Excellent! Green to you.
What would you do?
- Thread starter TheMarsMan
- Start date
Excellent! Green to you.
Except none of those points issues the topic at hand.
You're so upset about the actual rules being posted and the subject at hand being clarified that you can't even compose a meaningful sentence. You really are talking to yourself. That must be the end result of repeatedly asserting that something which isn't is when everyone can see that it isn't including those who wrote the rules of pool.
That sentence was completely meaningful. Your post had nothing to do with this thread's topic. This thread's topic is in essence "Would you purposefully play a foul because you knew you could get away with it under current rules?"
Your post addressed the topic "Would you try to call a foul once you have already lost the opportunity to?" the unanimous answer to that question among posters in this thread was "No, we wouldn't." Therefore, bringing it up addresses nothing concerning the actual topic.
In this thread one thing you have done is try to imply that we would attempt to call a foul in that case, although we have all said that we would not. It is safe to assume that we are a better judge than you on how we would act in that situation, so you are wrong on that account.
The other point you were trying to push is that no foul occurs. This is also wrong for reasons addressed by me and PJ. If you don't understand why we are right and you are wrong, you should actually address our points rather than just re-post the same thing over and over again.
Besides those two things, the rests of your posts consist of ad-hominem attacks. Please refrain from doing that as it just makes you look like you have run out of things to say.
Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread? If you do, please go right ahead.
Last edited:
Softballmvp
Registered
This very thing happened to me in a league 8 ball match. I declared a ball frozen after playing a safety and opponent agreed. My opponent shot and missed. I took ball in hand, couldn't get out, played safety again. The opponent kicked at his ball and hit it dead on softly, nothing to a rail. I called a foul, and my opponent said no foul, a ball has to be declared frozen on every shot. And used the exact words "the table could be bumped or something and the ball could be moved". I had no problem with this, I didn't realize that was a rule, but it made sense. So according to many here, this was a shady move by my opponent. However, this opponent is in the VNEA hall of fame and was one of the nicest/honest guys you'd ever meet. I just considered it a lesson learned.
So do any of the people here arguing unsportsmanlike ever roll through a stop sign? Go 5 over the speed limit?
Variations on a Theme…
Because of you, and because there are people out there who like me love pool and the people who play it, and who don't think the rules are meant to be used to take advantage of others?
(Which "party", let alone "any", does this make me "inequitable to" exactly? That is, other than liars?)
Fact is, what I said could easily become a reality in the context of e.g. a European Championship (I've witnessed situations just like it). Let's say you did what you've been saying all along is in your opinion a rightful way to try and win a game, by rolling up to a ball frozen to a rail, which you feel you're free to do since your opponent didn't call the ball frozen, nor called for a referee. Seeing you shoot the shot, he does call a referee. You may say this is useless, but note it may never have crossed your opponent's mind that you'd have the audacity to do something like this. Player is now confronted with the problem that the rule is deliberately vague as to the instant of time:
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.
Scenario 1:
Referee: Did the cue ball contact the cushion after contact with the object ball?
Player: No.
Referee: Was the object ball frozen to the cushion?
Player: Yes. But nobody called it frozen.
Referee: You did. (Declares shot a foul = ball in hand for Opponent.)
Player tells truth = likely loss of game
(Referee may tell Player to think over his attitude, possibly remind him there are penalties for unsportsmanlike behaviour. He may also remind him that he need not wait for his opponent to call for an official - when in doubt, he may call for one himself.
And:
Referee may remind opponent to call an official before and not after a situations like these occur.)
Scenario 2:
Referee: Did the cue ball contact the cushion after contact with the object ball?
Player: No.
Referee: Was the object ball frozen to the cushion?
Player: No.
Referee: So the object ball was driven to the cushion after contact?
Player: Yes.
Referee: (Declares shot legal.)
Player lies = at an advantage to win the game
(Referee may remind opponent to call an official before and not after a situations like these occur.)
Scenario 3:
Referee: Did the cue ball contact the cushion after contact with the object ball?
Player: No.
Referee: Was the object ball frozen to the cushion?
Player: I don't know.
Referee: (Gives Player the look etc., ultimately forced to declare shot legal.)
Player lies = at an advantage to win the game
(Referee may tell Player to think over his attitude, possibly remind him there are penalties for unsportsmanlike behaviour. He may also remind him that he need not wait for his opponent to call for an official - when in doubt, he may call for one himself.
And:
Referee may remind opponent to call an official before and not after a situations like these occur.)
Bottom line: you lie = you win?
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
Because of you, and because there are people out there who like me love pool and the people who play it, and who don't think the rules are meant to be used to take advantage of others?
(Which "party", let alone "any", does this make me "inequitable to" exactly? That is, other than liars?)
Fact is, what I said could easily become a reality in the context of e.g. a European Championship (I've witnessed situations just like it). Let's say you did what you've been saying all along is in your opinion a rightful way to try and win a game, by rolling up to a ball frozen to a rail, which you feel you're free to do since your opponent didn't call the ball frozen, nor called for a referee. Seeing you shoot the shot, he does call a referee. You may say this is useless, but note it may never have crossed your opponent's mind that you'd have the audacity to do something like this. Player is now confronted with the problem that the rule is deliberately vague as to the instant of time:
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.
Scenario 1:
Referee: Did the cue ball contact the cushion after contact with the object ball?
Player: No.
Referee: Was the object ball frozen to the cushion?
Player: Yes. But nobody called it frozen.
Referee: You did. (Declares shot a foul = ball in hand for Opponent.)
Player tells truth = likely loss of game
(Referee may tell Player to think over his attitude, possibly remind him there are penalties for unsportsmanlike behaviour. He may also remind him that he need not wait for his opponent to call for an official - when in doubt, he may call for one himself.
And:
Referee may remind opponent to call an official before and not after a situations like these occur.)
Scenario 2:
Referee: Did the cue ball contact the cushion after contact with the object ball?
Player: No.
Referee: Was the object ball frozen to the cushion?
Player: No.
Referee: So the object ball was driven to the cushion after contact?
Player: Yes.
Referee: (Declares shot legal.)
Player lies = at an advantage to win the game
(Referee may remind opponent to call an official before and not after a situations like these occur.)
Scenario 3:
Referee: Did the cue ball contact the cushion after contact with the object ball?
Player: No.
Referee: Was the object ball frozen to the cushion?
Player: I don't know.
Referee: (Gives Player the look etc., ultimately forced to declare shot legal.)
Player lies = at an advantage to win the game
(Referee may tell Player to think over his attitude, possibly remind him there are penalties for unsportsmanlike behaviour. He may also remind him that he need not wait for his opponent to call for an official - when in doubt, he may call for one himself.
And:
Referee may remind opponent to call an official before and not after a situations like these occur.)
Bottom line: you lie = you win?
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
Whether or not it is a shady move, at least from the perspective of e.g. Snooker or European players, depends on his reply to your question if he thought the ball frozen when he rolled the cue ball up to it. One will learn all one needs to know about a guy's cold-bloodedness and contempt for his fellow men from his reply. I guess that's why the OP was curious to hear how people would answer his question.
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
Last edited:
LOL. You're arguing not hitting a rail is just a little foul?
Pool players.
pj
chgo
She's just a little pregnant…
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
There is no such thing as "this is only a foul only if the opponent called it".
An uncalled foul is still a foul, just like it's a foul if you tapped the cue ball and he failed to spot it, or you feel a push but it was difficult to see from the chair.
You can argue it's not your job to babysit him to make sure he's watching for fouls. I don't think it's his job to babysit you to make sure you're not cheating.
An uncalled foul is still a foul, just like it's a foul if you tapped the cue ball and he failed to spot it, or you feel a push but it was difficult to see from the chair.
You can argue it's not your job to babysit him to make sure he's watching for fouls. I don't think it's his job to babysit you to make sure you're not cheating.
This thread has got pulled in 2 directions.I understand what Risky
is saying that the rules are the rules and its not cheating if your
playing within them but the difference of this debate is,would you take
the shot knowing full well before hand that its really a bad hit?
Now I'll stress this again that your playing within the rules but if you
would take the shot,you may be within the rules but very unsportsman.
Anyone that would argue that this is acceptable would be that guy you
would have to watch like a Hawk.
is saying that the rules are the rules and its not cheating if your
playing within them but the difference of this debate is,would you take
the shot knowing full well before hand that its really a bad hit?
Now I'll stress this again that your playing within the rules but if you
would take the shot,you may be within the rules but very unsportsman.
Anyone that would argue that this is acceptable would be that guy you
would have to watch like a Hawk.
lol lol lol
The rule doesn't prevent you from admitting you fouled. That's your choice to make - and your character that's revealed.
pj
chgo
That is precisely the point. The rule is the rule. But at some point one will have to answer the question, be that to oneself, the opponent that trusts one is/were going to do the proper thing, the area referee that may have been called to late, and then, one will have to answer truthfully or lie.
There's a paradox here no one mentioned thus far: if the rule's meaning (= the spirit of the letter) were indeed that no foul is taking place if the ball were not called frozen beforehand (= note this is the part of the rule that is deliberately vague), that would mean the shooter effectively forfeits his right to call a foul on himself. That this is nonsense, of course.
The following has happened to me personally in a game of 8-Ball: the 8 being my last ball, and frozen to the rail, I had in mind for the cue ball to contact the 8 first, then the rail, snookering my opponent from his ball(s). I never had the intention to do roll the cue ball up to the 8 with no rail contact, but shooting slow, the table rolled off so bad, that's what happened. In all this, in a biweekly local tournament where there is very little money in it, but lots of pride, at least for some, like e.g. my opponent, who's known me for years, thus never bothered to get out of his chair, the ball was called frozen in my mind only - I forgot to speak out loud it was frozen because I was intent on playing a legal shot. Of course when the shot was over, my opponent got up from his chair with a look of inquiry on his face.
Now, if the RiskyBiz interpretation of the rule were correct, does everyone realize I could not call a foul on myself in this situation, because there in his opinion, the ball technically isn't frozen unless someone speaks it out loud (as if the ball suddenly metamorphosed into a state of frozenness the very moment the call is being declared). In other words, there would be no such thing as admitting in hindsight that one knows one fouled and is taking advantage from, no, not one's opponent's neglect or ignorance, but trust in one's sportsmanship, and politeness in not jumping out of his chair at any given moment, inspecting my every shot?
Excuse me, folks, but it's with pool rules just as with laws: there's letter and there's the spirit. That's why there's a need for judges, referees, fellow human beings with ethical and moral standards, and players with an innate sense of sportsmanship. There is legislature and executive, and what RiskyBiz is trying to deny is that it's the duty of everyone involved to try and do the right thing, or else, we're giving in to predatory instinct, reducing the idea of participating in a social sport to absurdity.
The truth of the matter is that one will have to answer the question, therefore decide whether one prefers to win lying (= one school of thought has it that anything worth winning is worth cheating), or prefers playing the game/participating in a sport (it is a game or sport, after all, keep that in mind when you temporarily forget what you're up to, and why you're even there) following the spirit as well as the letter of the rules.
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
Last edited:
A ball isn't frozen until called frozen, so there is no foul here.
Please try to remember we're playing by the rules, not your rules.
So until the rules are changed to your liking stop being silly and
questioning peoples character. It's your choice to not like the rules
and it's your character I must question if you are trying to blame
someone for playing by the current rules, just because you happen to
dislike them.
PS, Does questioning other peoples character, give you a feeling of self-
-importance? So sad! Or is it just a slow day in the Aiming Sub Forum?
Last edited:
If a ball isn't frozen until called frozen how can it be called frozen?
Easily you speak and say that balls frozen! You can even point at the ball as you say it!!! WOW
Tap, tap, tap!! :grin:
(Letter of the rule: a ball that's called frozen is a frozen ball. Spirit of the rule: a ball that is frozen is called a frozen ball.)
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
Last edited:
Hi MarsMan i am totally agreed with you, I think in this situation there should be one umpire......ha ha..............you are absolutely right according to the rule