Since we have now determied that according to the APA, it is against the rules to call a foul on yourself, we also open the door to the fact that your opponent can refuse to call the foul if it works to their advantage despite the fact that you have attempted to circumvent the rules by calling it upon yourself.
If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?
- Thread starter ChrisBanks
- Start date
GREAT insight. The APA rules are of course, CONTROLLING for APA matches regardless of any OTHER rule set on the game.
And I'm not a league player, but I suppose there may be a TD to whom appeals can be brought. Yes? No?
BUT...according to what I understand to be the biggest League Operator in America....THERE IS NO FOUL UNLESS THE PLAYER OR THE TEAM CAPTAIN CALLS IT.
I assume that means the SHOOTING player and/or his/her Captain. But unless there is ANOTHER rule...the one you quoted does not REQUIRE the shooter or his Captain to call the foul...only that they are the ONLY people who CAN. NO CALL....NO FOUL folks....like it or not.
If there IS a self-call rule...please post it an at least this discussion could be closed with respect to APA matches.
THANKS!
(-:
EagleMan
Kindly clear up whether it is the SHOOTING player and/or Captain that can call a foul or the OPPOSING player or Captain.
Makes a HUGE difference...even though if it IS the shooting side...they CAN by rule call a foul...but are not necessarily REQUIRED to call the foul.
THANKS!
I seem to be in the minority here, but I do not if I am playing competitively. I play a lot of poker, and this reminds me this dilemma poker players often argue about:
"If you are sitting next to a player that is accidently exposing their whole cards while checking them, should you inform them?"
I would argue no. In poker, the most rudementary and basic from of strategy is to protect your whole cards. If you cannot do that, you have no right to play at a table for money.
Tying that in with this dillemma, it is a players responsiblity (if there is no ref) to observe the game and call fouls. I am 100% engaged when I play someone, and I would not even think to blame someone else if I missed a foul.
If I am playing for fun however, I call ALL my fouls. It shows me what stupid mistakes can do, and then I am less likely to do it in a real match where it counts.
"If you are sitting next to a player that is accidently exposing their whole cards while checking them, should you inform them?"
I would argue no. In poker, the most rudementary and basic from of strategy is to protect your whole cards. If you cannot do that, you have no right to play at a table for money.
Tying that in with this dillemma, it is a players responsiblity (if there is no ref) to observe the game and call fouls. I am 100% engaged when I play someone, and I would not even think to blame someone else if I missed a foul.
If I am playing for fun however, I call ALL my fouls. It shows me what stupid mistakes can do, and then I am less likely to do it in a real match where it counts.
Last edited:
Here's the ruling from the BCA rule book.
Any foul not called before the next stroke is taken is considered to have not occurred.
That's pretty powerful!!!
Why should anyone be accountable to self call a foul since the moment my opponent shoots....it never happened!
I can sit down and he may shoot without the benifit of BIH and it turns out my foul has been erased.
And if I choose to stay at the table and continue to shoot...it never happened! There was no foul!
As for the previous APA example. The only person who can call the foul is the person on the side lines or their coach...not the shooting player. The shooting player may only suggest a foul occured.
All in all, it would appear that the rules side with not calling a foul on yourself and even the spirit of the rules provide for redemption if you continue to shoot.
Any foul not called before the next stroke is taken is considered to have not occurred.
That's pretty powerful!!!
Why should anyone be accountable to self call a foul since the moment my opponent shoots....it never happened!
I can sit down and he may shoot without the benifit of BIH and it turns out my foul has been erased.
And if I choose to stay at the table and continue to shoot...it never happened! There was no foul!
As for the previous APA example. The only person who can call the foul is the person on the side lines or their coach...not the shooting player. The shooting player may only suggest a foul occured.
All in all, it would appear that the rules side with not calling a foul on yourself and even the spirit of the rules provide for redemption if you continue to shoot.
Last edited:
ChrisBanks
Banned
With all the different scenarios it is beginning to become confusing!
The rules don't state that there is no foul. They only state who may call a foul. The person who committed the foul may notify the people designated to call it that they committed one and accept their decision.
Again any rule that would state you MUST call fouls on yourself that NO ONE ELSE sees is nonsensical and illogical. If NO ONE ELSE sees it WHICH IS THE TOPIC, then it's ALL ON YOU and your sense of ethics, fairness, gamesmanship, interpretation of the rules, etc... to NOTIFY the opponent that you committed a foul.
As for the BCA rules that say that a foul is erased if the next shot is taken before it is called then THAT of course is motivation to be unethical and not notify your opponent that a foul has occurred. However the rule states that a foul is ERASED or deemed not to have occurred if play continues. IF play continues.
So IF the player who fouled CHOOSES to allow play to continue then the foul penalty is not imposed. Which is exactly the same situation without the rule because IF the only the shooter knows he committed a foul then ONLY the shooter can admit to it.
When you incur a debt and you fail to pay it then you are in arrears. When you foul you OWE ball-in-hand to your opponent. Whether you pay it or not is up to you since only you know that you owe it.
Lots of people would keep it. Still unethical.
All unethical. Might not matter to the world at large, might be no big deal. But it's not right whether many people would do it or not.
No, stealing is stealing regardless of the circumstances. Just because you are competing and you can get away with fouling doesn't mean you should.
Once again there is no rule that says you must call fouls on yourself because such a rule is not enforceable without some way for others to monitor your actions after the fact. If all the matches you play in were recorded and the rules was that you must call fouls or be barred from the league then you would have a clear incentive to call fouls on yourself that goes BEYOND simply doing the right thing and giving your opponent the ball in hand that he is due to have because of your foul. It would only be upon review well after the fact that you broke the self-call rule.
Thanks! Yes, I've cited the "foul never happened after a subsequent shot" rule until I am blue in the face.
And thanks for clarifying the APA rule which states EXPLICITLY that ONLY an opponent or opposing Captain can ACTUALLY call a foul...and as every reasonable person must agree...if that foul is not called IT NEVER EVEN HAPPENED...BY RULE.
I think that the APA rule on this point at least... is MUCH less ambiguous than the WPA/BCA rules but as a MAJOR rule set...the APA rule certainly sheds light on what competent rule makers think is correct.
And what they DON'T think is correct is either OBLIGATING or even PERMITTING the shooter to OFFICIALLY impose a foul upon him/herself.
Game, set and match ladies and gentlemen.......he says while saying yet again....
THAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO CALL FOULS ON THEMSELVES THAT IS FINE AND QUITE A NOBLE GESTURE AND SOMETHING I PERSONALLY WOULD CHOOSE TO DO....BUT...THE OPPONENT CANNOT BE FORCED TO ACCEPT SUCH A CALL AND IF THE SELF-CALL ISN'T MADE THE SHOOTER IS NOT "CHEATING" BY DEFINITION...ABSENT AN UNAMBIGUOUS RULE REQUIRING THE SELF-CALL...WHICH IS NOT-EXISTENT IN THE WPA RULE SET.
(-:
EagleMan
And if frogs had wings...they wouldn't bump their a$$es so much.
The "right thing" is obeying the RULES OF THE GAME YOU ARE PLAYING...and if you DO...you have done NOTHING WRONG.
You do NOT have to obey the rules of some OTHER game...or the rules of the SAME game promulgated by some organization that doesn't govern YOUR match...or the Boy Scout Code...or the Hippocratic Oath...or what your Momma told you to do!!!!
Deal with that.
(-:
EagleMan
I don't know if your for or against calling fouls on yourself or what your debating here?
Let this thread die already :smile:
The rule is that when a foul is committed then it's loss of turn and ball-in-hand for the opponent.
So when YOU commit a foul then YOU KNOW you should end your turn and give the table to your opponent with ball-in-hand.
That is the FIRST rule that covers fouls.
The state of the game at the moment you foul is that you SHOULD lose your turn and give ball-in-hand. If however no one but you sees the foul and you CHOOSE not to admit it THEN the game proceeds as if it didn't happen BECAUSE when ONLY YOU know it then ONLY YOU can make others aware of it.
So IF you CHOOSE to allow the game to continue as if it didn't happen then ONLY YOU know that you didn't honor the FIRST RULE covering what happens when the shooter fouls.
And yes, it certainly has to do with the ethics covering incurred debt. If you break into a person's home and use their shower, watch their DVD's, play with their sex toys and you don't get caught did you commit a crime?
Of course you did. Not admitting it doesn't change the fact that you did it. Even if you can never be prosecuted for it you still did the crime, only you don't have to do the time.
This isn't about rules although you seem for some reason to really want to make it about the rules.
Ok, let's ASSUME that there is now a universal rule that the shooter MUST call fouls on themselves when only they know that they have committed one. How does this change anything?
ChrisBanks
Banned
If you don't call the foul on yourself, who are you causing harm to? Your opponent, yourself, or both?
And if you OBEY the rules then when you foul you KNOW that the rules state it's loss of turn and ball-in-hand just by the commission of the foul so if you don't give it up you are breaking the rules.
Checkmate since you want to use other sports terms.
You are directly causing harm to the opponent by cheating them out of the penalty they would receive because of the foul.
For example if I foul and move a ball into a position that blocks my opponent's shot then without calling it he has to shoot from a very disadvantageous position. If I admit the foul and give him ball in hand then his position increases dramatically.
All of us would agree that if a player deliberately moves a ball to block a shot and of course does not admit it then it's cheating.
But if a player accidentally moves the same ball and it blocks a shot and knows that he fouled but does not admit it then some folks don't consider that to be cheating.
I ask what is the material difference in these two examples? Intent?
Eagleman.....there may still be some ambiguity regarding the APA rule.
The actual language is:
ONLY THE PLAYER OR THE TEAM CAPTAIN
MAY OFFICIALLY CALL A FOUL although anyone may
suggest to the player or the team captain that a foul
should be called.
While it may seem apparent that the team on the sideline would be the obvious party to make the call....the language does not state that the shooter, who is also considered a palyer would be excluded from this language.
So they could call the foul but there's no language that says they must call a foul on themselves.
I've never seen a team captain during the shooters inning call a foul on his own player. This is one reason it seems it would apply to one side more so than the other but the language is non-specific.
The actual language is:
ONLY THE PLAYER OR THE TEAM CAPTAIN
MAY OFFICIALLY CALL A FOUL although anyone may
suggest to the player or the team captain that a foul
should be called.
While it may seem apparent that the team on the sideline would be the obvious party to make the call....the language does not state that the shooter, who is also considered a palyer would be excluded from this language.
So they could call the foul but there's no language that says they must call a foul on themselves.
I've never seen a team captain during the shooters inning call a foul on his own player. This is one reason it seems it would apply to one side more so than the other but the language is non-specific.
The BCA rule states:
Any foul not called before the next stroke is taken is considered to have not occurred.
This rule, in and of itself stipulates indirectly that a foul is not the end of the shooters inning....which so many here, have used as a foundation to support their position in favor of self calling a foul.
It cannot be the end of a players inning if we have provisions on how the rules apply should the shooter continue to play after a foul....and especially if there is no penalty for continuing to shoot.
Some might even feel that this encourages players to continue shooting after a foul since the foul never occured once the next shot is taken.
It's kind of like when a football team tries to quickly get off another play before their opponent can review the instant replay to see if the previous play was legitimate and throw the challenge flag. It's well within the rules!
If you don't act in time, the opportunity is forfieted. Similarly, if the player on the sidelines doesn't call the foul, they may forfiet the opportunity to take their inning.
It's apparent that provisions are in place that address what the ruling is if a palyer does not call a foul on themself and therefore supports the fact that self calling a foul is strictly a matter of choice but by rule completely unnecissary.
You may call the foul or you may not...if you do not ,and choose to keep shooting, the foul never occured and is now a moote point.
In other words...it never happened.
While this is clearly evidenced by the BCA rules, this is obviously not the way most players approach the game....myself included...... But it does proove that self called fouls are not required on any level and if you take the rule literally you could argue that since no foul will have occured if your opponent fails to call it and you choose to shoot another shot, then you are ending your inning prematurely by self calling a foul.
On some levels it could be argued that you may actually have an obligation to play out your full inning. That failure to compete according to the rules (which offers provisions for the shooter to continue play ) could be considered "cheating" in some circles. I realize there are no such circles in this forum but my point is...there are logical and technical (rules) applications to support this position if indeed the rules are the endall in defining the standards of play.
In other words a self called foul might be considerd obstruction of the rules since the rules allow you to continue shooting if your opponent doesn't call a foul.
I wonder...is ending your inning prematurely considered unsportsmanlike conduct?? lol
Any foul not called before the next stroke is taken is considered to have not occurred.
This rule, in and of itself stipulates indirectly that a foul is not the end of the shooters inning....which so many here, have used as a foundation to support their position in favor of self calling a foul.
It cannot be the end of a players inning if we have provisions on how the rules apply should the shooter continue to play after a foul....and especially if there is no penalty for continuing to shoot.
Some might even feel that this encourages players to continue shooting after a foul since the foul never occured once the next shot is taken.
It's kind of like when a football team tries to quickly get off another play before their opponent can review the instant replay to see if the previous play was legitimate and throw the challenge flag. It's well within the rules!
If you don't act in time, the opportunity is forfieted. Similarly, if the player on the sidelines doesn't call the foul, they may forfiet the opportunity to take their inning.
It's apparent that provisions are in place that address what the ruling is if a palyer does not call a foul on themself and therefore supports the fact that self calling a foul is strictly a matter of choice but by rule completely unnecissary.
You may call the foul or you may not...if you do not ,and choose to keep shooting, the foul never occured and is now a moote point.
In other words...it never happened.
While this is clearly evidenced by the BCA rules, this is obviously not the way most players approach the game....myself included...... But it does proove that self called fouls are not required on any level and if you take the rule literally you could argue that since no foul will have occured if your opponent fails to call it and you choose to shoot another shot, then you are ending your inning prematurely by self calling a foul.
On some levels it could be argued that you may actually have an obligation to play out your full inning. That failure to compete according to the rules (which offers provisions for the shooter to continue play ) could be considered "cheating" in some circles. I realize there are no such circles in this forum but my point is...there are logical and technical (rules) applications to support this position if indeed the rules are the endall in defining the standards of play.
In other words a self called foul might be considerd obstruction of the rules since the rules allow you to continue shooting if your opponent doesn't call a foul.
I wonder...is ending your inning prematurely considered unsportsmanlike conduct?? lol
Last edited:
CORRECT AGAIN. You're on a roll. (-:
Now just POST THE RULE that says that a player...knowing he has fouled...and does NOT call it has therefore, committed a FOUL with respect to which a penalty MUST be imposed.
POST THAT RULE and win the debate!!!
Don't post it (and you can't becuase there isn't one)...then by all that is rational...and yes HONEST* you should ADMIT that no such rule exists...whether you like that fact or not....and admit that BECAUSE it doesn't exist, no player can be called a cheater for not self-calling a foul because it is IMPOSSIBLE to "cheat" without violating a RULE IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME.
*Isn't it DISHONEST and therefore UNETHICAL to INSIST that there is a given rule and call people CHEATERS...which can get you a busted nose in some of the places I've played pool...for violating that rule when you know or should know that there WAS no rule violated?
Just askin'
(-:
EagleMan
GREAT stuff Rick. TAP TAP TAP.
But it is FINE for you...and me...and anyone else who CHOOSES to self-call fouls to do so.
The football team doesn't HAVE to hurry up to get the next play off. They don't HAVE to throw the red flag if they thought a ref's call was wrong. They can just ELECT to take the penalty....or if they were Boy Scouts like you and me...they could follow the disguised foul by an obvious one and end their inning that way...or they could concede that match if they're REALLY in a good mood!
What we CANNOT do is invent our own RULES to suit ourselves or call people cheaters who have NOT violated any rules.
(-:
Again...great insights. Can we get off this thread now????
(-:
EagleMan