What would you do?

[itsfroze]

-----------------

 

[itsfroze]

True enough,but if that same person see's a person being attacked and just
walks on by,that may not be against the law but says something about that persons character.Thats how I feel about taking that shot.Not much more I can say.Goodluck

There is just a tad bit of difference. In one a person is playing by the rules
as they are written and what he does when he does is not considered a
foul, or he would lose his turn.

In the other he is putting his life on the line for someone he doesn't even know. Same person and yet people choose to call him (me) unethical,
and immoral for following the rules in the first example. Good luck to you my friend.

I find it hard to see how anyone calls anybody anything for playing by the rules. Does this say something about the person playing by the rules or
about the other peoples need to judge others, when they know nothing about them.

 

[risky biz]

Actually you cannot grasp that the rule about one of the 3 people acknowlegding that the ball is frozen is in place so that it is assured that the shooter is aware of the frozen ball and does not in fact shoot a shot that UNINTENTIONALLY results in a foul.

What you are doing when you KNOW the ball is frozen is choosing to shoot a shot that you are AWARE is frozen, which negates why the rule about the frozen ball being acknowledged even exists.

The rule was in place to protect the shooter and make sure they are shooting from a position of awareness. And you choose to twist the intent of the rule and use it to shoot a shot that does not in fact meet the minimum requirements of a ball hitting a rail after contact. This despite the fact that you as the shooter know full well the ball is frozen.

The rule that the ball must be called frozen was to protect the shooter and make sure they are aware, in the example of the original post in this thread you ARE aware of the frozen ball, and you are twsiting the rule to your benefit and ignoring the fact that you as the shooter ALSO have the ability to call the ball as frozen and thus from a position of honesty and being up front about these things.

"which negates why the rule about the frozen ball being acknowledged even exists". :nono:

This is four paragraphs of nonsense. For every word in the rules you expend twenty words to try to turn the rules inside out.

The incoming shooter is not required by the rules to call a ball frozen and, in fact, the rules don't even encourage him to do so which clearly indicates that it is the responsibility of the prior shooter or referee to call a ball frozen. The rules also specify that a ball is not to be considered frozen if it has not been called frozen. Therefore the shot described is legal. If it's legal it isn't a foul and anyone would have to be pretty dim to think it is.

 

[risky biz]

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.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by risky biz
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.

Other way round, someone pretending a ball isn't frozen when it is. You're not reading very closely, are you?

The sentence, "One cannot make it frozen by calling it so", quite clearly does not refer to someone saying a ball is not frozen when it is. Why else would she bring up the "molecular basis" argument? If you don't understand that you're grasping those statements backwards it becomes more obvious why you have such a profound disregard of the real rules of pool. Because you don't understand what they mean.

 

[risky biz]

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

This is a weak attempt at humor given that there are fouls in pool and they are very clearly delineated in the rules. The shot described is also very clearly delineated as a legal shot and a legal shot is not a foul no matter how many times a bullfrog or a troll claims it is.

 

[risky biz]

Just out of curiosity (there's that term again)- when you go grocery shopping there is a cart park cage in the parking lot with a sign above it which reads, "Please return carts here". Do you put the empty cart there or leave it in or near your parking space?

 

[itsfroze]

I put my carts in the cage.

 

[Celtic]

[
This is four paragraphs of nonsense. For every word in the rules you expend twenty words to try to turn the rules inside out.

The intent of the rule IS obvious.

You are going to play the game how you are playing the game and noone is going to stop you. Good for you.

 

[Hungarian]

you clowns have been at it all day long.

do any of you have anything better to do?

 

[risky biz]

The intent of the rule IS obvious.

You are going to play the game how you are playing the game and noone is going to stop you. Good for you.

Certainly not anyone who knows the rules and certainly no one else, either. By the way- have I posted the rules yet?

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

I wonder- wouldn't it be better if the rules prohibited the incoming shooter from asking for a call? That would contribute to the praiseworthy objective of encouraging players who only read half of each rule to read the whole rule.

 

[risky biz]

you clowns have been at it all day long.

do any of you have anything better to do?

If you think your "who's more annoying" thread is something better to do, you're wrong.

 

[acousticsguru]

With no ref and the previous shooter apparently to lazy to call
a ball in question frozen, you're trying to lay blame on the shooter
for not calling the ball in question frozen or not.

The rules say may, let me repeat, the shooter may call the ball
frozen. It doesn't say he should, or that it's suggested, or it's
it's considered unsportsmenlike conduct.

Do any of you really think that if your opponent is to lazy to
get up out of their chair and check if a ball is frozen or not
the you as the other shooter should do this for them. LOL

That's beyond pathetic!

The rule proves that those who write them are aware of the fact that players need to get along in the absence of a referee. In the presence of a referee, there would be no need for the rule. A table referee will call balls frozen or not frozen before anyone gets the chance the shoot. Thus, in the presence of a referee, the minimum requirement for a pool shot, to contact an object ball with the cue ball, followed by either driving an object into a pocket or any ball to a cushion, must always be fulfilled. That's the nature of the game of pool. If anyone's wondering what the spirit of the rule is versus the letter, this is it. The rule we've been discussing for twenty-plus pages needs to be read in accordance with the corpus. It's clearly there for practicality's sake. Thus, in the absence of a referee, the player can get away with something that in the presence of a referee, one couldn't. It's decided that for practicality's sake it's not a foul when in a situation like this no one calls the ball frozen, and the player decides to not physically fulfill the minimum requirement for a pool shot to be legal. However, the player does have the option of doing what's in accordance with the corpus of the rule set and the nature of the game of pool. The question a player is confronted with is not, is it a foul if I roll the cue ball up to a ball that's frozen to a cushion, because there's a rule specifically saying that in the absence of anyone calling the ball frozen, including myself (!), I may do this. The question is, since I know so much about the game that I'm aware of all the rules, exception and appendixes, what's my attitude towards shooting a type of that I know is exceptionally legal provided I don't acknowledge what I 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

 

[OneIron]

Just out of curiosity (there's that term again)- when you go grocery shopping there is a cart park cage in the parking lot with a sign above it which reads, "Please return carts here". Do you put the empty cart there or leave it in or near your parking space?

In the cage, even if I have to walk several lanes over. It pi$$es me off to see lazy folks leave their carts where they can bang into my car. Geez... :frown:

 

[Hungarian]

If you think your "who's more annoying" thread is something better to do, you're wrong.

You are the most annoying poster I've run across lately.

You win my vote bc you just will not relent.

What an asss you are

 

[Hungarian]

Multi quote 1 of???


Just in case anyone missed them, I will be re-posting all of the risky biz posts in a series of multi-quotes. Just wanted to make sure everyone has an opportunity to truly understand this brilliant contributor to the forum.

In that case, drinking four beers in a couple of hours and driving home IS a foul.

It's exceedingly simple to prevent a shooter from making a bad hit. All you have to do is say, "It's frozen", BEFORE the hit. Therefore most of the conversation in this thread is silly. Anyone can be highly ethical by calling the ball frozen BEFORE the hit. Sitting there like a bump on a log before the hit and then saying AFTER the hit, "It was frozen", is silly beyond belief.

Whether or not you or I decide to call a ball frozen for the other player is irrelevant. All that the faux "moral" blah, blah here does is create cover for angle shooters to claim balls were frozen AFTER the shot.

No, actually, you're a clown because all you're capable of is calling names like an overgrown baby. If you're "Mars" supporting cast he has even more than major inconsistency problems.

Maybe you should ask those who formulate rules in pool to rewrite them to your liking because they're deceptive. Maybe they'll change the rule and then every angle shooter in the pool room can claim, after the shot, that the ball was frozen.

But I think it would be a better idea to get off your self-congratulatory soapbox and ask someone to explain to you why the rule exists because you have difficulty understanding some things.

Post #13:
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

So even if you weren't the other player, someone else was, which you didn't state in the OP, what was your disagreement about if he (correctly) knows that it isn't a foul? You could only logically be claiming that he fouled which is absolutely incorrect. But now you also say that you would never consider calling a foul because you know the rules. And you said I was on drugs or in a different world?:rotflmao1:

I call fouls on myself, too, but in the situation described there was no foul.

I understand that but I think it's evident he's polling here in an attempt to throw guilt on his opponent to salve his psychic wound over not getting the ball in hand he had hoped for because the rules of the game don't allow it.

Why call it yourself if you have some kind of need to save your opponent the overwhelming responsibility of calling it frozen himself as the rules of the game require? All you have to do is take a different shot. You don't have to call anything if that's what you're doing.

A perfect example of situational ethics is calling a ball frozen AFTER the opponent shoots. So, it would appear that you are a strong believer in situational ethics if you're lending support to the OP's argument. Not to mention that you would be undermining pool itself by encouraging others to ignore the rules.

And if you didn't think the ball was frozen and shot and the other player then called it frozen and demanded ball in hand you would cry like a baby.

"To be real honest, this type of play, especially in gambling is all too common."

No, not common but observable. There are angle shooters out there who want to call frozen balls AFTER the shot. That's why thoughtful people created the rule.

Your position, and that of some others here, that following the rules of the game is unethical is utterly ridiculous. And calling frozen balls for your opponent doesn't make you a paragon of ethics though you might like to think of yourself that way. You're really just someone who isn't insightful enough to understand why the rule is there. All you are doing is encouraging angle shooters which the OP gives the appearance of being by calling the ball frozen after the fact. Why did he choose to call the ball frozen after the shot rather than before? All he had to do was say, "It's frozen", and his opponent could either agree or dispute it. Instead he's calling it after the shot, probably got in an argument about it, and is looking for "moral" support here from self-enamored enablers who enjoy the opportunity to portray themselves as inhabiting a higher moral level when all they're really doing is undermining the game with their conceit.

You're busted. That's all.

A frozen ball is a ball called frozen by the player not shooting and assented to by the player shooting. Those are the rules of the game. The purpose of the rule is to prevent angle shooters from calling balls frozen after the fact when the prior position of the ball can no longer be observed. It's to put a stop to angle shooting.

So now this OP is griping that he should be able to ignore the rule requiring him to call a ball frozen and that, after the fact, it's "ethical" to demand his opponent call the ball frozen for him and if he didn't, guess what, "I should get ball in hand, na, na ,na, na ,na ,na".

It's funny to see how some people fall for a lame argument like that.

How does someone "cheat" by adhering to the basic rules of the game? A cheater is someone who insists that the rules of the game are irrelevant and that instead of being responsible to call a frozen ball himself, as the basic rules require, it's his opponent's responsibility to call a frozen ball for him. AFTER the opponent shoots a legal shot.

You and others have the "ethics" completely backwards. Not to mention that a lot of people here have a Pavlovian impulse to believe the first side of the story they hear.

This discussion about a frozen ball is also ridiculous in that there was no frozen ball. If it wasn't called frozen it wasn't frozen.

This was the more likely scenario which you didn't describe: it's your responsibility to call a frozen ball. A lightbulb came on and you decided to not call it. Your opponent shot a legal shot. You then tried for a ball in hand coup claiming your opponent fouled due, not to the rules of the game, but due to "ethics", a subject that you expounded on as your hand began to tingle in anticipation of pulling off your clever coup.

Be upfront about it and admit you were angle-shooting.

I think the example is of an OB next to the rail and the CB being rolled up to it. If it was called frozen that would be a foul because no rail contact after hit. If it wasn't called frozen then rolling up against it would cause a rail contact if it's close enough to the cushion. And, if it wasn't called frozen it wasn't frozen. Plain and simple.

I would guess that almost everyone plays just like this. But if I didn't call a ball frozen and the other shooter rolls up against it I assume it wasn't frozen just like the rules state. If the ball could have been called frozen then I am the one responsible for not having called it and the idea of accusing the other player of being unethical is plain stupid. No one has the right to expect the other player to make their calls for them.

You're insulting yourself everytime you say that someone is unethical when they follow the rules of pool.

That's exactly waht you should do for two very good reasons:

1) To penalize the drudges who turn pool into a joke with their jackanape behavior.

2) To let angle shooters know they aren't going to get anywhere with their, "It was frozen!" BS after the shot.

You're saying that if someone rolls a ball up against a cushion and thinks it's frozen but decides to not say anything and the referee doesn't call it frozen then the opposing player rolls up against the ball the referee should call a foul when the first shooter yells, "Foul! That ball was frozen!" You think this is how a high level, competitive sport should be conducted.

Don't you realize how silly that sounds? You're dead wrong in so many ways. The people who wrote the rules are pretty smart, really. Comparatively, I mean.

Are you wondering why they didn't use your wording? I mean- you actually seem very convinced of and passionate about this so I assume you've given this a lot of thought. You must think they were actually very inept to not include in the rule an explanation of the difference between the ball being assumed to actually not be frozen and being assumed to not be frozen when it's actually frozen. Do think there is a major failure in their explanatory powers here? Actually, I think you're assuming that they never thought of the distinction and simply assumed that there was no distinction in actuality. But actually there is and maybe they should include them in the rules, assuming that they're willing to actually consider your suggestions. Maybe I can track down an e-mail address for you. Assuming you actually want to pursue this discussion any further with someone who can really make the rules better. Really.

Originally Posted by risky biz
Maybe you should ask those who formulate rules in pool to rewrite them to your liking because they're deceptive. Maybe they'll change the rule and then every angle shooter in the pool room can claim, after the shot, that the ball was frozen.

But I think it would be a better idea to get off your self-congratulatory soapbox and ask someone to explain to you why the rule exists because you have difficulty understanding some things.



Well, if you want to be a huffy/puffy internet bully and call names rather than expend what you must think is the tremendous effort required to understand why the rule exists then go ahead and do whatever floats your personal boat.

But only in a mind as confused as yours seems to be.



It isn't a foul if it's a legal shot. And, it is a legal shot. It is not a foul. You're pretending it's a foul and getting upset because I won't pretend with you.



Hopefully there are not, wherever you live, very many innocent people dragged before and tried by a lynch mob ranting that they're guilty no matter how legal their behavior is, endlessly fulminating that no matter how carefully they obeyed the law they are still guilty of a crime because in the mob's opinion there is some kind of real crime committed by them even though all the laws of the land state that there was no crime. Hopefully, mob instigators like that would be removed from public venues and bound over for psychiatric observation.

Well, if you're finished contradicting yourself, dispensing disparaging comments in lieu of producing a logical statement, and name calling then have a good evening.

[/QUOTE]

 

[risky biz]

The rule proves that those who write them are aware of the fact that players need to get along in the absence of a referee. In the presence of a referee, there would be no need for the rule. A table referee will call balls frozen or not frozen before anyone gets the chance the shoot. Thus, in the presence of a referee, the minimum requirement for a pool shot, to contact an object ball with the cue ball, followed by either driving an object into a pocket or any ball to a cushion, must always be fulfilled.

In the absence of a referee all that's required is agreement between the players. That agreement, obviously, must be based on either the rules of pool or the player's personal rules, depending on which they have agreed to prior to the commencement of play. I am discussing the real rules of pool since I am unfamiliar with your personal rules or the OP's personal rules or anyone else's personal rules.

The requirement for a legal shot is fulfilled in the shot described when the shooter rolls up against a ball not called frozen. The rules specify that a ball not called frozen is to be treated as a ball that is not frozen and cannot be claimed after the fact to have been frozen. There is no "minimum" or maximum requirement. There is simply the requirement for a legal shot.

That's the nature of the game of pool. If anyone's wondering what the spirit of the rule is versus the letter, this is it.

There is no spirit or letter. There is simply the rule. You are attempting to inject this concept to enable the introduction of your ghostly personal rules which clash with the real rules.

The rule we've been discussing for twenty-plus pages needs to be read in accordance with the corpus. It's clearly there for practicality's sake. Thus, in the absence of a referee, the player can get away with something that in the presence of a referee, one couldn't.

Again with the "corpus" which you are pretending cancels the individual rule which flies in the face of your "spirits".

It's decided that for practicality's sake it's not a foul when in a situation like this no one calls the ball frozen, and the player decides to not physically fulfill the minimum requirement for a pool shot to be legal.

If the player plays by the rules of pool he is fulfilling the requirement for a shot to be legal which is exactly what the shooter does in the shot described. You can't diminish the rule by repeatedly calling it a "minimum requirement" and replacing it with your personal rules which do not posess the superiority you're implying. Your personal rules are, in fact, inferior because they undermine and contradict the real rules of pool.

However, the player does have the option of doing what's in accordance with the corpus of the rule set and the nature of the game of pool.

Once again your bogus "corpus" concept in an attempt to cancel the rule concerning a frozen ball. The only option the incoming player has is to play by the rules of pool, in this case, the frozen ball rule. He can shoot the shot on the assumption the ball is not frozen in the absence of it not having been called frozen (in the scenario described by the OP the previous shooter was so disinterested that he didn't bother to announce his opinion that the ball was frozen but apparently took a terrifically focused interest after the shot, an odd scenario to say the least) or, if he chooses, may ask for a declaration that the ball is frozen and if it is declared to be frozen would be required to shoot the shot in a way different than he would if the ball isn't declared to be frozen. This is a simple rule and carting in a "corpus" in a wheelbarrow is not required.

The question a player is confronted with is not, is it a foul if I roll the cue ball up to a ball that's frozen to a cushion, because there's a rule specifically saying that in the absence of anyone calling the ball frozen, including myself (!), I may do this. The question is, since I know so much about the game that I'm aware of all the rules, exception and appendixes, what's my attitude towards shooting a type of that I know is exceptionally legal provided I don't acknowledge what I know?

As an incoming shooter you don't know anything until a declaration is made and, in fact, the entire "spiritual corpus" you're trying to construct is built on a false foundation because not only is the incoming shooter not required or even encouraged to make that declaration, the rules when taken together, in fact, do not provide for the incoming player to make that declaration independently. The rule specifies in one section that the incoming player may declare a ball frozen but in another section further elaborates that the incoming player may only request a call, i.e., a declaration whether the ball is frozen or not.

You're implying that you posess a superior personal interpretation of the rules but, in fact, what you are encouraging would have one player assuming that different balls are frozen than the other player is assuming. That is inferior because it would be the basis of endless disputes. Look at this thread as a perfect example which is a result of one player expecting another player to play by his personal rules. The real rules of pool were created to eliminate nonsense like that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

risky biz:
There is no spirit or letter. There is simply the rule.

There is no rule. There is simply honesty or dishonesty.

Hey, this word-twisting is fun!

pj
chgo

 

[risky biz]

You are the most annoying poster I've run across lately.

You win my vote bc you just will not relent.

What an asss you are

Just in case anyone missed them, I will be re-posting all of the risky biz posts in a series of multi-quotes. Just wanted to make sure everyone has an opportunity to truly understand this brilliant contributor to the forum.

I'm spontaneously receiving a vision of you slowly dying from terminal jealousy in some out of the way place. You even put up a "more annoying" poll hoping someone else would name me but didn't get any takers. Poor baby. Maybe you can send some personal e-mails encouraging your friends to agree with you and participate in your poll.

You do have the option of not reading my posts. You know that, don't you? Just because 6,000 other people read them it doesn't mean you have to.

But, anyway, congratulations on making the thread longer in inches if that's what you were trying to achieve.

 

[risky biz]

There is no rule. There is simply honesty or dishonesty.

Hey, this word-twisting is fun!

pj
chgo

I don't have any problem with you playing by your own rules with your pool partners. Just don't pretend that they're the real rules because they aren't.

It's as simple as that.

 

[itsfroze]

Hunngarian and Risky BIz both good people

Itsfroze asks for truce

Not to mention this feud could

take up valuable arguing space :grin-angelic: