Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?

[AtLarge]

... I've need seen an offensive linemen after a play say hey dude I jumped off sides..or and nba player say I walked on that play. ...

Behavior/culture/tradition in other sports is irrelevant to me on this issue. I strongly dislike many things about our "major" sports. But in pool, I just want everyone to observe the rules. The game goes better that way.

... I'll give you a dishonest situation and this happens in bca at least once or twice a year. a player bumps the ball with his tip while aiming..realizes it then quickly fires off the shot so you can't call it.

Of course you can call that as a foul. If he bumped the CB with his tip while aiming, his inning should have ended right there, and it probably was a foul if no ball hit a rail. The inning should have passed to the opponent. So if he "quickly fires off the shot" he has played out of turn, which is a foul.

 

[AtLarge]

... The shooting player is abiding by the rules when they don't call fouls on themselves. ...]

As should be clear by now, I disagree with this conclusion.

 

[tigerseye]

I thought that's what the referee were for...but if their isn't one, then yes they should call the foul and save their reputation

 

[Spantiznik]

Section H of the VNEA rulebook. "All fouls must be called and acknowledged before next shot is taken.

If I foul and the other person doesn't see it, because they are distracted, I will be the first person to give up my turn.

And this looks good for me, because of being a referee. LOL. I need the trust of the players so they know I am not going to cheat them.

 

[John Novak]

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

Joey You need to mention if this a match presided over by a ref or not. If it is, then it is up to the ref to make the call. The same holds true with any other pro sport when there is a ref. If there is not a ref, then it is absolutely the job of both players to call fouls, even if you call it on yourself. Its called sportsmanship

 

[backplaying]

I have to add this for people that think many pool players are cheaters. I played golf for many years on a regular basis and Golfers are the biggest cheaters of all games ever invented. In all the years I played, I can count the honest ones I played with on both hands.

 

[Masayoshi]

Come on, that last sentence is just to prevent squabbles later (or calling the foul later after other shots have been taken). It has nothing to do with the fact that properly observing the rules requires the shooter to notify the opponent or referee when the shooter thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee.

Also, the assumption that something has or has not happened has no bearing on what actually happened. If a foul takes place, but it is assumed not to have happened, that does not negate the fact that a foul has actually occurred, it just negates the punishment.

 

[JoeyA]

As should be clear by now, I disagree with this conclusion.

And that is PRECISELY why the rules should state that the shooter is required to call a foul on himself (providing a foul has been committed) if his opponent or the referee does not call the foul.

As John Novak has already mentioned, if a referee is presiding over a match, then the referee is the final judge as to whether a foul has been committed or not.

JoeyA

 

[SloMoHolic]

Very interesting thread.

How about a little twist?

I played in a weekly tournament last weekend. Late in the tournament (during my fourth match), I attempted to play a safety, as diagrammed here:



I was hoping to leave the CB safe underneath the 4, and I chose a speed that I believed would drive the 8 (or maybe the 2) to the side rail.

After noticing that neither the 2, 8, nor the CB hit a rail after the CB contacted the 2, I called a foul on myself.

My opponent stood up and informed me that I had NOT committed a foul. He reminded me that the CB had contacted the 1, then the CB hit two rails.

My own fatigue must have distracted me. I had clearly NOT committed a foul.

Shall we also introduce a rule requiring the opponent to re-declare a legal hit after the shooter has incorrectly self-called a foul?

...

My point is that however moral, inconsistent, argumentative, judgmental, or subjective our personal observations and actions are, my belief is that we must rely on true sportsmanship when playing matches without a dedicated referee.

It is my belief that we cannot reasonably rely on rules to dictate proper etiquette or behavior at the table.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions in this thread. However, I believe that we should rely on the players' integrity, even though we all know that not every player will respond appropriately.

I like the rules the way they are.

Obvious lack of integrity will result in obvious consequences.

I'm looking forward to reading the responses to this post.

-Blake

 

[Maniac]

My point is that however moral, inconsistent, argumentative, judgmental, or subjective our personal observations and actions are, my belief is that we must rely on true sportsmanship when playing matches without a dedicated referee.

-Blake

IMO, the same goes for matches when playing WITH a referee!!!

I've seen matches (pros) that had a referee at the table that has gotten out of hand on many occasions (sportsmanship, poor etiquette, etc.). Because JoeyA doesn't want the good names of any pro players used on this thread, I'll refrain from naming names.

Sportsmanship SHOULD be a integral part of the game, but alas, there are just way too many persons playing with a win-at-all-cost attitude. This is why my disposition of the game has changed over the course of the years.

Maniac

 

[JoeyA]

Very interesting thread.

How about a little twist?

I played in a weekly tournament last weekend. Late in the tournament (during my fourth match), I attempted to play a safety, as diagrammed here:

View attachment 285075

I was hoping to leave the CB safe underneath the 4, and I chose a speed that I believed would drive the 8 (or maybe the 2) to the side rail.

After noticing that neither the 2, 8, nor the CB hit a rail after the CB contacted the 2, I called a foul on myself.

My opponent stood up and informed me that I had NOT committed a foul. He reminded me that the CB had contacted the 1, then the CB hit two rails.

My own fatigue must have distracted me. I had clearly NOT committed a foul.

Shall we also introduce a rule requiring the opponent to re-declare a legal hit after the shooter has incorrectly self-called a foul?

...

My point is that however moral, inconsistent, argumentative, judgmental, or subjective our personal observations and actions are, my belief is that we must rely on true sportsmanship when playing matches without a dedicated referee.

It is my belief that we cannot reasonably rely on rules to dictate proper etiquette or behavior at the table.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions in this thread. However, I believe that we should rely on the players' integrity, even though we all know that not every player will respond appropriately.

I like the rules the way they are.

Obvious lack of integrity will result in obvious consequences.

I'm looking forward to reading the responses to this post.

-Blake

Blake,
You know I enjoy your posts. For now, I just want to ask you a couple of questions.

Why do you like the rules the way they are, as far as not particularly specifying that the shooter must call fouls on himself?

I agree that it would be nice if we could depend upon all of our opponents to exhibit true sportsmanship. Unfortunately, that isn't the case and that is one of the reasons we have rules. Rules govern how the game is played. My reasoning is that if the rules aren't specific, they will be subject to interpretation, as this rule is (calling a foul on one's self).

Perhaps we should adopt the 3 basic rules of a classroom.
• RESPECT YOURSELF • RESPECT OTHERS • RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

What obvious consequences are there for a player displaying a lack of integrity, such as not calling a foul on themselves when their opponent doesn't see the foul?

I'll answer that one myself but hope you will share your perspective as well. In reality the minor finger-waving that sometimes occurs when a player does not call a foul on themselves (especially a foul that is not observed by their opponent) does nothing for their opponent who suffers the most because of their decision to not call a foul on themselves.

JoeyA

 

[JoeyA]

IMO, the same goes for matches when playing WITH a referee!!!

I've seen matches (pros) that had a referee at the table that has gotten out of hand on many occasions (sportsmanship, poor etiquette, etc.). Because JoeyA doesn't want the good names of any pro players used on this thread, I'll refrain from naming names.

Sportsmanship SHOULD be a integral part of the game, but alas, there are just way too many persons playing with a win-at-all-cost attitude. This is why my disposition of the game has changed over the course of the years.

Maniac

Thank you Maniac for not "naming names." There really is no need of doing so. Indiscretions have been made by most players at one time or another for various reasons.

By specifying that when a referee is not present when a foul is committed, the shooter or the opponent are required to call the foul. This eliminates the excuse that the rules do not "require" the shooter to call a foul on themselves. I am not naïve enough to believe that a rule like this will eliminate outright cheating in this regard, but it will help to ostracize the bona fide cheaters who say that they are merely following the rules when they don't call a foul on themselves.

I know that there are MANY players who believe that they are following the rules when they don't call a foul on themselves. (This is what needs to be addressed).

JoeyA

 

[Ratta]

Everyone for himself has to live with it.
It s just about your personal attitude- what makes you feel better, so that YOU can finally live with it.
Dont expect sportsmenship from everyone-that would be frustrating. I had wonderful moments in 30 years of tournaments-and also moments where i was really angry, if not upset.

By far the sadest moment was, when i called myself a fould, where the referee could have never been able to see the foul.
You can feel good if you earn standing ovations in a final for this kind of sportsmenship....on the other side my own teammate was so pissed, that he left the club a week later....so in such moments you also learn to REALLY know someone.

lg
Ingo

 

[Petros Andrikop]

I really don't understand why things some times get complicated.
For the last time:
Do you want pool to move on and grow some time: call your own fouls, everybody, everytime, everywhere.
Do you want pool to stay behind forever: do not call your own fouls. Win some but don't complain after about "pool having no money", ever..

 

[AtLarge]

... Shall we also introduce a rule requiring the opponent to re-declare a legal hit after the shooter has incorrectly self-called a foul?

Your personal example of a "mindo" in calling a foul on yourself is something I mentioned earlier in the thread:

"In a refereed match, when a player thinks he has fouled and the ref does not call it, that player has an obligation to inform the ref of the foul. Now, it's possible that the player thinks he fouled when he really did not. [Example -- the ball the player is watching fails to hit a rail and the player thinks he fouled, but, in fact, he did hit a rail with another ball he didn't see.] So the player should inform the ref of the foul he thinks he committed. It is then up to the ref to make the call or not. If the player is sure he fouled and the ref won't call it (example -- he knows he touched a ball in an all-balls-foul match), he can continue play knowing that he fully satisfied his obligation. [Some people might even go so far as to make an obvious, compensatory foul at the next opportunity.]

In a non-refereed match, the obligation is to inform the opponent."​

So you should inform the ref or the opponent, and if you are mistaken they will, hopefully, correct you. Of course the unscrupulous opponent might hurry up to take his next shot before you realize the error of your call.

I'm guessing that your asking about placing a formal onus on the opponent to reveal that your call was in error is a bit tongue in cheek. But maybe it's just as sensible (i.e., not really necessary) as a formal onus on the shooter to volunteer that he thinks he fouled.

My point is that however moral, inconsistent, argumentative, judgmental, or subjective our personal observations and actions are, my belief is that we must rely on true sportsmanship when playing matches without a dedicated referee. ...

With and without a ref!

It is my belief that we cannot reasonably rely on rules to dictate proper etiquette or behavior at the table.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions in this thread. However, I believe that we should rely on the players' integrity, even though we all know that not every player will respond appropriately.

I like the rules the way they are. ...

Well, I won't rebut appeals for sportsmanship and integrity.

 

[rrick33]

Originally Posted by rrick33
Here is the rule from the WPA

"6. Fouls
The following actions are fouls at pool when included in the specific rules of the game being played. If several fouls occur on one shot, only the most serious one is enforced. If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened. "...

AtLarge replied:

"Come on, that last sentence is just to prevent squabbles later (or calling the foul later after other shots have been taken). It has nothing to do with the fact that properly observing the rules requires the shooter to notify the opponent or referee when the shooter thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee."

Don't you think you are assuming a lot in your statement?
How do you know that was the intention of that statement/rule?

I see it quite diffrently. Laws, just like rules are often written to minimize subjectivity while still allowing for a broad application.

For example, they might make a law that says it's illegal to hunt on Sundays. Therefore it is clear that you cannot hunt on one specific day but it leaves the door open to practicing or visiting the firing range on Sunday if you wish to fire your rifle so long as your not hunting.

The law is specific but opens the door to other broad applications that are perfectly legal. If they didn't want anyone to fire a rifle or hunt on Sundays, they would have included that in the law.

Now lets look at the ruling.....If the foul isn't called, then it's assumed that it didn't happen. This is very specific and also allows for broad application.

They could have very easily stated that if the foul isn't called you cannot pursue the penalty after the fact.....but they didn't say that. They intentionally used language that allowed for a broader interpretation.

Just like in my example referenced in the hunting law, any broad interpretation not specified in the rules is therefore LEGAL as long as it doesn't directly conflict with other rules.

I would contend that..... If this rule was only designed to prevent a player from comming back and trying to capitalize on a foul....it would have stated that. The language they used is so intentionally broad and even redefining to the foul itself that it had to be intentionally done so to allow for much broader interpretations.

We already know that there is no rule that requires you to self call a foul and the fact that the authors of the rule book intentionally worded the ruling to allow for a braod application of how fouls are defined...makes it clear to me that those who wrote the rules were not opposed to allowing a player to foul and let the cards fall where they may.

If your opponent calls the foul, then certain actions apply.
If your opponent doesn't call the foul, then a seperate set of actions may apply.

In either event there is no moral application!

One situation or the other will transpire and the rules dictate how to interpret those actions. Nothing more.

While you have not sided on the moral question....the truth of the matter is that there is no right or wrong in the equation for those who seem to think these principles apply. It's simply a matter of following the rules.

I could find nothing that says that properly observing the rules requires the shooter to notify the opponent or referee when the shooter thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee.

Perhaps you can reference this rule for me and then we will have clarity on the subject. It's not in the APA....was it in the WPA?

 

[rrick33]

Aha, a pun...How quaint.

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wake me when you have something intelligent to say.

 

[Masayoshi]

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wake me when you have something intelligent to say.

I take it you don't have any rebuttal to anything I have said? Thanks for the concession.

 

[rrick33]

Masayoshi, I see you're still fishing for a victory. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I don't believe there can be a winner here.

I think you're probably a very bright guy and if nothing else you are certainly dilligent. Both of there are good qualities; however, as long as you choose to infuse your moral perspective upon the literal application of the rules, then we will always be on oppositie sides of the fence.

No amount of debate will sway your opinion and I don't see my perspective changing either. I think the most that can be taken away from this argument is to simply agree that we disagree.

 

[scsuxci]

Originally Posted by rrick33
Here is the rule from the WPA

"6. Fouls
The following actions are fouls at pool when included in the specific rules of the game being played. If several fouls occur on one shot, only the most serious one is enforced. If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened. "...

AtLarge replied:

"Come on, that last sentence is just to prevent squabbles later (or calling the foul later after other shots have been taken). It has nothing to do with the fact that properly observing the rules requires the shooter to notify the opponent or referee when the shooter thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee."

Don't you think you are assuming a lot in your statement?
How do you know that was the intention of that statement/rule?

I see it quite diffrently. Laws, just like rules are often written to minimize subjectivity while still allowing for a broad application.

For example, they might make a law that says it's illegal to hunt on Sundays. Therefore it is clear that you cannot hunt on one specific day but it leaves the door open to practicing or visiting the firing range on Sunday if you wish to fire your rifle so long as your not hunting.

The law is specific but opens the door to other broad applications that are perfectly legal. If they didn't want anyone to fire a rifle or hunt on Sundays, they would have included that in the law.

Now lets look at the ruling.....If the foul isn't called, then it's assumed that it didn't happen. This is very specific and also allows for broad application.

They could have very easily stated that if the foul isn't called you cannot pursue the penalty after the fact.....but they didn't say that. They intentionally used language that allowed for a broader interpretation.

Just like in my example referenced in the hunting law, any broad interpretation not specified in the rules is therefore LEGAL as long as it doesn't directly conflict with other rules.

I would contend that..... If this rule was only designed to prevent a player from comming back and trying to capitalize on a foul....it would have stated that. The language they used is so intentionally broad and even redefining to the foul itself that it had to be intentionally done so to allow for much broader interpretations.

We already know that there is no rule that requires you to self call a foul and the fact that the authors of the rule book intentionally worded the ruling to allow for a braod application of how fouls are defined...makes it clear to me that those who wrote the rules were not opposed to allowing a player to foul and let the cards fall where they may.

If your opponent calls the foul, then certain actions apply.
If your opponent doesn't call the foul, then a seperate set of actions may apply.

In either event there is no moral application!

One situation or the other will transpire and the rules dictate how to interpret those actions. Nothing more.

While you have not sided on the moral question....the truth of the matter is that there is no right or wrong in the equation for those who seem to think these principles apply. It's simply a matter of following the rules.

I could find nothing that says that properly observing the rules requires the shooter to notify the opponent or referee when the shooter thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee.

Perhaps you can reference this rule for me and then we will have clarity on the subject. It's not in the APA....was it in the WPA?

Hunting is not even in the same realm as pool.Pool is suppose to be a gentlemans game.Like I've posted
earlier,rules are for the game,honesty is about the person.

I find it odd that this is even a debate.If you foul you foul and that's that.
There's no way to sugar-coat it or make it acceptable.
Don't get me wrong,the person still might get the win cause nobody noticed
the foul but it still doesn't mean a foul didn't occur.IMO its a crappy way to get
the W.