Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?

Diamond69 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because we are only human, our level of morality may differ from person to person and our will to toe the line may differ as well.

The LOCK on the door won't deter the career criminal but it will help to deter a basically honest and decent but desperate man or even a needy man from making and doing an impulsive and dishonest thing. (As will the self-reporting rule on fouls).

I know good and decent pool players who have in the heat of battle, on occasion, chosen to remain silent about a foul that they know they committed. Their reasons are there reasons but their excuse is that "They are not required to call a foul on themselves."

Let us help to elevate our sport, rather than to provide loopholes where a player chooses to remain silent over a foul that they know they committed but chose not to report.
 
I agree about elevating the sport, just disagree that a rule like that would help.

Short story though.
I was playing Jeff Carter (Was the #1 player in the world around 1990 or so for a short time) a year or two ago at a tournament in Beloit.

We were hill/hill and he was breaking. He broke great from my view and was probably out. He sat down and told me "Ball in hand". I asked why and he said his break shot was a double hit. Not the obvious bump the cueball and quickstroke. But he felt the cue hit the cueball twice when he broke.

Even after he explained it, I still didn't understand where the foul came. But I ran out to win the set. I kind of felt bad for the win truthfully.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffield6
If you have a shread of integrity, then yes, if not dont worry about it

Like CJ said, it is all about integrity.

if you are getting me mixed up with CJ, its ok, he's not a bad kid
 
sheffield6 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffield6
If you have a shread of integrity, then yes, if not dont worry about it

Like CJ said, it is all about integrity.

if you are getting me mixed up with CJ, its ok, he's not a bad kid
Click to expand...

We know you're not CJ....he would have said TOI (touch of integrity):)

Terry Grifith, the '79 World Snooker Champion, had a free ball called in his favor.
.....he disagreed with the ref.......and shot the ball 'on' instead.
That's how I think EVERYONE should compete, not just the pros.
....and I know a lot of people that do.
 
I am by no mean's anywhere close to the pro level, however here are my beliefs on the subject. I have called a foul on myself many many times and my opponent has said what did you do? When I double hit the Q-ball, not gotten to a rail or hit another ball first vs my ball (8 ball) or the next ball (rotation games) My belief is it about respect & integrity of the game. It has nothing to do with me nor my opponent, it so much larger then that. I can't sell my soul for a pool game Money or not, nor anything else for that matter. I live my live based on Honor, Integrity, Honesty & commitment. That who I am. I can't understand how some people can look themselves in the mirror. I distant myself from them as much as possible. If you disagree, so be it.

I had an opponent in a local tournament shot a ball towards the side pocket from two of three feet away and it huge in the side without touching a rail. I shot my next shot from where it lied. When I walked away from the table after missing he loudly and arrogantly proclaimed to ever one within ear shot, "You know you had ball in hand". My feeling on this is, one, he disrespected the game and secondly he disrespected me. I have him on my "Hit" list and I can't wait to be matched up with him again because my focus and concentration will be at it upmost state. I always want to beat people who disrespect the game. When I was growing up on the Southside of Chicago the saying would go "I would love to beat him out of his Lunch Money" or Play him for one shoe (Yes, just one), just to watch him gimp out of the pool room.
 
pt109 said:
We know you're not CJ....he would have said TOI (touch of integrity):)

Terry Grifith, the '79 World Snooker Champion, had a free ball called in his favor.
.....he disagreed with the ref.......and shot the ball 'on' instead.
That's how I think EVERYONE should compete, not just the pros.
....and I know a lot of people that do.
Click to expand...

touch of integrity, sounds like a good name for a DVD:smile:
 
APA BRIAN said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...

Sometimes only the shooter knows he committed a foul, regardless of how closely the opponent or a referee is watching.
 
Maniac said:
... 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??? ...
Click to expand...

According to the Regulations for the world-standardized rules -- "If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. "
 
JoeyA said:
... I know good and decent pool players who have in the heat of battle, on occasion, chosen to remain silent about a foul that they know they committed. Their reasons are there reasons but their excuse is that "They are not required to call a foul on themselves." ...
Click to expand...

And I'd say they aren't reading the rules properly. See post #69 above.
 
AtLarge said:
According to the Regulations for the world-standardized rules -- "If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. "
Click to expand...

Trusted witnesses COULD be biased, or simply mistaken. Video tapes can SOMETIMES show fouls (depending on the angle of the camera). Reenacting the shot may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in a rule book. Re-enactment does not prove anything that may have or may not have happened on the actual shot.

As an example, we had a thread on here a week or so ago where a player playing in what I think was the Ultimate 10-ball, I think it was Mike D. and Earl (imagine that) had committed what the sitting player (Mike D.) thought was a bad hit. Member after member of AZB people watched the video (at regular speed, slow motion, and frame-by-frame) and it was about 50/50 on the decision that it was a bad hit. So, the camera/video was of no help whatsoever.

I know and understand the rules, but what I was wondering, and would like your opinion on, is SHOULD the referee be able to use those options for determining whether or not a foul was committed when he/she was away from that table? There are some leagues/tournaments where it is ultimately the shooters call when there is a dispute. This rule puts a stop to all the dispute and gets players back to playing pool. Either way, the call can be wrongly made. Why not just simplify the whole process?

I'm wondering what the membership thinks of this? Maybe another thread should be started, but it is on subject with the OP.

Maniac
 
As I explained earlier, any audience becomes sick when pros do not call their owns fouls if they have to.
Sick audiences=less popularity for the game=less growth of the game status=less money in it.
So the pros may win temporarily something by not calling their owns fouls when they have to but in the long run they lose, the game loses, everybody loses and nobody that does this, pro or not, has the right to complain "why there's no money in pool".
One of the reasons about the game never reaching true potential is not enough promotion by the players too, the pros should think about that, agree to give the best example and guide other people into that kind of thinking.
 
Who decides whos moral code applies to pool?

Masayoshi said:
I
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.



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.
Click to expand...




So you claim that YOUR moral code is the "right" code and apparently you are the poster child for societies opinion as well. Hmmmm. Apparently the world is supposed to abide by your standard of ethics in all games of pool because you know what is right and wrong. I was completely unaware as I'm sure most of the pool world was as well!!!

All kidding aside...right and wrong are often very subjective concepts. Oddly enough, the rules for pool are not so subjective.


So if someone has a differnt perspective than you they are "Morally inept".

Let's suppose there are 2 women sitting at a table and one woman is pro choice. The other woman is pro life. Both believe they have a moral right/belief in their cause. Is one of these women "inept" because the other believes as you do? Should we criticize the inept one because your moral compass has concluded it is appropriate.

My point being....one of these women could just as easlily believe that people should always self call fouls. The other may believe that it's not their responsibility. Where you got the notion that your moral perspective has greater value than someone else simply because you wish it to be so is very self centered.

You want to know how society deals with people who have different perspectives?....we make laws to protect their freedoms.

You want to know how we protect pool players with different perspectives?....we make rules to ensure everyone's on a level playing field.

I have yet to see you produce a rule that states someone is "cheating" or "inept" for not self calling a foul.

Have you looked at the rule book lately? This is not a 2 page document....it is very thorough. If it were the intentions of the authors to conclude that failure to self call fouls was cheating or prohibited conduct.....they would have addressed it in the rule book.

It is not a coincidence that this issue is not addressed and the reason is clear.....
It's Not Cheating except in the mind of those who choose to disregard the rules and superceed it with their moral interpretations.
 
Last edited:
My interpretation is that it is included here, albeit not to the extent that it could be used to ever settle an argument either on a forum or next to the table -

6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct

"...Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly."

I once played a Pro in a tournament who after seemingly missing a thin snick refused to even acknowledge my existence when asked, 'Foul right?', not once but three times, not even eye contact; leaving it as a bit of a lottery whether to take the BIH or not. I took the BIH and he didn't call a foul on me for doing so (which of course he could've done if he were out to cheat). I don't agree with what he did but I do understand why he did it.
 
Last edited:
Rep for Bud

bud green said:
If a pro golfer fouls and doesn't call it on himself, he risks being totally ostracized from the sport.

The pool players I know who do call fouls on themselves seem to be a lot classier people in general than the ones who don't.
Click to expand...

Bud Green is getting some rep from me, because what he states here is very true. Especially the part about the pool players.
 
30REBORNFAN said:
My interpretation is that it is included here, albeit not to the extent that it could be used to ever settle an argument either on a forum or next to the table -

6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct

"...Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly."
Click to expand...


To bring disrespute to an entire sport, it cannot be personal or in isolated cases.....otherwise it's just your opinion against theirs or your moral perspective vs. theirs.

I would think that in order for disrepute to apply, there would have to be an overwhelming concensus within the pool community that failing to self call a foul was inappropiate and as such made it difficult to play the game fairly.

The fact that we are debating "failure to self call a foul" suggests that it is rather prevalant within the sport and therefore, would not qualify as bringing disrespute to the sport. After all, it's been going on for as long as there have been rules.........while the sport has suffered a bad reputation for many other issues, I am not aware that it has been directly related to the fact that some choose not to self call fouls.

Did you ever watch football before they initiated instant play review. I can recall dozens of times where the reciever trapped the ball against the ground during the catch but the ref couldn't see it. Everyone at home watching it on TV could see it. These receivers never came clean and admitted they trapped the ball and yet I don't remember anyone accusing the that team of "cheating" as many have here. In fact, these players were often hailed as heroes and superstars within the sport. They were often considered "role models"
Somehow football failed to be straddled with a reputation of disrespute.

The point being.....in competition as in the law, you should not held accontable to self incriminate. It's a basic freedom that when applied in almost all areas of life we appreciate but for many if they feel that they have been disinfranchised because they didn't see a foul and their opponent didn't call it, suddenly, their oppnent is some sort of "bad guy".

I've had many opponents fail to self call a foul. I know because I observed the foul and I called it. If I missed the foul, then obviously I was not attentive to the game and that's my fault.......not his!
 
Last edited:
Maniac said:
... what I was wondering, and would like your opinion on, is SHOULD the referee be able to use those options for determining whether or not a foul was committed when he/she was away from that table? ...
Click to expand...

Yes. The regulations say: "The referee will form his decision by all means that seem suitable to him." This is reasonable. Once all the information/evidence is gathered, the referee makes his own decision. The Regulations further state: "If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred." Again, that's reasonable when all you've got is one player saying "foul" and the other player saying "no foul.".

Maniac said:
...Reenacting the shot may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in a rule book. Re-enactment does not prove anything that may have or may not have happened on the actual shot. ...
Click to expand...

Maybe not so stupid. For example, the direction the balls take after a collision can sometimes be used to determine whether a hit was good. So getting agreement on the movement of the balls, perhaps by reenactment, can be helpful in making a decision.
 
he would have said TOI (touch of integrity)

pt109 said:
We know you're not CJ....he would have said TOI (touch of integrity):)

Terry Grifith, the '79 World Snooker Champion, had a free ball called in his favor.
.....he disagreed with the ref.......and shot the ball 'on' instead.
That's how I think EVERYONE should compete, not just the pros.
....and I know a lot of people that do.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. :grin:
362564
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top