ChrisBanks
Banned
I think the main disagreement has been who the burden falls upon to call the foul. You, or your opponent. So while you may have fouled, it may not be within your jurisdiction to call a foul on yourself.
If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?
- Thread starter ChrisBanks
- Start date
I think the main disagreement has been who the burden falls upon to call the foul. You, or your opponent. So while you may have fouled, it may not be within your jurisdiction to call a foul on yourself.
This is retarded. If the shooter knows they fouled, they should call it on themselves. Anyone who thinks differently is a douche bag.
rrick3 said:
This actually is the closest I've seen to a good point in this whole mess =)
Couldn't believe it, but it's true, the exact wording of the WPA rules does say:
"If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened."
Certainly one interpretation is that "if I casually just walk up and perform my next shot, and nobody speaks up, there's no foul."
Another is that this is their way of preventing anyone from causing an argument by trying to call a 'retroactive foul'. In other words, if I see you tap the cue ball on the three ball, I cannot wait until you're about to shoot a straight in nine and say "ok, I'm calling that foul you made on the three earlier. I'm taking ball in hand on the 9 now."
The point of the wording is NOT meant to clear up whose job it is to call.
It's to clear up the timeframe of a call and keep things moving.
What he said. :thumbup:
The referee on the shot is responsible for calling fouls. If a referee isn't present then the shooter is the referee.
Summary - If you are the shooter and you foul and there is no other referee present then yes you are responsible for calling it on yourself.
Ken
p.s. I only partially waded through this thread. Apologies if this was stated and ignored earlier in this thread. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious.
Summary - If you are the shooter and you foul and there is no other referee present then yes you are responsible for calling it on yourself.
Ken
p.s. I only partially waded through this thread. Apologies if this was stated and ignored earlier in this thread. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious.
Justadub stated: "All this just sounds like coming up with reasons to justify breaking the rules.
"They didn't catch me (call it) so it really isn't a foul."
I think you missed the point.
THIS IS THE RULE!!!!
I'm not making this up to prove a point.
If the foul is not called, then it technically, by rule, is not a foul....plain and simple!
I realize that this may throw a monkey wrench into the logical and perhaps moral interpretation of events for some, but I didn't write the rules. I'm simply abliged to follow them.
"They didn't catch me (call it) so it really isn't a foul."
I think you missed the point.
THIS IS THE RULE!!!!
I'm not making this up to prove a point.
If the foul is not called, then it technically, by rule, is not a foul....plain and simple!
I realize that this may throw a monkey wrench into the logical and perhaps moral interpretation of events for some, but I didn't write the rules. I'm simply abliged to follow them.
Last edited:
I skimmed through most of this, but this is why one of my quotes holds true and this thread proves it, "95% of pool players are scumbags, the other 5% might not be".
If you foul, be a decent human being and call it on yourself. If you don't, you're a scumbag, cheater, etc. If you have to win by cheating, and you feel ok about it, you're a scumbag. Maybe I'm a bit harsh, but that's the reality of it.
If you foul, be a decent human being and call it on yourself. If you don't, you're a scumbag, cheater, etc. If you have to win by cheating, and you feel ok about it, you're a scumbag. Maybe I'm a bit harsh, but that's the reality of it.
ChrisBanks
Banned
What if the shooter needs to win the match to pay his rent, feed his family, or to pay for medical procedures?
Would it change your opinion?
You are saying that the man is a scumbag for sacrificing his morality in order to protect his family? Are you saying this is no small sacrifice? You do not think he would prefer not to cheat?
Last edited:
Can you show me the rule that says that in the absence of a referee, the only person who can call a foul is the non-shooter?
I will concede that there is no rule explicitly stating that a shooter must self-call. But where is the rule that explicitly prohibits a player from self-calling?
Are you serious? If someone is out there playing pool for this particular reason, he/she shouldn't be playing pool in the first place. So robbing a bank is ok if it's to "feed your children"? You really need to look at your morality...or lack there of!
ChrisBanks
Banned
There are plenty of men who do not earn enough from their labor, and need to supplement their income by playing pool. What do you suggest for them?
I think the important thing here is if you foul and nobody saw it but you, is it still a foul? I've fouled before, nobody saw it, but I called it. Not that I was looking to see if someone saw it, I go by the reaction of my opponent when I tell him I fouled. Just because he didn't see it, or a referee didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can do whatever you want to do in this situation, it's your call. I choose to take the higher road, because as big of an a$$hole as I can sometimes be, nobody can say I'm dishonest or a cheat.
Find a better paying job because clearly, if they have to cheat to get that extra money, they suck at pool anyways.
Krupa stated: "Can you show me the rule that says that in the absence of a referee, the only person who can call a foul is the non-shooter?
I will concede that there is no rule explicitly stating that a shooter must self-call. But where is the rule that explicitly prohibits a player from self-calling? "
I cant speak to referee situations....don't know how that affects the rules.
I am unaware of any rule that prohibits the shooter from self calling a foul. This privledge is afforded to both players.
However, if the shooter does not self call a foul and the opponent does not call the foul, then no foul has occured by rule.
I will concede that there is no rule explicitly stating that a shooter must self-call. But where is the rule that explicitly prohibits a player from self-calling? "
I cant speak to referee situations....don't know how that affects the rules.
I am unaware of any rule that prohibits the shooter from self calling a foul. This privledge is afforded to both players.
However, if the shooter does not self call a foul and the opponent does not call the foul, then no foul has occured by rule.
I suggest they get another job...Because if they are out there playing to supplement income, they have bigger issues to deal with. As for you trying to justify this, there is never any reason to be dishonest and your opinion and statements prove that you just very well may be one of these people. But if it makes you feel good about yourself, that's you. Hopefully, you don't have children, because they learn from their parent's and this isn't exactly a life lesson a child should learn.
I don't have xmas presents for my kids, I have to go out and rob a Toys R Us...It's OK though, I don't make enough money from my job.
ChrisBanks
Banned
I suggest they get another job...Because if they are out there playing to supplement income, they have bigger issues to deal with. As for you trying to justify this, there is never any reason to be dishonest and your opinion and statements prove that you just very well may be one of these people. But if it makes you feel good about yourself, that's you. Hopefully, you don't have children, because they learn from their parent's and this isn't exactly a life lesson a child should learn.
I don't have xmas presents for my kids, I have to go out and rob a Toys R Us...It's OK though, I don't make enough money from my job.
Thus far I have not released my opinion of the current topic.
Tank69 stated "I think the important thing here is if you foul and nobody saw it but you, is it still a foul? I've fouled before, nobody saw it, but I called it. Not that I was looking to see if someone saw it, I go by the reaction of my opponent when I tell him I fouled. Just because he didn't see it, or a referee didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can do whatever you want to do in this situation, it's your call. I choose to take the higher road, because as big of an a$$hole as I can sometimes be, nobody can say I'm dishonest or a cheat. "
Tank, welcome to the conversation. In previous posts it was determined, by rule, that if a foul is not called, then it never happened. It doesn't matter whether you opponent could not see it.
The circumstances of striking another ball , after a foul, modified the events so that there literally was no foul....it never happened.
Failure to call a foul means there was no foul.
Since the rules allow you to self call to qualify the act as a foul, some may choose this option.
The rules also allow for you to continue shooting after the fact and literally modify the events so that no foul occured.
It is in this theme that we have been debating how moral views should be applied.
Both events are well within the rules. Why should one carry more weight than the other unless you impose some arbitrary moral viewpoint?
Tank, welcome to the conversation. In previous posts it was determined, by rule, that if a foul is not called, then it never happened. It doesn't matter whether you opponent could not see it.
The circumstances of striking another ball , after a foul, modified the events so that there literally was no foul....it never happened.
Failure to call a foul means there was no foul.
Since the rules allow you to self call to qualify the act as a foul, some may choose this option.
The rules also allow for you to continue shooting after the fact and literally modify the events so that no foul occured.
It is in this theme that we have been debating how moral views should be applied.
Both events are well within the rules. Why should one carry more weight than the other unless you impose some arbitrary moral viewpoint?
Last edited:
That we're 30 pages into a thread you started and you still haven't released your opinion, but you're willing to periodically pipe up to stir the pot, leads me to believe that you're a very subtle troll.
