When to tell a player he is on 2....

Yeah Fran, the notification rule currently does apply in straight pool and you are right, forgetting to notify is more apt to happen due to the substantial time that can occur between you opponent's 2nd foul and his next inning.

On the other hand though, is it really that difficult to remember to inform your opponent he's on two? I mean the real problem is to remember he's on two. If you remember that, it shouldn't be too difficult to remember to inform him. If you don't remember yourself he's on two then what difference does it make? You're not going to be aware the next foul is the third to call it on him anyway.

Having said that, it wouldn't bother me terribly if they changed the rule so you can inform him immediately after the 2nd foul.
 
Last edited:
ha ha

how can an unwarned third foul become 2 fouls?? did you warn them on 1 foul. what a bunch of bs.
 
making it a 2nd foul kinda acknowleges the fact that its a third foul. lol . This requires remembering the first foul which was even longer ago. dumass rule
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
... Having said that, it wouldn't bother me terribly if they changed the rule so you can inform him immediately after the 2nd foul.
Click to expand...
Then if you're playing 14.1 he says, "I haven't shot for 3 racks. I ended my last inning on a legal safe so that was not my third foul, it was my first," because that's the way he remembers it. If you remind him as he approaches the table while on two, you can have the earnest discussion before rather than after he shoots. At nine ball, the time between fouls is not as long, but I still think you should tell him as he comes to the table -- or rather the referee should. Even better would be a marker by the table to indicate that he is on two so no verbal warning is required.
 
TheNewSharkster said:
If I tell my opponent that he is on two fouls during my turn and he then proceeds to commit a foul he isn't really on 3?!? WTF has this world come to? This isn't rocket science and the responsibility to remember should be put on the guy who keeps committing fouls.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why people keep saying this. THIS is the ENTIRE point of the rule.... the player who is trying to get a guy on 3, it is HIS responsibility to remember and tell the guy.

I highly disagree with the "distracting" argument too. I mean, maybe it is "distracting" to have to break up a cluster on the table to run out too, but there are just certain things you must do in a game of pool to win.

Anyway, I truly don't see any problem with the way they have written the rule..... and i'm very picky too, believe me.
 
jay helfert said:
BALONEY! One more "official" who wants to let you know that he knows it all. If you warn him, you warn him, and that's it. Once is enough, I don't care when you do it, as long as it's before he shoots again. Tell that "official" to keep his day job. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are an island of common sense in a sea of stupidity.

It shouldn't make an difference so long as it is before he shoots. The people getting anal about this stuff can't win with their cue so they try to win with a rule book.
 
alstl said:
You are an island of common sense in a sea of stupidity. ...
Click to expand...
Well, no, actually. The way to avoid arguments is to do as JBKY suggests: note the second foul when it happens and as he approaches the table for possibly his third foul.
 
I prefer to tell and be told right after the second foul has been committed- and NOT right before the fouler comes up to the table.

I've been in many arguments over the warning before- where you have to remind them exactly how the first foul was committed before they'll accept the warning.

If you wait til the person goes to shoot again, you have to remind them exactly how the second foul happened, too, AND prove that they didn't have a legal shot between the two.

Worse, you can get accused of sharking by waiting until right before they walk up to the table to tell them they're on two.

There's no way to avoid an argument. In the heat of the moment, full of competition and embarrassment, they're going to argue whatever you do.

I much prefer to say something right after foul #2- get that conversation out of the way so you both can get focused on the table and game again.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Yeah Fran, the notification rule currently does apply in straight pool and you are right, forgetting to notify is more apt to happen due to the substantial time that can occur between you opponent's 2nd foul and his next inning.

On the other hand though, is it really that difficult to remember to inform your opponent he's on two? I mean the real problem is to remember he's on two. If you remember that, it shouldn't be too difficult to remember to inform him. If you don't remember yourself he's on two then what difference does it make? You're not going to be aware the next foul is the third to call it on him anyway.

Having said that, it wouldn't bother me terribly if they changed the rule so you can inform him immediately after the 2nd foul.
Click to expand...

The reason why I think the rule is wrong is the same reason as to why it's wrong for a TD to ask a player if he would consider playing a match even though his oponent showed up after the 15 minute grace period.

The burdon of responsibility regarding an infraction should not be on the shoulders of the player who did not commit the infraction. Although it's impossible to avoid involvement with your opponent's infractions all the time, the amount of involvement should be minimal and not tilted in favor of the player who committed the infraction.
 
FranCrimi said:
The reason why I think the rule is wrong is the same reason as to why it's wrong for a TD to ask a player if he would consider playing a match even though his oponent showed up after the 15 minute grace period.

The burdon of responsibility regarding an infraction should not be on the shoulders of the player who did not commit the infraction. Although it's impossible to avoid involvement with your opponent's infractions all the time, the amount of involvement should be minimal and not tilted in favor of the player who committed the infraction.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but not saying anything may often lead to disputes when the 3rd foul is called. If you are not required to inform your opponent and you do (say to avoid an argument) then the notification could definitely be looked at as a move rather than a courtesy. In that regard the rule protects you from that by requiring you to make notification.

It would be much simpler if fouls were marked like in one pocket. Then there can be no dispute.
 
cuesmith said:
Jay, I usually find your comments to be accurate but unless you can site something that proves your stance on this I'll have to agree with everything I've ever seen on the topic that, you must tell your opponent when it's his inning that "he's on 2" and make sure he acknowledges. Telling him when he commits the second foul is just a courtesy to make sure you're on the same page, the one that counts is when he approaches the table to shoot.

Sherm
Click to expand...

Sherm, I can cite thirty years of working tournaments as my best reference. In all those years one warning has been sufficient to let a player know he's on TWO. I have never seen ANY circumstance where a player needed to be warned again after he was already warned once earlier. These are simply not the rules we have played tournament pool by all these years. Once again, a warning is a warning, PERIOD!

If this situation ever came up (and it hasn't yet) in a tournament that I was working, I would ask both players if the player on two fouls had been warned. It they both answer affirmatively, then the third foul would be enforced and BIH given. Pretty easy call in my book.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Well yes, but not saying anything may often lead to disputes when the 3rd foul is called. If you are not required to inform your opponent and you do (say to avoid an argument) then the notification could definitely be looked at as a move rather than a courtesy. In that regard the rule protects you from that by requiring you to make notification.

It would be much simpler if fouls were marked like in one pocket. Then there can be no dispute.
Click to expand...

I agree. Not saying anything would not be good, which is why i'm suggesting that the rule be that the person who is on 2 fouls must verbally acknowledge it. If they turn to their opponent and state that they are on two, then no more need be said.

It's the timing of it all that presently messes up the rule. If the opponent must get involved, then he should have the option to tell the person who fouled immediately after the 2nd foul. That would be minimum involvement on the part of the opponent and the most fair.
 
jay helfert said:
Sherm, I can cite thirty years of working tournaments as my best reference. In all those years one warning has been sufficient to let a player know he's on TWO. I have never seen ANY circumstance where a player needed to be warned again after he was already warned once earlier. These are simply not the rules we have played tournament pool by all these years. Once again, a warning is a warning, PERIOD!

If this situation ever came up (and it hasn't yet) in a tournament that I was working, I would ask both players if the player on two fouls had been warned. It they both answer affirmatively, then the third foul would be enforced and BIH given. Pretty easy call in my book.
Click to expand...

It happened to me in a 14.1 league match last season. I had forgotten that the rule was only changed by the WPBA and not the WPA/BCA and I warned my opponent he was on 2 right after his 2nd foul and he acknowledged it. After my turn at the table, he fouled for the 3rd time but claimed he had forgotten he was on 2 and I hadn't warned him again just before his turn.

The LO, Danny Barouty, upheld the WPA rule and my opponent did not have to pay the penalty of the 3rd foul. Danny was right to uphold the rule since we are playing by World Standardized Rules, however, the rule is clearly flawed.
 
jay helfert said:
Sherm, I can cite thirty years of working tournaments as my best reference. In all those years one warning has been sufficient to let a player know he's on TWO. I have never seen ANY circumstance where a player needed to be warned again after he was already warned once earlier. These are simply not the rules we have played tournament pool by all these years. Once again, a warning is a warning, PERIOD!

If this situation ever came up (and it hasn't yet) in a tournament that I was working, I would ask both players if the player on two fouls had been warned. It they both answer affirmatively, then the third foul would be enforced and BIH given. Pretty easy call in my book.
Click to expand...

The rules dictate a different result and they were enforced that way a few years back in the World Straight Pool Championships.

Dechaine warned Schmidt he was on two, then Dechaine got up and ran a bunch of balls. Schmidt came to the table and scratched. Dechaine said that's three. Schmidt said omg, you are right. Then he says, wait a minute, did you warn me? Long story short, the tournament director came over, asked if John was warned after Mike's last turn, and ruled that the warning was insufficient and that John was only on two.

I think it was the same year, Alan Hopkins was on two with Ortmann. I believe Hopkins jumped to the table after Ortmann was done and shot quickly. It was a foul and would have been a third foul but Ortmann had not warned him, so it was only counted as Hopkins second.

Tough rulings. It happens in our leagues once in a while.

I usually try to educate my opponent by saying "Isn't there something you wanted to tell me?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top