How about just calling the right pocket?
Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
How about just calling the right pocket?
For a moment, forget about morality and doing what is right or wrong.
It just ISN'T FAIR to the rest of the tournament (let alone their opponent) when a small minority choose to not call fouls on themselves simply because they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.
Just to be clear, the shooter isn't the only person that can or should call a foul. Currently, a referee is the only person REQUIRED to call a foul. It is in the best interest of the shooter's opponent to call a foul and he is allowed to do so now and should still be able to call a foul.
NO one person sees all of the fouls, all of the time.
Adding a rule which stipulates that the shooter is required to acknowledge a foul that he has committed will elevate the game imo.
Still, I would love to hear what the pros think. At my next tournament, I'm going to get some responses.
Heck, I think I'll Facebook a bunch of the pros and ask their opinion since they seldom post on AZB Main Forum.
JoeyA
If the creditability of 'professional Pool players' is the question, why not just do what the rest of the world does?
Have Qualified Referees and make it ALL Ball Fouls.
Currently the World Standardized Rules do not have a section for 'Cue ball only' Fouls.
Have Qualified Referees and make it ALL Ball Fouls.
Currently the World Standardized Rules do not have a section for 'Cue ball only' Fouls.
Yes........................
When a referee is present, only the referee should be REQUIRED to call fouls.
If a potential foul may occur then the shooter's opponent should be able to bring that possibility to the attention of the referee (that is currently the way it is handled) and the referee's call is final.
There isn't enough money to hire qualified referees for all matches at this time.
Badi Nazhat of Ultimate 10 Ball Championships had a slew of referees present this past tournament and they did an EXCELLENT job but that costs A LOT OF MONEY.
JoeyA
Actually the WPA does cover Cue Ball Only fouls http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations
item 20 under Administrative Discretion
Referees would be ideal, but the game has to get richer for those conditions.
By the way, Badi responded to my email with thanx....
...pool needs a few more people like him....we got some, but not enough.
I don't think it should only be pros that call their own fouls......
...everybody should.
If you will bend your own morals because you're playing a bad guy....
...then you are letting the bad guy dictate your morals....
....which makes you amoral.
While it is possible that adding such a statement in the rules would help (or do no harm), I think it is not necessary. I consider the rules (WPA) sufficient in this regard.
For anyone who wants to read about 500 posts on this topic from just 7 months ago, here is the thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=299698. Here are a few of my thoughts from that thread.
True, the rules contain no explicit language requiring self-reporting of fouls. But the rules specify (1) those actions that are fouls and (2) the consequences of those fouls. The rules do not say such actions are fouls only if the opponent or referee is paying attention, or is able to see them, and calls them. So if they occur, they are fouls, and the specified consequences should follow. But the specified consequences cannot occur unless someone acknowledges that the foul occurred. And in some cases it is only the fouling player who is aware that it occurred. Hence, by the rules, he is obliged to call it.
In a refereed match, when a player thinks he has fouled and the ref does not call it, that player has an obligation to inform the ref of the foul. Now, it's possible that the player thinks he fouled when he really did not. [Example -- the ball the player is watching fails to hit a rail and the player thinks he fouled, but, in fact, he did hit a rail with another ball he didn't see.] So the player should inform the ref of the foul he thinks he committed. It is then up to the ref to make the call or not. If the player is sure he fouled and the ref won't call it (example -- he knows he touched a ball in an all-balls-foul match), he can continue play knowing that he fully satisfied his obligation. [Some people might even go so far as to make an obvious, compensatory foul at the next opportunity.]
In a non-refereed match, the obligation is to inform the opponent.
It seems counter intuitive that the person in action, going through a run-out is supposed to call a foul on themselves. I feel it should always fall on the player who isn't at the table...sitting down, doing nothing, just watching.....to...I don't know....maybe WATCH. Its like passing go in Monopoly, oh you didn't notice? Too bad...sorry no $200 for you. At a professional level/tournament it seems that should be the case even more so. Professional players should not be bothered with refereeing themselves while simultaneously playing a rack.
If you so badly want the integrity of the game to be upheld, uphold it by doing your part as the person sitting and watching. There is a reason the rules don't explicitly say to call fouls on yourself, and NEVER will. Because we don't play and ref. Morality and money aside, its counter intuitive when applied to real life. Although I think it is good to discuss Billiard Philosophy, which this essentially is.
If you so badly want the integrity of the game to be upheld, uphold it by doing your part as the person sitting and watching. There is a reason the rules don't explicitly say to call fouls on yourself, and NEVER will. Because we don't play and ref. Morality and money aside, its counter intuitive when applied to real life. Although I think it is good to discuss Billiard Philosophy, which this essentially is.
I never confused morality with the law or the rules in pool. In fact, I clearly stated they are often times at odds. You either failed to comprehend what I was saying or just ignored what you didn't want to hear. I don't get angry at people who play unethically, but I do hold grudges and will not grant them action or give them the benefit of the doubt if we happen to draw eachother in a tournament. And no, you are mistaken, that sense of honor does give me and others who possess it the higher ground.
I do, society does, common sense does. If you are tryig to argue that using dishonesty to gain an advantage at a sporting event is ethical, you are clearly wrong.
What? I never said anything of the sort.
Again, I never said the rules should require players to call fouls on themselves. I said that players should call fouls on themselves because it is the right thing to do. Those that don't are morally inept.
Things are quite simple:
Pool is meant to be a jentleman's sport, if pros wish to ever be able making a living out of it they should call out their own fouls.
If not, they simply should never complain why "there's no living in Pool"...
Petros
Pool is meant to be a jentleman's sport, if pros wish to ever be able making a living out of it they should call out their own fouls.
If not, they simply should never complain why "there's no living in Pool"...
Petros
It's a simple choice
You either:
Choose to follow the rules to the best of your ability
or
Choose NOT to follow the rules to the best of your ability
End of line.
You either:
Choose to follow the rules to the best of your ability
or
Choose NOT to follow the rules to the best of your ability
End of line.
I do not disagree with the bolded statement. It should be in the rules of all tournament and league play. Problem is, it's not going to change a darn thing. As long as the SHOOTER has the final say in a non-refereed match, there will still be uncalled fouls by the shooting players. In the ES vs. CW match, do you think the rule change would have made any difference in that situation? I don't. Rule or no rule, it ultimately depends on the moral compass of the offending player. They will either call a foul on themselves or they won't.
This brings up yet another question. Should a referee make a judgment based on information given to him/her by the non-shooting player (after the foul, once he/she is called over to the table)??? How about when a referee actually considers information given to him/her by SPECTATORS (once again, coming to the table when summoned AFTER the foul occurs)??? I have seen fouls called on the shooter in both of these scenarios when the shooter in these instances insisted no foul was committed.
So, what good are the rules when they can be circumvented by the shooting player, the non-shooting player, or (in very few cases) by the spectators themselves???
There really is a small problem here that doesn't seem to have a fix. Thank goodness these things don't occur all that often or it would be really ugly!!!
Maniac
Last edited:
There is already a rule on fouls for each tournament (cue ball only or all ball fouls). So I don't think a rule requiring self reporting would work. You can't institute a morale rule. What would be the penalty if they didn't self report? And how could you prove they knew they made the foul?
I think players that encounter each other as often as they do know who they need to watch out for more than the other. Whether that is professionals or local players that know each other.
Joey, put in another way, if you are playing for 1000 a game, paying off every game, would you call a foul on yourself with no one else seeing it? If you are not a gambler, how could you answer it truthfully when you have never been in that spot?
Billy,
I understand what you are saying and appreciate it greatly as there is much wisdom and truth in what you say.
That being said, we are all part of the pool world and want what's best for the pool world. It is just my opinion that the pool world would be better off if the rules stated that in the absence of a referee, the shooter is required to call their own fouls and their opponent is also able to call fouls.
I am not naïve enough to believe that this will end the shenanigans of the out right cheaters, but like the locks on our doors, instituting this rule may help to reinforce an honest man's character.
Instituting a rule that says the shooter is required to call fouls on himself will have a similar affect that locks on our doors have on good and decent people.
Locks, like rules, don't prevent a person from lying/cheating/stealing but it does give them a chance to give pause and think before they act.
It also removes the insidious excuse that the shooter sometimes uses when not calling a foul on himself and justifies his behavior when he says, "I am following the rules, I am not required to call a foul on myself." The truth of the matter is the rules do not state that a shooter must call a foul on himself.
The need for this to be part of the rules has little to do with morality and ethics but more so to put wings even tiny wings under our sport, so that we can walk with pride, so that others (outside of our own microcosm) can look at us and see that we are indeed proud of the way we carry ourselves in this great sport and that we hold all of our players to a high standard. Then perhaps, those with real money, may consider that we are worthy of their attention and largesse.
JoeyA
We agree. The referee gets paid to call fouls. The pool players get paid to play pool.
Professional baseball, basketball and football players get paid to play the game, the referees and umpires get paid to officiate.
Joey,
1st item in red... As mentioned before, a rule stating to have morality will not have an affect on a moral person (since they don't need to be told), nor will it have an affect on a non moral person.
2nd item in red...Only players without moral would say "I didn't call the foul on myself because it's not in the rules". I doubt any thief would say "I only robbed the place because the door was unlocked, so I didn't think it was illegal".
Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.