If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?

rrick33 said:
JB Cases stated: "The rules state what the fouls are and what the penalties are. If you commit a foul then by NOT calling it you are breaking the rules. There is no grey state of being here. The incoming player should get ball in hand if that's the rule and you should give it to him."




This is not true.

The rules identify what is a foul.

There is no rule that states you are obligated to self call a foul.

This has "grey" area written all over it.
Click to expand...

There can't be such a rule. The whole thread is about whether or not you should call a foul on yourself IF you know you fouled but the opponent did not see it. If that is the situation then what does a rule matter? Is the enactment of such a rule going to make you do it when you otherwise would not? What should the penalty be for not doing it when you should? Should it be more than ball in hand which is what you OWE the incoming player already even without a rule telling you to pay what you owe.

This is like if you owe someone $50 and you pay him $40 but he thinks you paid the whole $50 do you tell him and pay the rest? Or do you charge him $10 for his mistake?

Or if the cashier gives you too much change back do you take the money and keep walking or so you return it?

I mean seriously, what if the guy you are playing dropped his inhaler and bent over to pick it up and in that moment missed your foul? What IF the difference between winning and losing was $100 and you fouled on the 8 with two balls left on the table. You OWE him ball in hand and the victory. To do any less is effectively stealing $100 from him just as much as if he unknowingly dropped a $100 bill in front of you and you didn't hand it back.

Now what if that guy needed that $100 to buy his medication? Or to buy food for his child? Does that change the situation? We could go on and on with similar hypothetical examples and the only one where there is absolutely no downside at all is the one where the person who makes a foul admits it.

Now you might say well what if the shooter who fouled needed the money to feed his kid? Well it's still stealing even if done for a noble reason.
 
EagleMan:
Am I wrong???? POST THE RULE!
Click to expand...
There's also no rule that says you shouldn't deliberately foul when you know you can get away with it. The absence of an explicit rule doesn't make anything acceptable.

My rule: don't play people who think it's OK to game the rules.

pj
chgo
 
JBCase stated: "This is like if you owe someone $50 and you pay him $40 but he thinks you paid the whole $50 do you tell him and pay the rest? Or do you charge him $10 for his mistake?"


Since when is a loan a competitive event?

If the lender was a bank and it was a bank error....how many now would not say "what the heck...the bank can afford it" and keep the $10.

How many would say.."the bank charged me $29 in fees that I didn't like so it' must be karma"

Or, "the bank has been taking advantage of me for years, it's just fair turn-around to keep the money"

Or, "it would cost me more than $10 in time and gas to run to the bank and fix the error so forget about it"


Suddenly the moral perspective changes raddically accross the board and ethics again become skewed by indivuidual value systems.

The grey areas become broader and broader based on the diversity of the population.

There will never be mutual agreement in any grey area unless a rule specifies the paramaters of action or inaction.
 
Last edited:
rrick33 said:
JBCase stated: "This is like if you owe someone $50 and you pay him $40 but he thinks you paid the whole $50 do you tell him and pay the rest? Or do you charge him $10 for his mistake?"


Since when is a loan a competitive event?

If the lender was a bank and it was a bank error....how many now would not say "what the heck...the bank can afford it" and keep the $10.

How many would say.."the bank charged me $29 in fees that I didn't like so it' must be karma"

Or, "the bank has been taking advantage of me for years, it's just fair turn-around to keep the money"

Or, "it would cost me more than $10 in time and gas to run to the bank and fix the error so forget about it"


Suddenly the moral perspective changes raddically accross the board and ethics again become skewed by indivuidual value systems.

The grey areas become broader and broader based on the diversity of the population.

There will never be mutual agreement in any grey area unless a rule specifies the paramaters of action or inaction.
Click to expand...

This whole thread has branched off from the main line in several directions. It has taken a life of it's own. There must be some sort of resolution to the original problem!
 
ChrisBanks said:
This whole thread has branched off from the main line in several directions. It has taken a life of it's own. There must be some sort of resolution to the original problem!
Click to expand...

400 posts in a month!? I took me a year and a half to get to 500...

Here's the resolution:

Play the game as you see fit and accept that whatever you do someone will think you are wrong and/or get pissed-off at you.
 
funny. this thread is like a wilkerson test, where they present you with the same moral dilema over and over, but just worded differently, to test your moral integrity...

examp:
the sweet little old lady next door dropped her wallet in your yard. do you:

1. keep it. finders keepers.
2. give it back.

examp.2:
you come home from work and discover that you accidentally took home a handfull of ball-point pens. do you:

1. keep them. they are just pens and the company goes thru a million of them, who would notice.
2. give them back.


pool is like any other game in that you are also your own opponent.
as such, only you truly know when you cheat, and the person you are cheating the most is yourself.
 
krupa said:
400 posts in a month!? I took me a year and a half to get to 500...

Here's the resolution:

Play the game as you see fit and accept that whatever you do someone will think you are wrong and/or get pissed-off at you.
Click to expand...

So you are implying that I am a more prolific poster than you?
 
Chris, you're right, this thread has followed many tracks but in truth there was never one track to follow.

As long as there is diversity in value systems and people choose to interject their own moral code into the rules there will be varying opinions.

It's odd that, as a nation, we pride ourselves on our diversity and yet so many still fail to hold an open mind that others may have interpreted the game differently.

How sad it is that so many seem committed to jumping to terms like "cheating" simply because their opinion is different.

I can respect those who have a different opinion but for those who truly believe that anyone who fails to self-call a foul is a cheater...I would recommend you enroll in a philosophy course.

“The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size. “
Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
JB Cases said:
There can't be such a rule. The whole thread is about whether or not you should call a foul on yourself IF you know you fouled but the opponent did not see it. If that is the situation then what does a rule matter? Is the enactment of such a rule going to make you do it when you otherwise would not? What should the penalty be for not doing it when you should? Should it be more than ball in hand which is what you OWE the incoming player already even without a rule telling you to pay what you owe.

This is like if you owe someone $50 and you pay him $40 but he thinks you paid the whole $50 do you tell him and pay the rest? Or do you charge him $10 for his mistake?

Or if the cashier gives you too much change back do you take the money and keep walking or so you return it?

I mean seriously, what if the guy you are playing dropped his inhaler and bent over to pick it up and in that moment missed your foul? What IF the difference between winning and losing was $100 and you fouled on the 8 with two balls left on the table. You OWE him ball in hand and the victory. To do any less is effectively stealing $100 from him just as much as if he unknowingly dropped a $100 bill in front of you and you didn't hand it back.

Now what if that guy needed that $100 to buy his medication? Or to buy food for his child? Does that change the situation? We could go on and on with similar hypothetical examples and the only one where there is absolutely no downside at all is the one where the person who makes a foul admits it.

Now you might say well what if the shooter who fouled needed the money to feed his kid? Well it's still stealing even if done for a noble reason.
Click to expand...

OF COURSE there can be such a rule1 HERE IT IS...(my own authorship)

6.16 (i) Unsportsmanlike Conduct

If a player knows he/she has commited a foul he is obligated to call it on himself. Not doing so is a violation of the this rule. However, in this instance, the opponent and the referee (if there is one) MUST accept the foul and MUST impose the penalty prescribed elsewhere for the particular foul the player self-calls.

The above language simulates the circumstances of a ref'd match where the ref has NO discretion about imposing most fouls. If he calls one, he MUST impose the penalty.

But with respect, you are missing the whole point which is that there IS NO SUCH RULE...which you agreed with when you wrote that there CAN'T be such a rule.... and therefore, there can be no claim of "cheating" because in a GAME you cannot possibly cheat if you break no RULE...PERIOD.

(-:

EagleMan
 
EagleMan said:
OF COURSE there can be such a rule1 HERE IT IS...(my own authorship)

6.16 (i) Unsportsmanlike Conduct

If a player knows he/she has commited a foul he is obligated to call it on himself. Not doing so is a violation of the this rule. However, in this instance, the opponent and the referee (if there is one) MUST accept the foul and MUST impose the penalty prescribed elsewhere for the particular foul the player self-calls.

The above language simulates the circumstances of a ref'd match where the ref has NO discretion about imposing most fouls. If he calls one, he MUST impose the penalty.

But with respect, you are missing the whole point which is that there IS NO SUCH RULE...which you agreed with when you wrote that there CAN'T be such a rule.... and therefore, there can be no claim of "cheating" because in a GAME you cannot possibly cheat if you break no RULE...PERIOD.

(-:

EagleMan
Click to expand...

There is no 'pool' rule that says I can't hit you over the head with a bar cue or bar stool & knock you unconscious with a concussion so you are taken off to a hospital unabale to conclude the match & thus forfeit to me either. Or is there?

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
There's also no rule that says you shouldn't deliberately foul when you know you can get away with it. The absence of an explicit rule doesn't make anything acceptable.

My rule: don't play people who think it's OK to game the rules.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Again with respect...you cannot win a debate by changing the subject as you did above. There is also no rule in pool against beating your wife...as long as you don't do so in the middle of a match in the view of others (which would certainly violate the unsportsmanlike conduct rule. (-:

My rule....You can't know who might try to "game the rules"...because no one knows what "gaming the rules" even means!

You can either abide by rules or violate them....PERIOD.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A RULE REQUIRING THE SELF-CALLING OF FOULS in spite of the difficulty (but not impossibility) of detecting when a player has NOT self-called a foul.

If there WAS such a rule...at least this thread wouldn't exist which some would feel is a benefit to the game! (-:

BUT THERE IS NO SUCH RULE so the non-caller isn't either breaking a rule (can't break one that doesn't exist) or "gaming" any rule.


If there is such a rule....A) requiring self-calling of fouls AND a required penalty for same.....POST IT.

If not...then why not at least admit the TRUTH and write a letter to the WPA to suggest that one be approved in the next rule-making session.

In the meantime, while I personally don't give a rip one way or the other, some might be offended by people injecting there own PERSONAL sensibilities and calling other people "cheaters" when the have NOT broken any RULE.

EagleMan
 
ENGLISH! said:
There is no 'pool' rule that says a can't hit you over the head with a bar cue or bar stool & knock you unconscious with a concussion so you are taken off to a hospital unabale to conclude the match & thus forfeit to me either. Or is there?

Regards,
Click to expand...

COME ON Rick....GET SERIOUS! OF COURSE there is a rule preventing any such thingS.

That conduct violates SEVERAL EXPLICIT EXAMPLES of unsportsmanlike conduct including..

1. Bringing disrepute on the game.

2. Disrupting play.

3. DISTRACTING YOUR OPPONENT.

4. Delay of game. and....

5. USING EQUIPMENT INAPPROPRIATELY.


SHEEEESH!

(-:
 
Eagleman, you and I have tried to put this issue in perspective for more than 10 pages.

Let me assure you, there is no amount of logic that will make sense to those who refuse to open their mind.

There is no level of reason for those who are committed to their mindset.

Despite the fact that you and I can see their perspective and agree that they can call the foul at their leisure or not without being pre judged or pegged as a cheater............They find the idea of offering the same courtesy a moral abomination.

I fear they will never see the other side of the argument because they can't accept that their illusion of morality does not apply universally.
"what's right is right and whats wrong is wrong" "Logic be damned" "the rules be damned except if you can spin the unsportman like conduct rule to suite the argument"

I suspect their programming has been set in concrete.

If there is anyone who has participated in much of this thread and it has changed their perspective...please chime in.

If you were open minded about your oponent not self calling a foul and now you believe he is a cheater for not doing so, please tell us why.

If no minds have been changed, then my point is clear and this thread should end.
 
Last edited:
EagleMan said:
COME ON Rick....GET SERIOUS! OF COURSE there is a rule preventing any such thingS.

That conduct violates SEVERAL EXPLICIT EXAMPLES of unsportsmanlike conduct including..

1. Bringing disrepute on the game.

2. Disrupting play.

3. DISTRACTING YOUR OPPONENT.

4. Delay of game. and....

5. USING EQUIPMENT INAPPROPRIATELY.


SHEEEESH!

(-:
Click to expand...


Eagleman,

Is there a specific 'pool' rule that says that I can or can not hit you over the head with a bar stool? No there is not. The incident woud have to be 'interpreted' as to fall under one or more as mentioned. That's my point, you just interpeted the rules for which there is no spicific outline.

If one knowingly fouls and does not call the foul, that certainly would seem to violate any rational interpretation of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule, even if there is no specific rule that not declaring is also a foul.

I agree, add it to the rules so it might be harder to be 'gamed' by those that would take advantage of the loop hole in an unsportsmanlike manner, much as they would attempt to 'shark' for the 'win'.

This 'conversation' will not end until people change. It will not change completely even if a specific rule is added.

Just my $0.02, again.
 
EagleMan said:
You can either abide by rules or violate them....PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Rules aren't as rigidly semantic as you suggest - never heard of the spirit of the rules? There are even official regulations to help interpret the rules.

Anyway, the question of the thread isn't whether you can get away with the foul; it's whether you should. I think you said you don't try to, but I wonder why if you think it's OK for others.

pj
chgo
 
EagleMan said:
[same story]
EagleMan
Click to expand...

You have not adequately answered the point that I, JB, Patrick, and others keep bringing up.

You keep saying "I have violated no rule [etc], no rule exists that says I must call the foul [etc]."

The fact is, you already DID violate a rule (such as tapping the CB)
So the idea that "there is no rule about calling fouls" is irrelevant!
It's ALREADY FIRMLY ESTABLISHED YOU BROKE A RULE.

Or do you deny that?
Is your argument that, if nobody saw a foul, then the foul effectively never happened?
Sort of like the tree falling in forest and making no sound?
 
ENGLISH! said:
Eagleman,

Is there a specific 'pool' rule that says that I can or can not hit you over the head with a bar stool? No there is not. The incident woud have to be 'interpreted' as to fall under one or more as mentioned. That's my point, you just interpeted the rules for which there is no spicific outline.
If one knowingly fouls and does not call the foul, that certainly would seem to violate any rational interpretation of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule, even if there is no specific rule that not declaring is also a foul.

I agree, add it to the rules so it might be harder to be 'gamed' by those that would take advantage of the loop hole in an unsportsmanlike manner, much as they would attempt to 'shark' for the 'win'.

This 'conversation' will not end until people change. It will not change completely even if a specific rule is added.

Just my $0.02, again.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to be respectful but your comment in bold is just ridiculous. NO reasonable human being would require there a be a rule in pool that says that "If you scratch while shooting the 1 ball it is a foul"...and then have to go on to specify that it is a foul on each and every other ball.

The rule I cited is UTTERLY SPECIFIC with respect to the scenario you cited and to say that it isn't is just silly.

Sorry.

EagleMan
 
EagleMan said:
I'm trying to be respectful but your comment in bold is just ridiculous. NO reasonable human being would require there a be a rule in pool that says that "If you scratch while shooting the 1 ball it is a foul"...and then have to go on to specify that it is a foul on each and every other ball.

The rule I cited is UTTERLY SPECIFIC with respect to the scenario you cited and to say that it isn't is just silly.

Sorry.

EagleMan
Click to expand...

So rules cannot be applied literally? It seems like they must first be interpreted, and then applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top