What would you do?

Would you shoot the shot?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 21.8%

  • No

    Votes: 111 78.2%
  • Total voters
    142
scsuxci said:
Its either a yes or a no.If you could get away with it would you shoot it?
Click to expand...

How does someone "get away" with following the rules of pool? It's properly and accurately described as playing according to the rules of pool.

If you think the rules of pool are "immoral" or "unethical" you should e-mail whoever it is at the WPA that formulates the rules. Think twice about that, though. They might send a social agency out for a home check. Who knows what could happen when that train starts rolling?
 
risky biz said:
How does someone "get away" with following the rules of pool? It's properly and accurately described as playing according to the rules of pool.

If you think the rules of pool are "immoral" or "unethical" you should e-mail whoever it is at the WPA that formulates the rules. Think twice about that, though. They might send a social agency out for a home check. Who knows what could happen when that train starts rolling?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why this thread is so hard to understand.I'm not saying your wrong,according to the rules you are right,so lets lay that part to rest,you are right!If your opponent doesn't check to see if the ball is frozen but you know its frozen,would you shoot the shot knowing its actually no good?Thats my only question,this is strictly about the individual.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsuxci
My point was if I hit all the balls with my hand it wouldn't be a foul by the rules but it still would of made me a a--hole.
Click to expand...

itsfroze said:
In most tournaments even when you're playing cue ball fouls only, if you move more than one object ball it's still a foul.
Click to expand...

OMG. No more real rules. Their heads are already exploding with the simple real frozen ball rule. :shocked2:
 
scsuxci said:
Maybe it the way I read the OP's question but I thought he was asking if my opponent didn't notice something would I shoot a shot knowing it was really a bad hit?I'm not saying you would cheat,but
I would hope nobody would take a shot knowing full well its a bad hit.
I'm guessing by the poll taken,most people read the question the same way I did.Not a big deal, just wondering.
Click to expand...

That's the poll, but if this came up in a tournament the ref would side against those people all the time because what their saying isn't the rule but the way they would like the rule to be, understand. If you're playing in a tournament and a ball is close to the rail you need to get yourself up there and call the ball frozen if indeed it is or just except that you will
lose the out come of the call if you don't. That is the rule, like it or not>
 
scsuxci said:
I'm not sure why this thread is so hard to understand.I'm not saying your wrong,according to the rules you are right,so lets lay that part to rest,you are right!If your opponent doesn't check to see if the ball is frozen but you know its frozen,would you shoot the shot knowing its actually no good?Thats my only question,this is strictly about the individual.
Click to expand...

1) Why would the shot be "actually" no good?

2) Are the rules of pool not "actual" in whatever world you think you're living in?
 
itsfroze said:
That's the poll, but if this came up in a tournament the ref would side against those people all the time because what their saying isn't the rule but the way they would like the rule to be, understand. If you're playing in a tournament and a ball is close to the rail you need to get yourself up there and call the ball frozen if indeed it is or just except that you will
lose the out come of the call if you don't. That is the rule, like it or not>
Click to expand...
I agree with totally.I was curious how many guys would shoot a shot they knew was really bad.Its like would you call a foul on yourself?I know I have,but was curious about others.
 
scsuxci said:
I agree with totally.I was curious how many guys would shoot a shot they knew was really bad.Its like would you call a foul on yourself?I know I have,but was curious about others.
Click to expand...

Why would you shoot the shot in the first place while planning to call a foul on yourself (which, by the way, you wouldn't be able to since there wouldn't be any foul if someone didn't call the ball frozen)?
 
risky biz said:
1) Why would the shot be "actually" no good?

2) Are the rules of pool not "actual" in whatever world you think you're living in?
Click to expand...
Just because your opponent neglects to look doesn't mean its not a bad hit,it just means your getting away with a bad hit
cause of your opponents neglect.If you don't get what I'm saying,I'll try spanish,or Russian,take your pick.
 
risky biz said:
Why would you shoot the shot in the first place while planning to call a foul on yourself (which, by the way, you wouldn't be able to since there wouldn't be any foul if someone didn't call the ball frozen)?
Click to expand...
I'm talking in General,not about that shot.
 
scsuxci said:
I'm not sure why this thread is so hard to understand.I'm not saying your wrong,according to the rules you are right,so lets lay that part to rest,you are right!If your opponent doesn't check to see if the ball is frozen but you know its frozen,would you shoot the shot knowing its actually no good?Thats my only question,this is strictly about the individual.
Click to expand...

Again your premise is wrong. If he doesn't call it frozen, it is actually a good shot, not actually a bad shot, because the ball is assumed not frozen if not deemed frozen. Understand?
 
itsfroze said:
Again your premise is wrong. If he doesn't call it frozen, it is actually a good shot, not actually a bad shot, because the ball is assumed not frozen if not deemed frozen. Understand?
Click to expand...
Yes I do understand,by the rules your not fouling but in you heart you know you are.Would you agree?
 
risky biz said:
The rule does NOT say that a foul has occurred when a ball is assumed not frozen. The rule specifies that the ball must be called frozen otherwise it is assumed not frozen therefore there is no foul.
Click to expand...

Point to the rule that says that a foul has not occured based on assumption. The rule only says that a ball is assumed not to be frozen. It says nothing about a foul not occurring based on the assumption that the ball is not frozen. Whether that foul is called or not is another matter irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that a foul has occurred, whether it is called or not.
You can't possibly be so completely unable to understand the simple one or two sentences that delineate the rule.
Click to expand...

No, you are the one that is having trouble comprehending these sentences because you don't seem to be able to differentiate between assumption and reality.
You and a couple of others here are deluded and getting upset that others aren't sharing your delusion. Calling others "immoral" and "unethical" for playing according to the rules of pool is flat out stupid and worse. They deserve to have their opponent leap up everytime they shoot a ball near a rail and shout, "That ball was FROZEN!!! THAT'S A FOUL!!!"
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying they would call a ball frozen after the fact. You keep attacking this strawman like it insulted your mother. What's the deal?

People shooting this shot are not playing within the rules because they know they fouled, but are not admitting it.
 
itsfroze said:
If the rules tell me it is not a foul, why should or why would I say that

it's a foul in my own mind, that doesn't make any sense to me. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I guess thats what makes conversation interesting.Even if the rule could validate me taking the shot,I just wouldn't feel good about the win.Oh well,were all different:)
 
itsfroze said:
Again your premise is wrong. If he doesn't call it frozen, it is actually a good shot, not actually a bad shot, because the ball is assumed not frozen if not deemed frozen. Understand?
Click to expand...

No its not a good shot. Just like in court, defendants are presumed innocent, regardless of whether or not they are actually innocent. Assumption does not negate what has actually occurred, and the rules don't say it does, it is just the only way to make a fair judgement when it is one person's word against another's.
 
Last edited:
Paul Dayton said:
The question boils down to this, If you knew you could get away with it, would you cheat?
Click to expand...
Hopefully you can get this answer cause I can't.The problem is they don't consider it cheating if its within the rules.You have now entered the Gates of Hell:grin:
 
Gotta call a ball frozen period. Happens in one hole all the time ppl are quick to call a ball frozen. Same shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top