed that some things are subjective and some are not. Dishonesty being immoral, especially in terms of sporting events, is not subjective. Claiming that right and wrong is always subjective is completly nuts and would essentially make any punishment by the law, which is base on society's current moral beliefs, meaningless. In your version of a free thinking society, you could murder someone and just claim you were acting morally because you have no moral aversion to murder. That is obviously bullshit and any overly politically correct thinking such as that should be ridiculed into obscurity as it has in this thread.

3. You claim that you have never indicated that there is a rule that requires a player to self call a foul and then turn right around and claim that some players who don't self call fouls may be self centered and that's why they think they are not subject to the rules. If it's not a rule, how can they feel they are not subject to this nonexistant "rule"? You are a walking contradiction.

As I said before, fouls occur whether they are called or not. Not calling a foul has no bearing on what actually happened. If you murder someone, but are acquitted, it doesn't magically make your act of murder disappear, it just means you got away with it. No contradiction there. The contradiction you detected was because you created a strawman by combining my commentary on rules that indicate if a foul occurred and a hypothetical rule requiring players to self call fouls.

You cannot have a debate based on logic and reason with someone who has a skewed sense of reality. Logic and reason simply do not apply. In your univese, I'm sure all of your arguments make sense and in that respect, there's nothing anyone can say that would redefine your reality.

In your reality, you can morally justify any act no matter how heinous or terrible because morality is completely subjective. Guess who's version of morality is closer to the real world?

When the conversation reaches the point where you have to contradict yourself to reinforce your illusions, then I think the debate is over.

Again, I never contradicted myself, you created a strawman and shot it full of holes with you overwhelming logic and reason (of course, you admitted that I am omnipotent and by extension omniscient, therefore, my logic and reason>your logic and reason)

There's nothing logical that I can say that will redefine your reality so I leave you to believe as you wish.

Rage quitting is a very effective way to get your point across. GG.

 

[AtLarge]

being dishonest would be you asking me was that a foul or calling a foul that occurred and me denying it knowing I fouled. I will always admit to a foul when asked or when an opponent calls one...but you have to call it. again that's your job as the sitting player to pay attention to whats going on.

The reductio ad absurdum of your position on this is that your opponent would have to ask you after every one of your shots whether you fouled, because you might have fouled and not volunteered that information. As I've said, sometimes only the shooter knows.

 

[rrick33]

Originally Posted by trob
'being dishonest would be you asking me was that a foul or calling a foul that occurred and me denying it knowing I fouled. I will always admit to a foul when asked or when an opponent calls one...but you have to call it. again that's your job as the sitting player to pay attention to whats going on."

AMEN!

In my opinion, this fits very well within the spirit of the rules.

This game is played by 2 people not just the one at the table.
Just like in all other competitive sports.....you snooze, you lose.
But if the foul is called, you should show respect and acknowledge your opponents observation as I'm sure he will return the favor if you catch him making a foul.

This sceanrio creates the most level playing field and I'll tell you why.

If one player is self calling fouls and the other is not, then the person self calling is at a disadvantage.

If both players are self calling fouls, then if either player changes his perspective because the money is big or they just don't like their opponent, then one party is also at a disadvantage.

BUT>>>If both players are relying on their opponent to observe the game as they should and holds their opponent to call all fouls, then both parties are playing on a level platform.

This is the best and most "Fair" scenario given all the variables. When it comes to the rules, the most Fair proposition should always be the one that applies. Perhaps this is why there is no rule regarding failure to self call fouls.

If you think about it, this is how the rules are set up now. The rules address the fact that the non shooting party has the right to call fouls and it ignores any reference to the shooter having to self call fouls. By ommission, the rules basically concurr with the scenario described above where the non-shooter should hold all accountability for calling fouls. This creates a fair and level playing field.

This also creates an indisputable level of "Fairness" which allows us to remove all the morality issues around "right" and "wrong" which should never have been interjected into this discussion to begin with.

If you look at the big picture, you could say that it's not "Fair" to play pool with the expectation that each player will self call fouls but it is fair if both players expect their opponent to call all fouls.

What could be simpler than that?

 

[Masayoshi]

I've only read the original question, hopefully the discussion hasn't gone too far off track.

I look at this the same way I look at most professional sports: There are penalties for breaking the rules and the penalties are all the punishment that is required.

Any professional sport will have a trained person watching the game. It is the job of that person (referee, umpire, etc.) to see rules violations and to mete out the proper punishment.

Thus, professional pool is different than amateur pool as there should be a ref at every match. If there isn't a ref at every match, then it is hard to call it 'professional' pool.

I don't think less of my opponents who don't call their own fouls, but I certainly become friends with those who do. That said, I'm not pro and don't care to be.

So, no, a pro should not call his own fouls, providing the match is played with a referee's supervision.

dld

What is your opinion on the vast majority of pro matches that have no ref?

 

[Maniac]

I quickly make a ball the next game and move to the next one. It's a long cross-over bank somewhat near a corner pocket, that travels the length of the table into the other corner. I smack it in. I'm rollin', folks.

I grab my chalk and immediately look for my next shot. Suddenly my opponent says, "That was a foul." I flinch and turn to him. I ask him what he's talking about. Not in a rude way. I'm just a bit shocked as I didn't see any foul and I have no idea what he's talking about. He says, "Your CB double-kissed the OB."

Now, I've seen enough pool to know that just about anything is possible on a table. However, when I immediately replayed the shot in my head, I thought to myself, "There is NO way that was a double kiss. If it had done that, the ball would never have gone. That bank was clean as a whistle."

I guess I'm stupid, but I cannot figure out how a cue ball double-kissing an object is ever a foul. An illegal shot (especially in bank pool) yes, but a foul???

Could you explain this a little better for the less intelligent folk out here ?

Maniac

Maniac

 

[AtLarge]

... In my opinion, this fits very well within the spirit of the rules. ...

What fits best with the spirit of the rules is actually observing them.

 

[rrick33]

What fits best with the spirit of the rules is actually observing them.

I agree and since the rules do not require a player to self call a foul.....It seems we are in agreement.

 

[rrick33]

Masayoshi, please don't force me to keep undermining your position by addressing your ridiculous statements like the one below.

"The Salem witch trials were based on religious belief not moral."

The number 1 definition of religion is as follows:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Your argument never held water to begin with and if you think my calm disection of your opinion is "rage" , then you don't understand the meaning of that term either.

It's time to move on.

 

[Maniac]

It's time to move on.

Yep, as neither side will ever give an inch in this debate and it constantly comes to a wash every time it is brought up on this forum.

Maniac

 

[Masayoshi]

Masayoshi, please don't force me to keep undermining your position with ridiculous statemnts like the one below.

"The Salem witch trials were based on religious belief not moral."

You have not once undermined my argument position. A few times, however, you have undermined strawmen that you concocted on your own.

The number 1 definition of religion is as follows:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Even going by your strict definition of religion, the phrase "often containing a "moral code" governing the conduct of human affairs" does not mean that religious acts are strictly from their moral code. Religion and morality are separate ideas and should NEVER be considered interchangeable.

Your argument never held water to begin with and if you think my calm disection of your opinion is "rage" , then you don't understand the meaning of that term either.

It's time to move on.

Just saying my argument does not hold water does not actually mean that my argument does not hold water. You actually have to successfully put down all of my arguments first. You have not succeeded in putting down one of them, only strawmen. Maybe instead of cherry picking out of context points, you should try and addressing each point one by one.

lol. Rage quitting is an internet meme. Lurk moar.

If you want to run away from the discussion, you are free to do so. I will take it as a concession.

 

[thefonz]

I agree and since the rules do not require a player to self call a foul.....It seems we are in agreement.

What fits best with the spirit of the rules is actually observing them.

Ahem, the true spirit of the rules is maintaining honesty and integrity in the sport. To ensure that the game is played in FAIRNESS and won by the skills and efforts of its competitors.

If someone can take a win knowing that a major part of their achievement was not being penalized for a mistake they had made.............simply wow, I don't know how they can shake hands at the end and call it a victory.

Of course if the guy that commits the foul is a hack, he may not recognize the impact of his dishonesty (no big deal). But for those of us that can actually play - we know that a single mistake can lead to at least a three game swing, or the entire match.

Shame on those who take advantage of others.

 

[rrick33]

Mayoshi, I discredited your position adnausium in the first two responses. There's no need to rehash it any longer.

Your most recent comment:

"If you want to run away from the discussion, you are free to do so. I will take it as a concession."

This simply tells me that you either enjoy abuse or you simply need to have the last word in order to feel complete. When I listen to children argue, I hear the same thing.

It doesn't matter what I say here....your opinion will remain constant. If it makes you feel good that logic and reason could not sway your opinion, then you win the big award for lacking those qualities.

That's right! You're the weiner....I mean winner.

It's time for you to go to the concession stand and pick up your trophy.
Last time I looked it was a hotdog with sourkrout.

 

[rrick33]

The fonze stated:

"Ahem, the true spirit of the rules is maintaining honesty and integrity in the sport. To ensure that the game is played in FAIRNESS and won by the skills and efforts of its competitors.

If someone can take a win knowing that a major part of their achievement was not being penalized for a mistake they had made.............simply wow, I don't know how they can shake hands at the end and call it a victory.

Of course if the guy that commits the foul is a hack, he may not recognize the impact of his dishonesty (no big deal). But for those of us that can actually play - we know that a single mistake can lead to at least a three game swing, or the entire match.

Shame on those who take advantage of others."

I'm curious. When you play a match do you watch what your opponent is doing or do you simply trust that he will self call a foul?

If you don't trust him then you are already doing the due dilligence to ensure the game is fair and ther's no need to rely on your opponent to self call a foul.
Plus we already know you don't trust him so why expect him to self call a foul.

 

[AtLarge]

rrick33 -- Please edit your post #140. I did not say what you quoted, thefonz did.

 

[AtLarge]

I agree and since the rules do not require a player to self call a foul.....It seems we are in agreement.

You know we are not in agreement. I believe the rules do require a player to report it when he thinks he has fouled and the foul has not been called by an opponent or a referee. I explained the simple logical deduction in post #69.

 

[thefonz]

Atlarge stated:

"Ahem, the true spirit of the rules is maintaining honesty and integrity in the sport. To ensure that the game is played in FAIRNESS and won by the skills and efforts of its competitors.

If someone can take a win knowing that a major part of their achievement was not being penalized for a mistake they had made.............simply wow, I don't know how they can shake hands at the end and call it a victory.

Of course if the guy that commits the foul is a hack, he may not recognize the impact of his dishonesty (no big deal). But for those of us that can actually play - we know that a single mistake can lead to at least a three game swing, or the entire match.

Shame on those who take advantage of others."

I'm curious. When you play a match do you watch what your opponent is doing or do you simply trust that he will self call a foul?

If you don't trust him then you are already doing the due dilligence to ensure the game is fair and ther's no need to rely on your opponent to self call a foul.
Plus we already know you don't trust him so why expect him to self call a foul.

Yes of course I pay attention to my matches. However I don't believe in assuming the role of a referee when I'm playing, which is the best vantage point for spotting fouls. In snooker it's in the rules that players are to call fouls on themselves in the tradition of the sport.
Some fouls can't be spotted. Go to 5:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmwqnBP1CM

No wonder pool is in the shit.

Calling fouls on one's self is an issue of morality and sportsmanship, not about what some pocket rulebook only states. For those debating that it's okay not to call a foul on yourself - you're like the scumbag lawyers that distort the law from what is just.

 

[fathomblue]

I guess I'm stupid, but I cannot figure out how a cue ball double-kissing an object is ever a foul. An illegal shot (especially in bank pool) yes, but a foul???

Could you explain this a little better for the less intelligent folk out here ?

Maniac

Maniac

Maniac, that's a good observation. Perhaps both my opponent and I were confused. The ball would be illegally pocketed, therefore not counting, and would spot up. He wouldn't have received BIH, but would control the table and I wouldn't have scored that point.

It still pertains to what we're talkin about here.....kinda. Lol.

Good catch, tho.

 

[rrick33]

What if the rules actually stated in writing that a player was not required to self call a foul?

Would all of those players who labled this as cheating or referred to the offending party as a hack or inept or any of the multitude of insults.....change their opinion?

Would simply putting a rule in place change your perspective?

If you say NO. Then it's likely you are operating on a moral viewpoint and it is far too subjective to apply to the rules. Your opinion of a rule you disagree with would not prevail.

If you say YES. Then you are following the rules and there is nothing to debate. You are likely viewing the situation as if it's simply a rule that applies to the game.

It is clear that the rules do not require you to self call fouls and therefore all opinions contrary to the rules are likely based on personal moral perspectives which cannot be applied to the rules.

As such, a players right not to self call a foul is supported in the rules and an opponents opinion or moral perspective carries no weight.

If your moral perspective carries no weight and cannot be enforced....it seems pretty simple to me.

If someone chooses not to self call a foul they have done so within the rules.

Your moral perspective counts for nothing.

If you know that your moral perspective carries no weight, then why interject it into the game?

Stick to the rules and you'll have a lot more fun.