What would you do?

[acousticsguru]

No, David, actually a moral and ethical person would gladly offer water to another human being dying of thirst no matter how they perceive the other human being. A moral and ethical person would certainly never even imply watching another human being die of thirst because that person simply followed the rules of pool. You're so beyond the pale with this attitude of yours that it is truly astounding. Morals and ethics 101. Your self-centered mind didn't even grasp this until I mentioned how glaringly unethical it is. Now you're back pedaling at a couple of hundred miles an hour.

You're continuing to insult me to no avail, sir. I have no intention of descending to your standards.

But you finally got one aspect right: an ethical and moral person will always offer water to the thirsty, same as do the right thing in all ways of life, such as a little, seemingly negligible situation in pool, where a rule seemingly gives one the right to take advantage of others, even if despite one's better judgement.

You deliberately ignore what I was getting at: we're talking about the other person's attitude, remember? The one who's thirsty and realizes he or she has been leading a life of taking advantage of others, and is now reduced to the realization that he or she is appealing to the moral and ethical behaviour of others that he or she him-/herself has always denied others. That, and only that, is what I am talking about.

But then, you got that on the first attempt, remember? Feel free to continue denying it.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[Aaron_S]

Wow, I can't believe this is still going.

Aside from all the flaming, it seems there are two main problems with this conversation. One is revolving around the ball being frozen or not versus the ball being called frozen or not. Obviously a ball can be touching the cushion without anyone's permission or agreement about it. A point I made early in this thread, however, is that the rules seem to state that the frozen ball rule is not in effect until the ball has been called frozen. If this is true, and a player shoots a shot on a ball that is touching the cushion but has not been called frozen, the rules are telling us that this cannot be a foul since the frozen ball rule was not in effect. This is a strict, to-the-letter interpretation of the rules with no consideration given to ethics or morals, which brings me to the second problem with this conversation.

I believe there are several scenarios where a player is allowed to do things within the rules that some others could possibly question the morality of. Two examples: 1) the frozen ball rule that allows a player to stroke through a ball that is frozen to the cueball - IIRC, they use this rule at the DCC. I don't see how it can't be a double hit when the cueball takes off with velocity that it could not have acquired from top spin, but is it immoral for a person to shoot the shot this way when the rules allow it? 2) ring game rules explicitly state that players must attempt to pocket a ball on every shot and no deliberate safeties are allowed, but there are many cases where a player may play a two-way shot, and be guaranteed to not leave the next player an open shot if he misses. Danny D. calls these "moral safes", but are they really?

One could argue that the rules of the game are the definitive source for "pool morality", and anything allowed in the rules is therefore moral. Others would say that a player should rely on their innate sense of morality and use that as a guideline. These are philosophical questions, not unlike those surrounding religious-based morality versus law-based morality versus innate morality, which have been debated for thousands of years. I don't really see the value in trying to solve those problems here. In the most practical sense, I think all we can do as players is be aware of the rules and the potential loopholes in them, and protect ourselves at all times.

Aaron

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the rules seem to state that the frozen ball rule is not in effect until the ball has been called frozen. If this is true, and a player shoots a shot on a ball that is touching the cushion but has not been called frozen, the rules are telling us that this cannot be a foul since the frozen ball rule was not in effect.

The reason a ball isn't "officially" frozen unless declared so is to avoid arguments after the fact, not to relieve the shooter of his moral obligation to admit a foul he knows he committed. A foul is a foul even if the rules can't find a way to force you to admit it.

...the frozen ball rule that allows a player to stroke through a ball that is frozen to the cueball - IIRC, they use this rule at the DCC. I don't see how it can't be a double hit when the cueball takes off with velocity that it could not have acquired from top spin

You should watch a highspeed video of that - it might change your mind. There's clearly no double hit or push; the two balls just behave as if they're one.

pj
chgo

 

[acousticsguru]

One could argue that the rules of the game are the definitive source for "pool morality", and anything allowed in the rules is therefore moral. Others would say that a player should rely on their innate sense of morality and use that as a guideline. These are philosophical questions, not unlike those surrounding religious-based morality versus law-based morality versus innate morality, which have been debated for thousands of years. I don't really see the value in trying to solve those problems here. In the most practical sense, I think all we can do as players is be aware of the rules and the potential loopholes in them, and protect ourselves at all times.

Aaron

That's what this discussion is about, and you're adding to it, and you're right, except that this is as good a place to discuss this as any. The potential loopholes you're alluding to, does everyone know them, and if not, does one need to learn them the hard way, that is, by falling prey to people taking advantage of their ignorance, or worse, their belief in sportsmanship being a sine qua non?

Here in Europe, we're mainly seeing Snooker on telly (televised pool is exceedingly rare), where the sportsmanship is such that players will not only call fouls on themselves that even a professional referee standing next to them missed, they'll even point to a potential problem before the fact, and no, not when it's their opponent's turn and they're sitting on the electric chair!

In other words, spectators as well as players are unaware of the "will do anything to win" attitude more often observed among pool players (where "anything" ranges within a spectrum from obeying the letter of the law to making sure one's not getting caught). Mind you, sometimes the very same players who'll complain that pool doesn't get the attention, exposure, sponsorship, price money (you name it…) that Snooker does!

It's a paradox: since these people won't respect for their fellow men (which is not the same as to act by the rules!), how could they expect to be paid respect?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[pt109]

You're still in denial: "To stick to the letter of the law but forget the spirit of it" - that is hypocrisy. To think that the purpose of the corpus juris, or a set of billiards rules, is meant to be dissected looking for loopholes to justify not one's ignorance of what they're meant to convey, but one's very abnegation of what they're meant to convey, that is hypocrisy! Of course I realize I'm not telling you anything new: that you continue to be on the defense says it all. You know.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

I think 'Risky' is a pretty good guy and his musing on this subject is more
about the 'math' than how he actually conducts his affairs.
...and his 'musing' was well worth it if it draws out a good post like yours,
David.

thanx for the 'alp'

 

[Aaron_S]

The reason a ball isn't "officially" frozen unless declared so is to avoid arguments after the fact, not to relieve the shooter of his moral obligation to admit a foul he knows he committed. A foul is a foul even if the rules can't find a way to force you to admit it.


You should watch a highspeed video of that - it might change your mind. There's clearly no double hit or push; the two balls just behave as if they're one.

pj
chgo

I'm just trying to inject a little realism here to offset the idealism of believing that pool players are always going to do what they should. I've played way to much tournament and money pool to believe that, and I would have thought that you had too. If the rules don't give us a way to enforce a foul, then we can't enforce it, period. The simple truth is that the wolves among us will shoot the shot because they know they can do so with impunity, the sheep will cry about how immoral the wolf is and console each other by saying things like "Who would do such a thing?", and the sheepdogs will learn to protect themselves and others from the situation. I think the rule could be written to remove the loophole, but in the meantime I will be the realistic sheepdog rather than the idealistic sheep who thinks wolves either a) don't exist, or b) should have the moral fortitude to deny their urge to eat me. :wink:

I doubt I would change my opinion on that shot. If the CB chases after the OB at the same velocity regardless of whether I hit it low, center, or high, I just don't see how it can't be a double hit. It seems that snooker's "shoot away" rule is more appropriate, and I share snooker players' incredulity at this particular pool rule.

Aaron

 

[Celophanewrap]

As it is my opponents responsibility to call the ball frozen I won't even look at it unless he calls it frozen so this all gets settled before the shot is taken. Anytime I'm the sitting player and I see an object ball near the rail I take it upon myself to check, I expect no less from my opposing player. If he/she doesn't think it's frozen and it isn't close enough to stand up and check then that's what we both live with.

 

[pt109]

I'm just trying to inject a little realism here to offset the idealism of believing that pool players are always going to do what they should. I've played way to much tournament and money pool to believe that, and I would have thought that you had too. If the rules don't give us a way to enforce a foul, then we can't enforce it, period. The simple truth is that the wolves among us will shoot the shot because they know they can do so with impunity, the sheep will cry about how immoral the wolf is and console each other by saying things like "Who would do such a thing?", and the sheepdogs will learn to protect themselves and others from the situation. I think the rule could be written to remove the loophole, but in the meantime I will be the realistic sheepdog rather than the idealistic sheep who thinks wolves either a) don't exist, or b) should have the moral fortitude to deny their urge to eat me. :wink:

I doubt I would change my opinion on that shot. If the CB chases after the OB at the same velocity regardless of whether I hit it low, center, or high, I just don't see how it can't be a double hit. It seems that snooker's "shoot away" rule is more appropriate, and I share snooker players' incredulity at this particular pool rule.

Aaron

An excellent post...I like your 'sheep-dog' analogy.

But I like how pool handles shooting a ball froze to the cue-ball.
I've played lots of snooker, and when the 'pool' way is mentioned
disdainfully, I remind them of the 'masse' shot, especially the 'grand
masse'....it's a far more suspect hit than shooting a frozen ball, but
accepted in every game.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm just trying to inject a little realism here to offset the idealism of believing that pool players are always going to do what they should.

I haven't heard anybody say they believe that. Idealism isn't believing everybody will act idealistically; it's believing they should.

If the rules don't give us a way to enforce a foul, then we can't enforce it, period.

Of course that's why the rule is written the way it is. But we shouldn't mistake that for official approval to willfully skirt the rule's intent.

I think the rule could be written to remove the loophole

I'm not so sure, but if so I hope somebody rewrites it.

...in the meantime I will be the realistic sheepdog rather than the idealistic sheep who thinks wolves either a) don't exist, or b) should have the moral fortitude to deny their urge to eat me. :wink:

Advocating for the intent of the rule is not being "idealistic sheep" - any more than being realistic about what you expect players to do is advocating dishonesty.

I doubt I would change my opinion on that shot. If the CB chases after the OB at the same velocity regardless of whether I hit it low, center, or high, I just don't see how it can't be a double hit.

That's why I suggested you look at the high speed video - so you'll see how. Sorry I don't have a link handy.

pj
chgo

 

[franko]

I

No. It's cheating even if you don't get caught.

I agree , I want to win , but not by cheating.

 

[risky biz]

I agree , I want to win , but not by cheating.

Then don't roll up against a ball that's been called frozen and hope no one will notice.

 

[risky biz]

All in all, I think this is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen at AZ.

Scenario 1: I attempt to roll a ball up against the cushion to freeze it to the cushion. But then I don't step around to see if I was successful. I just go sit down on the other side of the table and wait for the other player to call it for me. He then rolls up against the ball and calls it frozen. I then yell, "It was frozen when I shot it!" I lose the argument because I didn't follow the rules of pool so I go home, post a poll at AZ that I can hand carry back to the next game to show the other player that he's an immoral SOB because all these geniuses agree with me and the rules of pool are irrelevant to geniuses like us. And, yes, we know it was frozen. We don't have to look at it to know that.

Scenario 2: I attempt to roll a ball up against the cushion to freeze it to the cushion. I step around to verify that I succeeded, I call it frozen and the other player assents to this. Problem solved.

Scenario 3: I attempt to roll a ball up against the cushion to freeze it to the cushion. But then I don't step around to see if I was successful. I just go sit down on the other side of the table and wait for the other player to call it for me. He then rolls up against the ball and calls it frozen. I say to myself, "Those are the rules of pool." Problem solved.

I'm scenario 2 & 3, all the way. If you're scenario 1 please, please, please- wipe your tears and go home.

 

[risky biz]

The reason a ball isn't "officially" frozen unless declared so is to avoid arguments after the fact, not to relieve the shooter of his moral obligation to admit a foul he knows he committed. A foul is a foul even if the rules can't find a way to force you to admit it.

pj
chgo

There was no foul if the ball wasn't called frozen. You, also, it seems, persist in pretending there is a foul. The rules determine if there was a foul and the rules say there isn't a foul if the ball wasn't called frozen. Some people here are getting very anxious over the fact that not everyone is enthusiastic about pretending with them.

 

[deanoc]

retracted opinion

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There was no foul if the ball wasn't called frozen.

If a thief gets off on a technicality, was nothing stolen?

The rules determine if there was a foul

The rule has two parts. The first part says a foul occurs when a ball is frozen to the rail and no other rail contact occurs. The second merely regulates how to avoid disputes about whether or not the ball is frozen. If you call the foul on yourself there's no dispute, so the second part of the rule doesn't apply.

...the rules say there isn't a foul if the ball wasn't called frozen.

The rules say the shooter can't be convicted by others of the foul if the ball wasn't called frozen - it doesn't say he can't confess. The shooter can get off on a technicality, but that doesn't change whether or not a foul was actually committed.

Some people here are getting very anxious over the fact that not everyone is enthusiastic about pretending with them.

The question is, who's doing the pretending?

pj
chgo

 

[acousticsguru]

Then don't roll up against a ball that's been called frozen and hope no one will notice.

You're doing this on purpose, right? If it's been called frozen (by either player or the referee), rolling up to it without another object ball or the cue ball touching a rail, it's a foul no matter what, and if one insisted it were not, in the presence of a ref, one would get a penalty for unsportsmanlike behaviour, and be told to shut up or forfeit the match and leave the premises.

This whole thread is based on the assumption that the shooter knows the ball is frozen, that no one calls it so, and whether or not it's OK for the shooter to take advantage of the situation and do something he or she knows is a foul because he or she assumes no one notices. In other words, is it OK to do something against one's better judgement to win, and is winning a matter of doing anything one can as long as one is not being caught.

Oh, and by the way: a foul is a foul is a foul. One of the refs at the European Championships told me that rules are like laws, drawing upon the player's assumed experience, in other words, you'd never get away with qualifying for an event like that, participate, and claim you "didn't know one wasn't allowed to do this" or crap like "well, now that my silly opponent didn't call you over to our table, and you didn't call the ball frozen, I'm right because he forgot, correct?" All he'll do is stare at you intently, asking calmly: "are you telling me you don't know the frozen ball rule, and are trying to take advantage of your so-called ignorance?"

In a worst case scenario, at least from the perspective of the likes of you, the referee will tell you that you're right, remind your opponent that he or she should call a referee over before and not after the fact, and calmly rack the balls, awarding the point to your opponent, and you had better not complain for fear of getting an additional penalty for unsportsmanlike behaviour!

You seem to forget you have only two choices from your perspective: first to lie claiming you didn't know the rule, or secondly, to lie when you're being asked if the ball was frozen, because you won't get away saying, "dunno" and "why is this important"?

In short, you'll eventually have to answer the question - getting all defensive and evasive there won't help. And when you do, better don't get caught lying! After all, when you do stuff like that to your opponents, are you always making sure no ref's been looking on?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[risky biz]

If a thief gets off on a technicality, was nothing stolen?

You are engaging in a misdirection and a clumsy one at that.

A thief may "get off" on a technicality but you cannot claim that someone "stole" something from you without first establishing that the property in question was actually your property by legal right. If someone picks fruit from a tree that is not owned by you or anyone else you cannot claim that the person is stealing from you or anyone else and you would also be way out of line to claim that they are somehow "immoral" or "unethical". That would be nutty or, in this case, fruity.

In the same manner, by the rules of pool, you can establish legal ownership by having a ball called frozen prior to your opponent's shot. You can, the referee can, or, your opponent can, but your opponent is not required to help you establish that legal ownership. The rules of pool regarding this are simple as hell and are covered in about eight short sentences rather than the torturous half dozen pages we see being expended by people here claiming that the rules of pool aren't good enough and that they should have the personal right to determine that someone is "unethical' or "immoral" even when they follow the rules of pool. They are the ones who are unethical and immoral when they claim the "right" to be above the rules of pool. In short, that's fruity and pretty overripe at that.

The rule has two parts. The first part says a foul occurs when a ball is frozen to the rail and no other rail contact occurs. The second merely regulates how to avoid disputes about whether or not the ball is frozen. If you call the foul on yourself there's no dispute, so the second part of the rule doesn't apply.

The rules say the shooter can't be convicted by others of the foul if the ball wasn't called frozen - it doesn't say he can't confess. The shooter can get off on a technicality, but that doesn't change whether or not a foul was actually committed.

"Convicted by others"? Your imagination is running wild now. There is no "convicting" in the rules. You're making up rules as you wander along.

Getting back to the rules of pool a foul cannot be called against someone if they didn't commit a foul. If a ball was not called frozen there was no foul therefore (quite logically, I might add) no foul can be called against them nor can they be "convicted" by an "above the rules" kangaroo court that claims the right to make it's own rules.

The question is, who's doing the pretending?
pj
chgo

Quite clearly you are. You are pretending to be above the rules, you are pretending you have the right to imply that others are "immoral" or "unethical" for the mere act of obeying the rules of pool, and you are pretending that following the rules of pool is equivalent to a crime. That's actually a little creepy.

The rules:

6.3 No Rail after Contact
If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=121&pagetype=rules#6.7


8.4 Driven to a Rail
A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=123&pagetype=rules#8.4


27. Calling Frozen Balls
The referee should be careful to inspect and announce the status of any object ball that might be frozen to a cushion and the cue ball when it might be frozen to a ball. The seated player may remind the referee that such a call is necessary. The shooter must allow time for such a determination to be asked for and made, and may ask for the call himself.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=10&pagetype=static_content#27

 

[risky biz]

You're doing this on purpose, right? If it's been called frozen (by either player or the referee), rolling up to it without another object ball or the cue ball touching a rail, it's a foul no matter what, and if one insisted it were not, in the presence of a ref, one would get a penalty for unsportsmanlike behaviour, and be told to shut up or forfeit the match and leave the premises.

This whole thread is based on the assumption that the shooter knows the ball is frozen, that no one calls it so, and whether or not it's OK for the shooter to take advantage of the situation and do something he or she knows is a foul because he or she assumes no one notices. In other words, is it OK to do something against one's better judgement to win, and is winning a matter of doing anything one can as long as one is not being caught.

Oh, and by the way: a foul is a foul is a foul. One of the refs at the European Championships told me that rules are like laws, drawing upon the player's assumed experience, in other words, you'd never get away with qualifying for an event like that, participate, and claim you "didn't know one wasn't allowed to do this" or crap like "well, now that my silly opponent didn't call you over to our table, and you didn't call the ball frozen, I'm right because he forgot, correct?" All he'll do is stare at you intently, asking calmly: "are you telling me you don't know the frozen ball rule, and are trying to take advantage of your so-called ignorance?"

In a worst case scenario, at least from the perspective of the likes of you, the referee will tell you that you're right, remind your opponent that he or she should call a referee over before and not after the fact, and calmly rack the balls, awarding the point to your opponent, and you had better not complain for fear of getting an additional penalty for unsportsmanlike behaviour!

You seem to forget you have only two choices from your perspective: first to lie claiming you didn't know the rule, or secondly, to lie when you're being asked if the ball was frozen, because you won't get away saying, "dunno" and "why is this important"?

In short, you'll eventually have to answer the question - getting all defensive and evasive there won't help. And when you do, better don't get caught lying! After all, when you do stuff like that to your opponents, are you always making sure no ref's been looking on?

That's quite a souffle you think you whipped up there but it's all imaginary. The rules of pool are posted directly above and you can post and post until hell freezes over but you'll never get around the fact that you want to ignore the simple (and elegant) rules of pool regarding this subject written by people whose main objective was to be equitable to both parties.

Your problem is that you want to be inequitable to some party, any party, and you're trying to turn this subject into a sledgehammer to hit someone over the head with. You should be asking yourself why that is.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

risky biz:
...you are pretending you have the right to imply that others are "immoral" or "unethical" for the mere act of obeying the rules of pool, and you are pretending that following the rules of pool is equivalent to a crime. That's actually a little creepy.

The question here is whether or not you'd call a foul on yourself. You're apparently admitting you wouldn't.

Do that often enough and you'll find out who's considered creepy.

pj
chgo

 

[backplaying]

All in all, I think this is one of the silliest threads I've ever seen at AZ.

Scenario 1: I attempt to roll a ball up against the cushion to freeze it to the cushion. But then I don't step around to see if I was successful. I just go sit down on the other side of the table and wait for the other player to call it for me. He then rolls up against the ball and calls it frozen. I then yell, "It was frozen when I shot it!" I lose the argument because I didn't follow the rules of pool so I go home, post a poll at AZ that I can hand carry back to the next game to show the other player that he's an immoral SOB because all these geniuses agree with me and the rules of pool are irrelevant to geniuses like us. And, yes, we know it was frozen. We don't have to look at it to know that.

Scenario 2: I attempt to roll a ball up against the cushion to freeze it to the cushion. I step around to verify that I succeeded, I call it frozen and the other player assents to this. Problem solved.

Scenario 3: I attempt to roll a ball up against the cushion to freeze it to the cushion. But then I don't step around to see if I was successful. I just go sit down on the other side of the table and wait for the other player to call it for me. He then rolls up against the ball and calls it frozen. I say to myself, "Those are the rules of pool." Problem solved.

I'm scenario 2 & 3, all the way. If you're scenario 1 please, please, please- wipe your tears and go home.

This sums it up perfectly. Anyone who really plays already knows this.