ChrisBanks
Banned
What topics are we permitted to discuss on this site? And for what period of time?
If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?
- Thread starter ChrisBanks
- Start date
What topics are we permitted to discuss on this site? And for what period of time?
I don't believe so. I think it is almost more a sign of respect that you somewhat trust the player. In a tournament this may be different, but in a money game I see no issue at all with stepping outside while your opponent is shooting. You take a risk of him trying to cheat you, but I dont think it is unsportsmanlike in any way.
You can't compare it to golf. Golf you opponent isn't over you watching every shot. He could be no where near you in the trees lol in pool your right beside the table..I'm not playing the game for you. When I'm at the table it's my turn to shoot and your turn TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I'M DOING. I'm not doing your job. as I said I won't lie..if you call a foul or even ask I'll always concede but you got to call it.
Last edited:
Credo said: "A lot of it has to do with what everyone else does. We tend to go with the herd. For most people... if everyone else breaks the speed limit, then they will learn that behavior too. If nobody breaks it, then they will play along.
One reason the speeding analogy doesn't work is because there's an unspoken agreement between drivers and the police that the speed limit is 'flexible'. A ref will ALWAYS call a no-rail if he sees it. A policeman will NEVER cite you for 1 mph over. So there is a widely known "unwritten speed limit" that's about 10mph higher than the posted limit.
In pool there's no 2nd set of unwritten rules that a ref goes by. He goes by the book. "
You justify your position with terms like "Unspoken rules", "Herd Mentality" and "traditions".
The fact that they are unspoken is proof that they are unclear and not defined. We could easily compre that to the way different people see the world differently and interpret the variying degrees of an action or inaction such as calling or not calling a foul on yourself.
So, it seems that by your reasoning...if the herd wants to consistently break the rules it's acceptable. What about when a league team has a bad reputation. Suddenly it's OK since that group or "herd" is on board? Keep in mind..this debate has never been about rules despite the fact that so many want to make it so.
And Traditions....Hmmmm, I don't know where you got the ideat that it is "traditional" to call a foul on yourself. If it were, we would not be having this debate. Perhaps where you live it is traditional but traditions are often localized.
One reason the speeding analogy doesn't work is because there's an unspoken agreement between drivers and the police that the speed limit is 'flexible'. A ref will ALWAYS call a no-rail if he sees it. A policeman will NEVER cite you for 1 mph over. So there is a widely known "unwritten speed limit" that's about 10mph higher than the posted limit.
In pool there's no 2nd set of unwritten rules that a ref goes by. He goes by the book. "
You justify your position with terms like "Unspoken rules", "Herd Mentality" and "traditions".
The fact that they are unspoken is proof that they are unclear and not defined. We could easily compre that to the way different people see the world differently and interpret the variying degrees of an action or inaction such as calling or not calling a foul on yourself.
So, it seems that by your reasoning...if the herd wants to consistently break the rules it's acceptable. What about when a league team has a bad reputation. Suddenly it's OK since that group or "herd" is on board? Keep in mind..this debate has never been about rules despite the fact that so many want to make it so.
And Traditions....Hmmmm, I don't know where you got the ideat that it is "traditional" to call a foul on yourself. If it were, we would not be having this debate. Perhaps where you live it is traditional but traditions are often localized.
Last edited:
If you are a gentleman, you should. It's all about self-respect and having respect from the game.
If you are a gambler and you value more your bet than your honour, not calling it may help you from time to time to win a game but, as we all do, you'll have to look at the man on the mirror staring at you the next morning and, even if nobody else does, you'll know the kind of man you are.
If you are a gambler and you value more your bet than your honour, not calling it may help you from time to time to win a game but, as we all do, you'll have to look at the man on the mirror staring at you the next morning and, even if nobody else does, you'll know the kind of man you are.
OF COURSE committing a foul is against the rules...but that isn't the point of the OP which was whether players SHOULD or MUST call a foul on themselves.
1. There is just flat NO rule explicitly obligating a player to self call a foul.
2. There is NO rule obligating the other player to ACCEPT a self-called foul by an opponent.
I've stated before that there can be occasions where fouling could be an ADVANTAGE to the shooter. Of course, if the shooter WANTS that advantage, he could commit an intentional and obvious foul that the opponent would HAVE to accept. But then you get into the 3 foul rule in which case the intentional foul would be ineffective.
3. In a referree match, the REF and ONLY the REF has the final authority to declare a foul and impose a penalty.
So, much of this thread has turned on the issue of "ethics" or "morality" and that...it seems to me is up the each player to decide upon. But in GAMES...absent a RULE violation, there can be NO "immorality" per se.
BUT every player has the RIGHT to conduct themselves morally and ethically (within the law) as they see fit....regardless of the rules.
I SAW one guy pull up at 7 ahead in a 10 ahead match for some fairly serious money (hundreds) when he realized that A) his opponent's skill was WAY below his and B) the opponent had become obviously drunk and C) the opponent was so broke he was sleeping in his car!!!!
So, one man's OWN sense of morality and ethics prevented him from "robbing" the other guy...in spite of the fact that doing so would have been totally within the rules.
But back on point....there is no EXPLICIT RULE requiring self-calling of fouls and IN MY OPINION there is no rule that even indirectly (but credibly) requires any such thing.
And the above is ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND CORRECT in referreed matches where neither player has either the RIGHT or POWER to declare fouls or impose penalties.
So, this whole discussion must be confined to non-ref matches.
EagleMan
Here is the OP for those who can't remember the original question.
See the above quote. Nothing about "must", nothing about other players, just "should" he call a foul on himself.
Agreed.
Also agreed, intentional fouls are very common in 14.1. Mike Sigel intentionally fouled 3 consecutive times in a tournament (last year I think), took the penalty and still won the match.
At a different tournament (few years earlier), there was an infamous occurrence where Sigel was playing Mika Immonen. There was no ref and the players were expected to call their own fouls. Sigel committed a questionable shot, didn't call it and ran-out on Mika. Mika left before the match was over and when they faced each other again, Mika ran 150-out.
The OP didn't state if a ref was present or not and clearly most people assumed there was not one around.
So the question is, should he call a foul on himself. I think an honest man would. And if a person wants to be considered honest, he should.
And that's why people talk about integrity, honesty, etc. They're thinking about how to act when left to their own discretion.
I have not read this thread.
But I always have and will call a foul on myself. Even if I'm not sure i will ask for a ruling.
But I always have and will call a foul on myself. Even if I'm not sure i will ask for a ruling.
To Eagle Man....
Thank you very much!
Finally, a player who recognizes that all these people interjecting ethics and rules have completely missed the point.
It's not against the rules and ethics are a matter of perspective...nothing more.
Isn't it time we put this topic to bed and move on?
Thank you very much!
Finally, a player who recognizes that all these people interjecting ethics and rules have completely missed the point.
It's not against the rules and ethics are a matter of perspective...nothing more.
Isn't it time we put this topic to bed and move on?
Yes and No.
For me it comes down to whether the player I'm playing would do the same. I will always give them the benefit of the doubt and call all fouls on myself unless I believe otherwise. I believe in pool Karma. It will get you eventually. So many times when I see my opponent do something shady they get a bad roll later on. At least this is what I tell myself so it doesn't bother me.
However if I'm playing a player who I have confirmed doesn't call fouls on them self my view on the subject will change to the given situation. I will watch everything and make sure nothing goes unnoticed.
For me the game is better when players have integrity and do the right thing but this isn't the case in the real world.
Some players come from rooms where it's you snooze you lose. They put the pressure to notice the foul on the non-shooting player. If this is the case than I'll adjust to that even though I don't like it I'll do it.
When money gets involved sometimes the rules change. For this reason I don't play people who give me a headache. I tend to avoid people I don't respect and enjoy matching up with.
Dud
For me it comes down to whether the player I'm playing would do the same. I will always give them the benefit of the doubt and call all fouls on myself unless I believe otherwise. I believe in pool Karma. It will get you eventually. So many times when I see my opponent do something shady they get a bad roll later on. At least this is what I tell myself so it doesn't bother me.
However if I'm playing a player who I have confirmed doesn't call fouls on them self my view on the subject will change to the given situation. I will watch everything and make sure nothing goes unnoticed.
For me the game is better when players have integrity and do the right thing but this isn't the case in the real world.
Some players come from rooms where it's you snooze you lose. They put the pressure to notice the foul on the non-shooting player. If this is the case than I'll adjust to that even though I don't like it I'll do it.
When money gets involved sometimes the rules change. For this reason I don't play people who give me a headache. I tend to avoid people I don't respect and enjoy matching up with.
Dud
Last edited:
Okay, here it is.
If I'm playing any of you for all of the air, water, food, women, & gold in the world or just the pennies we're keeping score with, I'm calling fouls on myself.
If you don't want to, that's fine with me. But... I bet if you foul & don't call it on yourself, you will be immediatly hit by an invisible lightening bolt that will paralyze both of your arms & you will have to forfeit the match to me & I will win!:wink::rotflmao1:
Then I'll give you a gallon of water, a plate of food, one gold coin... no women... & ask you what do you play for now?
If we were just playing for the pennies...I'm keeping them both.
Merry Christmas to ALL,
If I'm playing any of you for all of the air, water, food, women, & gold in the world or just the pennies we're keeping score with, I'm calling fouls on myself.
If you don't want to, that's fine with me. But... I bet if you foul & don't call it on yourself, you will be immediatly hit by an invisible lightening bolt that will paralyze both of your arms & you will have to forfeit the match to me & I will win!:wink::rotflmao1:
Then I'll give you a gallon of water, a plate of food, one gold coin... no women... & ask you what do you play for now?
If we were just playing for the pennies...I'm keeping them both.
Merry Christmas to ALL,
Last edited:
If it wasn't clear, my position is - I always call the foul on myself.
So the herd mentality stuff isn't 'justifying my position'. My position doesn't need justification...
I play by the rules, which isn't controversial behavior. It doesn't need defending or explaining.
The herd mentality and money stuff... was me trying to explain how people somehow end up on (the wrong side of) the fence about a very clearcut topic.
I think I see your point. If the rules for speeding are fuzzy and selectively enforced (even though they're clearcut on paper), then why can't a shooter treat pool rules the same way, and choose to ignore or selectively enforce his own fouls?
One reason is that the cop is neutral, and we choose cops (and judges) to decide if we broke the law and how we get punished. But the shooter is not neutral, he twists things to his advantage. And I didn't elect him to make the choice about calling the foul... He just made the choice unilaterally, without consulting me.
If I get dinged with a speeding ticket, or just let off with a warning, I respect the cop's decision.
But I definitely do NOT respect my opponent's decision to pretend a foul never happened. That's not what I signed up for.
====
Another reason I don't cite myself for speeding, but will call a foul...
If I'm being REAL honest, I sometimes ignore rules that I think are bullshit
I don't honestly feel bad about going 1 mph over the speed limit. I don't think it's even a little wrong. Ever. It doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest way. Therefore I don't turn myself in.
But I feel bad every single time I foul in pool, because it DOES directly affect someone... my opponent. It's not a 'victimless crime'. Especially with money at stake.
I guess if someone sincerely feels a certain rule in pool is bullshit and should never be called on ANYone, under ANY circumstances... then I can't fault them for not calling it on themselves.
But I can't think of too many pool rules that might fall under that category. One foot on the floor maybe?
Acceptible to me? or to the rest of the world?
If I grew up with a group that consistently didn't call fouls on themselves, I'd like to think I'd still call fouls on myself, but maybe I wouldn't. There's no denying that other people influence our sense of right and wrong. That doesn't mean not calling fouls is OK, but it explains why some people end up thinking it's OK.
Tradition may not be the right word, but I feel that the majority of pool players call fouls on themselves. In one recent thread, someone asked if players would basically exploit a technicality to foul and get away with it. It wasn't even close... 111 players would not, 31 would. About 78%. The numbers would be similar if this thread were turned into a poll.
So, I believe calling fouls on yourself is what's considered 'normal'. That's what most of the herd does.
BTW, we're having this debate because the 78% honestly can't believe the other 22% would pull that ѕhit
PS:
I agreed with most of your post but not this bit. I cannot put morals away and lock them into a separate compartment when I'm at the table. They're with me at all times. The rules don't explicitly state "behave in a decent way towards your opponent" but I'd consider it an unwritten rule. It doesn't say "don't slip something in your opponent's drink" in the APA handbook, so a rules violation didn't technically occur. Nonetheless, that would be immoral.
The one thing I've been able to take away from this thread is that the vast majority of those who claim they will call a foul on themselves also seem to have many exceptions to their perception of the rule.
Aside from money, peers, their mood, their swaying sense of morality, their impression of what the other player might do and a half a dozen other selfish justifications.....all these guys will always call a foul on themselves except when it's convenient not to.
I don't think the psychologists saw that coming.
I find it hard to believe that so many seem committed to using terms like "honor" and "integrity" when they choose to bend the meaning of these terms so that only the brightest of lights shine upon them....and so easlily label all others who do not self call a foul as "cheaters".
Ain't human nature a B.i.t.c.h?
Aside from money, peers, their mood, their swaying sense of morality, their impression of what the other player might do and a half a dozen other selfish justifications.....all these guys will always call a foul on themselves except when it's convenient not to.
I don't think the psychologists saw that coming.
I find it hard to believe that so many seem committed to using terms like "honor" and "integrity" when they choose to bend the meaning of these terms so that only the brightest of lights shine upon them....and so easlily label all others who do not self call a foul as "cheaters".
Ain't human nature a B.i.t.c.h?
Last edited:
For myself it's simply that I know I fouled and if I don't say anything then I can never erase it and have to live with it forever. So it has less to do with ethics and honestly and more to do with not saddling myself with guilt.
There might not be a rule where you have to call a foul on yourself but if you don't it's still a foul. Technically the opponent is due to have ball in hand and if you don't give it to him then you are cheating him out of the rightful state of the table he should have as the incoming player. If you foul and make a ball and continue to shoot then it's also cheating because the rules do state clearly that a foul is loss of turn.
I guess I don't really see the gray area here. I have had it happen to me in a match without a referee that my opponent made a clear and DELIBERATE foul but when I went to take ball in hand he claimed he didn't foul. His reasoning was that the rules state that in the absence of a referee disputes go to the shooter. The TD agreed with him reluctantly.
I swept all the balls off the table and conceded saying that obviously he needed the money more than me. From the loser bracket I won the tournament though.
There might not be a rule where you have to call a foul on yourself but if you don't it's still a foul. Technically the opponent is due to have ball in hand and if you don't give it to him then you are cheating him out of the rightful state of the table he should have as the incoming player. If you foul and make a ball and continue to shoot then it's also cheating because the rules do state clearly that a foul is loss of turn.
I guess I don't really see the gray area here. I have had it happen to me in a match without a referee that my opponent made a clear and DELIBERATE foul but when I went to take ball in hand he claimed he didn't foul. His reasoning was that the rules state that in the absence of a referee disputes go to the shooter. The TD agreed with him reluctantly.
I swept all the balls off the table and conceded saying that obviously he needed the money more than me. From the loser bracket I won the tournament though.
In post #140, you said, in bold, "I'm done on this subject..." I don't see that your post #231 brings anything new to the debate, so I won't repeat my rebuttals of your points. I'll just inform readers who aren't aware of it that you and I debated this in eleven posts starting with post #77 of this thread and ending with #143.
Thanks for reminding me of that. Actually, what I meant to say was that I was done debating that point with YOU. No disrespect at all...just that I thought that we had both presented our views fully and that there was no point in just repeating ourselves to each other.
But since you have addressed me again...please cite for the record, what EXPLICIT RULE there is in the WPA/BCA or any other commonly accepted rule set that OBLIGATES a player to call a foul on him or herself.
Of course, to be "explicit" the rule MUST refer directly to an instance when only the shooting player is aware of the foul being committed.
Also, of course, each reader of our exchanges (which by the way included an open admission from me that you were correct on one issue and I was wrong) can reach their own conclusions about our respective rule interpretations.
But I stand by my statement that I am aware of no EXPLICIT rule regarding the self-calling of fouls.
I believe that there is at least one member of this forum...and one who may have posted in this thread who is either intimately familiar with the WPA/BCA rules process or who may even have served on the committee/board that presides over the rule sets.
But I would be genuinely interested in any "authority" (are there any certified referees on the forum?) who might have a RULE BASED....(not a "morality" based) opinion on the RULES relating to self-called fouls.
(-:
EagleMan
I think that many people, and most posters in this thread, are being realistic in saying that they don't believe they wouldn't call a foul on themselves. all the while allowing for that "human nature" to rear its ugly head.
Contrast that with folks like you who want to say that if their opponent doesnt see it, its ok to let it go. I believe there is nothing about it that isn't easy to understand.
You either feel its ok to cheat, or you don't. And when the time comes to uphold that, there will likely be those who choose not to uphold their moral stance. But that doesn't take away from those of us who actively try to make things better by doing the right thing. And it doesn't justify those who mock that stance.
Thanks Krupa. But since so many here...you included (I say with respect) have injected personal preferences on this subject, my personal preference is to believe that the OP...when he asked "should I" was reasonbly referring to the RULES governing whether he should or shouldn't.
That MAY not have been his intent..but that is what I interpreted it to be.
But what strikes me as being SO ODD about this thread is that so many have placed upon pool...and NO other game/sport except golf* the "ethical/moral" standard of self-calling fouls.
I doubt there is a SINGLE forum member who would WANT their home pro football/hockey/basketball team members to self-call fouls...and have them enforced. Such a player would probably be booed off the field including by members of this forum who insist on self-calls for POOL games!
*And even if golf...while there are some legendary examples of self-called fouls....I have seen top pros arguing LIKE CRAZY with the officials about being called on a rule violation...that they flat KNEW they had committed but argued about anyway.
(-:
EagleMan