What would you do?

[Patrick Johnson]

...you wouldn't be able to [call a foul on yourself] since there wouldn't be any foul if someone didn't call the ball frozen

This is factually incorrect. The rule doesn't prevent you from calling the foul on yourself; it only prevents your opponent from calling it on you.

And that's the moral crux of the situation: if you can call the foul on yourself without the ball being declared frozen beforehand, then it can be a foul without being declared frozen. Of course this is the only interpretation consistent with the purpose and intent of the rule.

Your pretzel logic is self-serving and absurd.

pj
chgo

 

[itsfroze]

For you, Masayoshi
Read please, Thank you.
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.as...type=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.as...type=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.as...tic_content#27

Rule 8.4 fourth sentence in
"A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent."
There is the rule that breaks you heart!

If it's not declared frozen then it's assumed not (meaning it is not) frozen.
It can't be stated much more simply, for you than that. The part that bothers you is that even though you don't like the rule it's still the rule, so get over it.

 

[itsfroze]

This is factually incorrect. The rule doesn't prevent you from calling the foul on yourself; it only prevents your opponent from calling it on you.

And that's the moral crux of the situation: if you can call the foul on yourself without the ball being declared frozen beforehand, then it can be a foul without being declared frozen. Of course this is the only interpretation consistent with the purpose and intent of the rule.

Your pretzel logic is self-serving and absurd.

pj
chgo

Sorry you don't like the rule, get used to it though, because you don't make the rules.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sorry you don't like the rule, get used to it though, because you don't make the rules.

So you think the rule forbids calling the foul on yourself? And you think that makes sense?

Wow again.

pj
chgo

 

[itsfroze]

So you think the rule forbids calling the foul on yourself? And you think that makes sense?

Wow again.

pj
chgo

You need to discuss this with who ever made the rules up, but until then I guess you'll just have to follow the rules like everyone else. LOL

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You need to discuss this with who ever made the rules up, but until then I guess you'll just have to follow the rules like everyone else. LOL

How about we discuss it with actual referees? I think there are some on here, and I'll be very surprised if any of them would disallow this foul if it's admitted by the shooter.

pj
chgo

 

[Masayoshi]

For you, Masayoshi
Read please, Thank you.
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.as...type=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.as...type=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.as...tic_content#27

Rule 8.4 fourth sentence in
"A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent."
There is the rule that breaks you heart!

If it's not declared frozen then it's assumed not (meaning it is not) frozen.
It can't be stated much more simply, for you than that. The part that bothers you is that even though you don't like the rule it's still the rule, so get over it.

No, sorry to break your heart, but the assumption of a ball not being frozen is NOT the same as a ball not being frozen. Therefore the bolded part of your post is wrong, which makes your entire post wrong.

Edit

 

[itsfroze]

How about we discuss it with actual referees? I think there are some on here, and I'll be very surprised if any of them would disallow this foul if it's admitted by the shooter.

pj
chgo

Not a foul unless ball is deemed frozen, please try and under stand this.
Of coarse the shooter is not going to call the ball frozen and then commit a foul by shooting it after that.

Lets ask some refs if you don't call the ball frozen and I shoot it, if you get the call, I think not, that's a more realistic question.

 

[itsfroze]

No, sorry to break your heart, but the assumption of a ball not being frozen is NOT the same as a ball being frozen. Therefore the bolded part of your post is wrong, which makes your entire post wrong. I actually wouldn't mind the rule either way as I will make sure to call a frozen ball against a player of your character.

You my friend need to stop smoking that, just say no. LOL

 

[Masayoshi]

You my friend need to stop smoking that, just say no. LOL

For the sake of discussion I will ASSUME that you have an IQ in the single digits, does that mean that you have a single digit IQ? If me assuming that you have a single digit IQ, in fact does put your IQ in the single digits, then you got me, I am wrong, its not a foul and you have a single digit IQ. If you don't have a single digit IQ, assumption is not the same as what is actually true, it is a foul, I am right and you are wrong.

I actually wouldn't mind the rule either way as I will make sure to call a frozen ball against a player of your character, so this rule doesn' really apply to me. Even if you did manage to get one past me, I wouldn't complain anyways.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Of coarse the shooter is not going to call the ball frozen and then commit a foul by shooting it after that.

1. We're talking about a ball that's not called frozen, remember?

2. A shooter can try to get a rail after hitting a frozen ball and simply fail in the attempt. Then he (if he's a sportsmanlike player) would very likely admit the foul.

Lets ask some refs if you don't call the ball frozen and I shoot it, if you get the call

Nobody says the opponent can call the foul if the ball's not declared frozen. Obviously only the shooter can.

It doesn't seem like you know very clearly what's being argued.

pj
chgo

 

[PGHteacher]

This is where your whole argument falls apart.

Quote from: PGHteacher,

"“you know it’s really not playable” -------------> What?

The rules don't say that.

Here is what people that think this way can not understand I say “it’s not really playable” and you say “What?” and people that think how I do think. “do I really have to say the “if the guy comes over and says it’s frozen part?” “we know that already for Christ’s sake” that’s what we are discussing do you really think that we don’t understand what you mean? Well of course we do. People that think your way say “yes you do”. Now that’s not “incorrect” or bad it is just a different way of thinking and it is why we have sooooo many rules. It is to accommodate every little thing that can be interpreted in any way according to what is written down.

You see whether it is or isn’t playable depending on who said what and when is a sketchy subject to some; these are not “stupid” people. These are the IMHO the MORE honest people that do look at why the rule is what it is and why it is written that way rather than just what is written and interpreting it how it suits you at the moment.

I am not saying you're a bad person because you don't understand
this. Have a Happy 4th.

Thanks; but I do understand it is just that I disagree with the way you think and interoperate others and their actions.

PS.
I imagine that you don't buy anything from or use the services of
any of the major corporations because they never play by the rules, and yet you're so quick to question someones morality who plays pool by the rules, you're joking right?

NP but you are being disrespectful to me because this is obviously a false assumption and is said as a “cut” or snidely or the like. The chances are that you may be just the kind of person that I would play this shot on and not give it a second thought if you made an oversight like not calling it frozen; and I firmly believe that people that think the way you do will think that “I would never do that” because I feel “you reap what you sow” in life and pool. There are some people that are very comfortable with that and that is absolutely fine with me.

Maybe that’s why people try and “get over on you” so much or as you perceive that’s the way the world works; could it be because you try to “get over on them?” humm a question you might want to consider but OTOH maybe not because most of those people that other people try to “get over on” because they have tried to get over on them back are people that think they are WAY smarter than everybody else. IMHO this is very likely in your particular case, and I hope you had a nice 4th to.

 

[itsfroze]

1. We're talking about a ball that's not called frozen, remember?

2. A shooter can try to get a rail after hitting a frozen ball and simply fail in the attempt. Then he (if he's a sportsmanlike player) would very likely admit the foul.


Nobody says the opponent can call the foul if the ball's not declared frozen. Obviously only the shooter can.

It doesn't seem like you know very clearly what's being argued.

pj
chgo

The opponent is the one to call a ball frozen most of the time, get some sleep you're starting not to make sense!

 

[risky biz]

The question boils down to this, If you knew you could get away with it, would you cheat?

"Get away" with what and "cheat" how? By following the rules of pool? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? You're accusing anyone who follows the rules of pool of being "cheaters".

I don't get it. Why don't the ones saying this contact those who write the rules instead of conducting a multiday baby whine at AZB? Are you fearful of the response you'll get?

 

[risky biz]

This is factually incorrect. The rule doesn't prevent you from calling the foul on yourself; it only prevents your opponent from calling it on you.

And that's the moral crux of the situation: if you can call the foul on yourself without the ball being declared frozen beforehand, then it can be a foul without being declared frozen. Of course this is the only interpretation consistent with the purpose and intent of the rule.

Your pretzel logic is self-serving and absurd.

pj
chgo

"The rule doesn't prevent you from calling the foul on yourself"? There wouldn't be any foul so you can't call a non-existent foul on yourself. You can pretend there was a foul and call a pretend foul on yourself and try to get others to pretend with you. Other than your opponent I think they'd be more likely to ask you to be quiet.

Your opponent may not mind because he/she may not mind having an opponent who calls imaginary fouls on themselves (especially if you're playing for money but in a case like that I might consider your opponent morally suspect for taking advantage of someone whose mind wasn't all there).

 

[risky biz]

Here is what people that think this way can not understand I say “it’s not really playable” and you say “What?” and people that think how I do think. “do I really have to say the “if the guy comes over and says it’s frozen part?” “we know that already for Christ’s sake” that’s what we are discussing do you really think that we don’t understand what you mean? Well of course we do. People that think your way say “yes you do”. Now that’s not “incorrect” or bad it is just a different way of thinking and it is why we have sooooo many rules. It is to accommodate every little thing that can be interpreted in any way according to what is written down.

You see whether it is or isn’t playable depending on who said what and when is a sketchy subject to some; these are not “stupid” people. These are the IMHO the MORE honest people that do look at why the rule is what it is and why it is written that way rather than just what is written and interpreting it how it suits you at the moment.



Thanks; but I do understand it is just that I disagree with the way you think and interoperate others and their actions.



NP but you are being disrespectful to me because this is obviously a false assumption and is said as a “cut” or snidely or the like. The chances are that you may be just the kind of person that I would play this shot on and not give it a second thought if you made an oversight like not calling it frozen; and I firmly believe that people that think the way you do will think that “I would never do that” because I feel “you reap what you sow” in life and pool. There are some people that are very comfortable with that and that is absolutely fine with me.

Maybe that’s why people try and “get over on you” so much or as you perceive that’s the way the world works; could it be because you try to “get over on them?” humm a question you might want to consider but OTOH maybe not because most of those people that other people try to “get over on” because they have tried to get over on them back are people that think they are WAY smarter than everybody else. IMHO this is very likely in your particular case, and I hope you had a nice 4th to.

Are you drunk?

 

[PGHteacher]

No I just understand interpersonal communication and relationships on a deeper level than you do.

 

[risky biz]

Why don't you guys who think your "buddy rules" that you use when you play non-competitive pool (i.e., all you're doing is practicing together, not playing for rankings or money) are way better than the real rules expand out to some other sports?

Football, for example. If a receiver gets knocked out of bounds he gets to go back to where he got knocked out of bounds and start running again. Sure, the rules say the play is over but "actually" it's immoral to knock someone down. What really cinches this is that the tackler is fully capable of calling an imaginary foul on himself even if imaginary fouls aren't provided in the rules. But, in any case, if he doesn't call an imaginary foul on himself he's a lowlife, immoral, unethical bastard.

 

[risky biz]

No I just understand interpersonal communication and relationships on a deeper level than you do.

Your interpersonal communication is mostly annoyingly meandering and pointless.

But don't let that crimp your style. Contact the people who write the rules and maybe you can get some "interpersonal communication" and "relationship" rules added. The one drawback might be that it's wasteful of natural resources every time someone made the mistake of printing it.

Has it at all made you wonder that the rules on frozen balls are elegantly simple and concise and those who say they are inadequate seem to think the cornucopic (other descriptions could be used) number of words they write adds to the weight of their argument?

 

[Masayoshi]

Why don't you guys who think your "buddy rules" that you use when you play non-competitive pool (i.e., all you're doing is practicing together, not playing for rankings or money) are way better than the real rules expand out to some other sports?

Are you trying to imply we only play "for funsies"? In my case, you'd be wrong.

Football, for example. If a receiver gets knocked out of bounds he gets to go back to where he got knocked out of bounds and start running again. Sure, the rules say the play is over but "actually" it's immoral to knock someone down. What really cinches this is that the tackler is fully capable of calling an imaginary foul on himself even if imaginary fouls aren't provided in the rules. But, in any case, if he doesn't call an imaginary foul on himself he's a lowlife, immoral, unethical bastard.

You are really bad at making analogies. You should just stick to saying "Nuh-uh". At least then you would just seem stubborn rather than just plain old stupid.