I'm asking this as a general question.Would you ever call a foul on yourself if your opponent never
seen it or would you just keep playing?Like I said, I'm just talking in General.
What would you do?
- Thread starter TheMarsMan
- Start date
seen it or would you just keep playing?Like I said, I'm just talking in General.
The epitome of unsportsmanlike behavior is accusing someone of being "unethical" or "immoral" when they play by the rules of the sport. In fact, that behavior is in itself unethical and immoral.
I call fouls on myself all the time. Your lack of insight is revealed by how you apparently thought you were on to something there.
But what you can't seem to get into your brain is the rules which tell you loud and clear that there was no foul described in the original post so why are you asking a question about a foul?
Why can't you grasp that?
Please don't insult your own intelligence and pretend anyone would refer to your "posting the real rules" (as in quoting them) as flaming - you know very well that you could make all your points without all the name-calling and derogatory remarks, and that doing so wouldn't make any of what you say more or less valid. But: you be that way…
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:
I know several trained referees, and just happened a chat with one, and ask.
She said, I quote: "The rule makes it possible for a player to get away with something that in the presence of a table referee, he couldn't."
(Whereby the term "table referee" serves as a differentiation from e.g. area referee - permanent presence versus the need to call for an official.)
She also pointed out what she calls "the common denominator" or "factual basis": "One can only treat or call a ball frozen to a cushion if it is frozen to the cushion. One cannot make it frozen by calling it so."
(To which she added that she has yet to meet a player who couldn't tell the difference, only one who tried to argue that on a molecular basis, no two objects ever "touch" etc.)
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
She said, I quote: "The rule makes it possible for a player to get away with something that in the presence of a table referee, he couldn't."
(Whereby the term "table referee" serves as a differentiation from e.g. area referee - permanent presence versus the need to call for an official.)
She also pointed out what she calls "the common denominator" or "factual basis": "One can only treat or call a ball frozen to a cushion if it is frozen to the cushion. One cannot make it frozen by calling it so."
(To which she added that she has yet to meet a player who couldn't tell the difference, only one who tried to argue that on a molecular basis, no two objects ever "touch" etc.)
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
This is one of the big reasons that there is such controversy, most people know that a “call” cannot alter a physical reality; it is either touching the rail or it isn’t. Most people say/think “ok this rule says that if nobody says it’s touching the rail it’s not, pft.”
To most people; and read carefully, there is a big difference between “it is not a foul” and “the criteria to confirm that a foul has occurred and a penalty assessed has not been met”. And then there is the group that says “it’s irrelevant that there is a difference of opinion because the result is the same, in neither case can a foul be called”.
However if it was irrelevant then why do we have 22 pages of answers and opinions? I don’t knock the people who have said “yes I would play this”, it is simple the rules say you can; everybody gets that so you don’t have to keep saying that.
But I will say to that 21.37% that I will play you by the rules you better be watching because I am now just going to keep shooting if I foul and you don’t see it, because those are the rules. I am going to interrupt your shot to determine if balls are frozen if it may be relevant to the shot, because those are the rules. I am going to hold up the match by calling the ref, captain or coach to watch the hit if I think the hit could be in question, because those are the rules. Lets say we are in a match that you have to use a patch/marker or called 9ball or the like; well you better do it, because those are the rules.
And I ask you wouldn’t it just be simpler to just be treated like I am going to treat the other 78.63% without all that BS. I am going to treat them with respect and honor. If I win it isn’t going to be because of some loophole in the rules because there are all kinds of nitpicky, whiney and less than 100% honorable people out there. It is going to be because I out shot, out thought, out rolled them or the like.
No,he asked if your opponent never seen it, would you still shoot the shot.So in other words,he's asking if you would cheat?Thats why the higher percentage of the poll voted ''NO''
cause they wouldn't cheat.And I am on to something here.You said you call fouls on yourself all the time,so I'm lead to believe no matter what the debate is,you wouldn't shoot the shot.Thanks for the honesty,see was that so hard:smile:
You still can't grasp that if I did shoot it it wouldn't be a foul. Either you can't grasp it or you didn't even know the rule before and stubbornly refuse to admit your uninformed opinion was irrelevant or wrong.
The important distinction is whether you would shoot it. Not whether it is technically a foul. At least for me...
Irrelevant because the shooter would not be "getting away" with something. The shot is a legal shot, a legal shot is not a foul, and playing by the rules of the sport is not "getting away" with something. You really have to do better than ask what you describe as a "trained referee" about fouls in general and then pretend here that she was referring to a legal shot. You're really grasping now when you refer to a "higher authority" while twisting the facts.
Also irrelevant since she is obviously referring to someone pretending that a ball is frozen when it isn't. Twisting. The issue at hand here is whether or not it's legal to shoot the shot when the ball is not called frozen. It is legal, it isn't a foul and you're pretending to not know the difference.
The important distinction is whether you would shoot it. Not whether it is technically a foul. At least for me...
Because you want to say that someone who plays by the rules is inferior to you in a moral or ethical sense which is merely a personal neuroses on your part. You have a neurotic need to condemn others and you're twisting reality to fulfill it.
If I think a ball is frozen, didn't call it frozen, and someone rolled up to it I would think that I made a mistake in not calling it frozen. I certainly wouldn't think that my opponent was "immoral" or "unethical" in any way for playing by the rules of pool. You, on the other hand, not only want to think that, you want to shout it to the whole world. You have a personal problem.
Once again, it isn't "cheating" to play by the rules of pool. I'm just repeating that for your personal benefit. Maybe it will eventually sink in.
I think it's very likely that most people voted "no" because they assumed a situation of practicing with a regular partner. I would guess that nearly everyone who does this would call balls frozen for their practice opponent as a matter of course.
But that has nothing to do with the rules of pool. They are playing by personal rules.
Do a poll on whether people would call someone else "unethical" or "immoral" for playing by the rules of pool when the explicit understanding is that you are playing by the rules of pool and not some personal rules and you'll get a different result.
You and others are pretending that a "no" on this poll is an indication that those who voted "no" would also agree with you that someone is "unethical" or "immoral" for playing by the rules of pool. The person who published the poll was aiming for exactly that claim. He didn't publish this vague poll because he was "curious".
I'm not really interested in the ethics of the other person. I only have control over myself. Doing what you feel is correct and honorable is it's own reward. It doesn't require confirmation. If you feel that shooting the shot is correct and honorable, then we don't have an issue.
But the original question was whether you would shoot it, not whether it was legal or not.
Exactly right, you hit the nail on the head with this post. But I guess I'll be deemed immoral or unethical for stating the truth as well as playing by the rules :thumbup:
A poll can be worded to get any outcome you want. Where as the rules are the rules, even if in fantasy land you want to play by personal rules, imagine that!
Last edited:
The shot being discussed is not a foul so what you're saying is irrelevant. The shot at issue is not a case where someone commits a foul and no one sees it. It's a case of someone shooting a legal shot and everyone seeing it.
The main reason that there are so many pages in this thread is because a few participants keep posting bloatedly irrelevant comments.
You're saying that the rules are a loophole in the rules. Something has gotten really weird with your thought process. The frozen ball rule is concise, elegant, and specifically targeted. Anyone who describes it as a loophole has a loophole in their thought process.
I'm not really interested in the ethics of the other person. I only have control over myself. Doing what you feel is correct and honorable is it's own reward. It doesn't require confirmation. If you feel that shooting the shot is correct and honorable, then we don't have an issue.
But the original question was whether you would shoot it, not whether it was legal or not.
In contradiction to what you said in your first sentence you seem to be highly, even maniacally interested in my ethics. Otherwise, why do you keep asking if I would shoot a legal shot?
Simple. That was the original question asked by the OP and the point of the thread. Just trying to stay on topic. Nothing personal.
No twisting. Nothing new content-wise that we haven't yet discussed. Nothing of what she said proves either your nor my interpretation of the rule wrong. I'm surprised you're not noticing it. Having a bad day?
Other way round, someone pretending a ball isn't frozen when it is. You're not reading very closely, are you?
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
That’s how you see it, and I respect that; no problem. But I see it this way; a foul has occurred, however; the criteria to confirm that a foul has occurred and a penalty assessed has not been met therefore it is exactly the same result as if “it was not a foul” however I prefer to make that distinction.
I make that distinction because a proclamation can not change a physical reality (whether or not the ball is touching the rail) you seem unable to just respect the way I see it as I do the way you see it. I found this question impossible to answer because sometimes I would and sometimes I wouldn’t and the only choices were yes & no.
Again this is the way you see it and you are the minority, I see it as a foul has occurred, however; the criteria to confirm that a foul has occurred and a penalty assessed has not been met therefore it is exactly the same result as if “it was not a foul”
Pure conjecture
Nope I only said that there is an exploitable loophole in the rules; I never said the rules are a loophole in the rules because that makes no sense.
That’s your opinion and I just happen to disagree.
nothing is a foul!
There are no fouls in pool if a referee is not present unless the shooter consents to the foul. If a referee is not present then the decision goes in favor of the shooter. Therefore by the rules the shooter is always right. Since the shooter is always right as long as he claims that he didn't foul no foul occurred!
How many of you want to play me?
Hu
There are no fouls in pool if a referee is not present unless the shooter consents to the foul. If a referee is not present then the decision goes in favor of the shooter. Therefore by the rules the shooter is always right. Since the shooter is always right as long as he claims that he didn't foul no foul occurred!
How many of you want to play me?
Hu