Should a pro player call a foul on themselves?

[rrick33]

The Fonze stated"

Yes of course I pay attention to my matches. However I don't believe in assuming the role of a referee when I'm playing, which is the best vantage point for spotting fouls. In snooker it's in the rules that players are to call fouls on themselves in the tradition of the sport.
Some fouls can't be spotted. Go to 5:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmwqnBP1CM

No wonder pool is in the shit.

Calling fouls on one's self is an issue of morality and sportsmanship, not about what some pocket rulebook only states. For those debating that it's okay not to call a foul on yourself - you're like the scumbag lawyers that distort the law from what is just.


It seems to me that what you're really upset with is the "Intent" of the other player. If you feel they are "cheating " you, then your moral code kicks in.

What if the other player had a subtle double hit but didn't realize it? Are they too a scumbag for not calling the foul?

What if it changed the outcome of the game?

What if it was the intent of your opponent to abide within the scope of the rules and leave it up to you to call all fouls. He's not trying to cheat you.....he simply interprets the rules differently than you. Is he also a scumbag?

Perhaps he committed no foul and it never became an issue. Is he still a scumbag because he was playing with an intent contrary to your interpretation of the rules.

How do you resolve all these moral quandries?

Personally, moral perspectives have no place in the debate,

 

[thefonz]

What if the rules actually stated in writing that a player was not required to self call a foul?

Would all of those players who labled this as cheating or referred to the offending party as a hack or inept or any of the multitude of insults.....change their opinion?

Would simply putting a rule in place change your perspective.

If you say NO. Then it's likely you are operating on a moral view point and it is far too subjective to apply to the rules. Your opinion of a rule you disagree with would not prevail.

If you say YES. Then you are following the rules and there is nothing to debate. You are likely viewing the situation as if it is simply a rule and applies to the game.

It is clear that the rules do not require you to self call fouls and therefore all opinions contrary to the rules are likely based on personal moral perspectives which cannot be applied to the rules.

As such, a players right not to self call a foul is supported in the rules and an opponents opinion or moral perspective carries no weight.

If your moral perspective carries no weight and cannot be enforced....it seems pretty simple to me.

If someone chooses not to self call a foul they have done so within the rules.
Debate over!

There is right
And there is wrong

If someone infringes on a rule, he has done something wrong.

What happens next has less to do with the rules, and more to do with how the person was raised. And in the bigger and more important picture over what the rulebook state - what kind of person they are, and what their actions have to impact and influence others.

They have just told everyone who may be watching, yes I'm a cheater, and I'm okay with that. We all know who these people are in our local rooms.

Unfortunately you are correct, there is no enforcement in the rules for cheaters, or those who aren't moral people. Perhaps there should be, I'm sure it would take the bitter taste out of the people's mouths whom have been cheated.

To correctly answer the OP's question was whether pros should call fouls on themselves. The answer is obviously YES. The reason why is beyond what the rulebook state.

I think pool can learn a lesson from golf, where the game is held in such a high regard for how those that play it conduct themselves. If you've seen the "first tee" commercials touting all the benefits that children can reap by playing golf (honesty, integrity) it's apart of the attraction that greatly helps develop the sport at the grassroots level. Something that pool is missing.

 

[thefonz]

It seems to me that what you're really upset with is the "Intent" of the other player. If you feel they are "cheating " you, then your moral code kicks in.

I'm glad you got that, I thought I'd have to clarify myself.

what if the other player had a subtle double hit but didn't realize it? Are they too a scumbag for not calling the foul?

I've never known a good player that didn't know whether or not they double hit a ball. There is no such thing as a "subtle double hit". Only people who can't play don't know what a double hit feels like. And yes they are a scumbag.

what if it was the intent of your opponent to abide within the scope of the rules and leave it up to you to call all fouls. He's not trying to cheat you.....he simply interprets the rules differently than you. Is he also a scumbag?

Perhaps he committed no foul and it never became an issue. Is he still a scumbag because he was playing with an intent contrary to your interpretation of the rules.

How do you resolve all these moral quandries?

Personally, moral perspectives have no place in the debate,

Your last three comments make little sense. My reference to scumbags was for those who think it's okay not to call fouls on themselves, i do not know what it has to do with you above comments. As I have thoughtfully read your comments, I bid you to do the same prior to responding to mine.

FYI those "rules" that you believe are the "be all and end all" come from the same morons that gave us the 45 degree rule for double hits.

 

[The Renfro]

I will always call a foul on myself.. It's just the cloth I was cut from... I also give back money when the shop clerk hands me back too much change... I hold the door for people and always try and remember to say thank you...

Does that make me a better person than someone who doesn't do those things? Pretty hard to say on that.. I have my own areas where my morals may be suspect compared to others.. It just is going to be that way like it or not....

What I do know is if someone fouls and I know they did and they do not call it or deny it when I ask them I tend to chalk it up to maybe they weren't looking at what I was or my position might not have been the best or they may have been uneducated as to what the foul in question constituted...

At that point I will pay very close attention... I will stop them repeatedly to call for someone to watch the hit... I will get out of my chair and get into a better position to watch them and by the end of the match I am pretty sure they would have been much better off owning up to the foul in the first place.. Especially when I tell their next opponent that they need to do exactly what I ended up doing because you have to watch "some" people........

I prefer a gentleman's game and not calling or owning up to a foul is usually a move and if it is a move you employ don't bother asking to play again, don't ask if you can practice on my table or even warm up... GTFO... I'm sure someone who is unaware of your antics will be along shortly...

Chris

 

[rrick33]

AtLarge stated:

"You know we are not in agreement. I believe the rules do require a player to report it when he thinks he has fouled and the foul has not been called by an opponent or a referee. I explained the simple logical deduction in post #69".

I read your post and I can see the logic in your reasoning; however, I think it depends on the context or rules being applied. Answer me this.....in the APA rules, it states that if player commits a foul but their opponent does not call the foul, then it never happened.

It would seem that under this rule, a player is not required to report the foul. He can allow the events to play out and if it isn't called it never happened. I might even suggest that this rule encourages players to avoid calling fouls on themselves since the conditions influence the outcome.

It is apparent that a player is allowed to commit a foul without penalty if their opponent does not call it. In addition, all repurcusssion to the event is irrelivant since failure to call the foul eliminates the event altogether. The rules do not say that if you miss the foul you lose the opportunity to collect after the fact......It says specifically, that if you miss it...it never happened! There is a clear distinction here.

In other words if you didn't call it ...it never happened....there was no foul. If there was no foul, then how can we infuse our moral perspectives to a non event as defined by the rules. The rules actually redefine the event based on whether it was observed or not. It's kind of like...."If a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it...did it make a sound?" The answere is No. There was no sound and in this example....there was no foul.

It literally takes what was a foul under certain conditions and changes it to a non foul if other conditions apply.

Some players on this forum have thrown out moral retribution because a player didn't self call the foul. If we abide by the rules, then they are crying over nothing because if you didn't call the foul, it no longer qualifies as a foul! In other words ...all accountabilty to call the foul is upon the non-shooting player. The non-shooter holds their fate in their own hands. Blaming your opponent for a situation that you missed is not a justifiable position since your lack of observation changed the foul to a non foul event.

That being said, it would be in the best interest of any player in APA to avoid self calling fouls as defined by the rules since they will cease to be fouls if their opponent fails to acknowledge it.

I do agree with you that adherance to the rules is the best policy so we are probably in agreement more than you think. I suspect we simply interpret the rules differently. Perhaps you or others reading this thread can elaborate on which rule leads you to believe that players are required to self call fouls. Keep in mind that "required" is a pretty powerful word. Most people here seem to rely on very arbitrary moral or ethical interpretations within the rules. Sadly, these correlations only cloud the issue because of their ambiguity. It would be nice to see a rule that has clear evidence to support your position.

 

[AtLarge]

... I read your post and I can see the logic in your reasoning; however, I think it depends on the context or rules being applied. Answer me this.....in the APA rules, it states that if player commits a foul but their opponent does not call the foul, then it never happened.

I'm not privy to the APA's reasons for the several differences between their rules and the WPA (world-standardized) rules. In the instance you cite, perhaps they just want to make sure no squabbles occur later in the game/match regarding the un-called-at-the-time and, therefore, non-existent, foul.

Wouldn't you agree that if we simply abide by the rules we can avoid these moral issues?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I have said absolutely nothing about morals or ethics in this thread. My point relates to the WPA rules. For those rules to be observed properly, one must notify the opponent or referee when one thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee. Otherwise, the rules-specified consequences of the foul will not occur.

 

[rrick33]

Here is the rule from the WPA

6. Fouls
The following actions are fouls at pool when included in the specific rules of the game being played. If several fouls occur on one shot, only the most serious one is enforced. If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened.


This seems to me to be very much in line with the APA rule.

Unsporsmanlike conduct qualifies as:

(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;

Note that the long list of applicable events in the rule book intentionally ignore failing to call a foul on yourself.

They could have easily included this in the same section since it's obviously a touchy point. And yet they didn't. I would contend that it was intentionally ommitted because it is not required by any player to self call a foul.

Since failure to call the foul changes the circumstances to a non foul event....the rules are clear and evident. No foul occurred.

This seems to be evident in both the WPA and APA rules.

It has been suggested that the WPA rules require a player to notify the opponent or referee when one thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee.

I'd be curious if anyone knows the details of this rule as it seems to offer some conflict with the foul rule.

 

[trob]

The reductio ad absurdum of your position on this is that your opponent would have to ask you after every one of your shots whether you fouled, because you might have fouled and not volunteered that information. As I've said, sometimes only the shooter knows.

no lol I've been playing for 25 years I can't tell you how many times someone after a shot looks at you and says "that was a foul right?" or "was that a foul" and I will always say yes. In fact if it's a close hit and even I'm not sure and my opponent thinks it was or might have been I hand him the q ball. But I'm not going to call it for you and I don't expect someone to call it for me.as I said if I miss a foul I'm not mad at my opponent I'm mad at myself. Personal responsibility is a tough thing for people to have even in pool I guess.

I've need seen an offensive linemen after a play say hey dude I jumped off sides..or and nba player say I walked on that play. It's your job to watch the shot and if you think it's going to be close get someone to watch it.

I'll give you a dishonest situation and this happens in bca at least once or twice a year. a player bumps the ball with his tip while aiming..realizes it then quickly fires off the shot so you can't call it. lol Again when I do that I'll stand up and give him a chance to call the foul. if he doesn't I go back to my pre shot routine. I've missed those fouls myself because I wasn't paying attention and again don't get mad at my opponent.. I get upset with myself for not paying attention.

 

[The Renfro]

Here is the rule from the WPA

6. Fouls
The following actions are fouls at pool when included in the specific rules of the game being played. If several fouls occur on one shot, only the most serious one is enforced. If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened.


This seems to me to be very much in line with the APA rule.

Unsporsmanlike conduct qualifies as:

(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;

Note that the long list of applicable events in the rule book intentionally ignore failing to call a foul on yourself.

They could have easily included this in the same section since it's obviously a touchy point. And yet they didn't. I would contend that it was intentionally ommitted because it is not required by any player to self call a foul.

Since failure to call the foul changes the circumstances to a non foul event....the rules are clear and evident. No foul occurred.

This seems to be evident in both the WPA and APA rules.

SO I should call foul after every shot once I have reason to question someone's honesty just to keep them from firing away on one that may be a foul??

Is there a rule keeping me from declaring a foul on each shot? Something you can find under unsportsmanlike?? If not there check under Karma.....

LOL,
Chris

 

[rrick33]

Renfro
"SO I should call foul after every shot once I have reason to question someone's honesty just to keep them from firing away on one that may be a foul??

Is there a rule keeping me from declaring a foul on each shot? Something you can find under unsportsmanlike?? If not there check under Karma.....

LOL,
Chris "




How you choose to play the game is up to you.

It would seem that the rules are in favor of not self calling fouls and if you interpret them literally, then failuer to call the foul on your opponent means that it isn't a foul. So even the moral issues don't apply.

No foul...no harm!

 

[Masayoshi]

Mayoshi, I discredited your position adnausium in the first two responses. There's no need to rehash it any longer.

Your most recent comment:

"If you want to run away from the discussion, you are free to do so. I will take it as a concession."

This simply tells me that you either enjoy abuse or you simply need to have the last word in order to feel complete. When I listen to children argue, I hear the same thing.

No, children try to get the last word in and then run away from the topic at had. That was your (failed) tactic. I never tried to getthe last word in, you did. I in fact gave you plenty of chances and even made suggestions on how you could properly present your argument.

It doesn't matter what I say here....your opinion will remain constant. If it makes you feel good that logic and reason could not sway your opinion, then you win the big award for lacking those qualities.

Logic and reason are not on your side. According to your "logic" genocide, murder, rape, etc. are all morally justifiable because everybody has a different set of morals.

I have shot down every single one of your arguments, you hve shot down none of mine.

That's right! You're the weiner....I mean winner.

Umm...Who is calling who a child?

It's time for you to go to the concession stand and pick up your trophy.
Last time I looked it was a hotdog with sourkrout.

Aha, a pun...How quaint.

 

[scsuxci]

Ahem, the true spirit of the rules is maintaining honesty and integrity in the sport. To ensure that the game is played in FAIRNESS and won by the skills and efforts of its competitors.

If someone can take a win knowing that a major part of their achievement was not being penalized for a mistake they had made.............simply wow, I don't know how they can shake hands at the end and call it a victory.

Of course if the guy that commits the foul is a hack, he may not recognize the impact of his dishonesty (no big deal). But for those of us that can actually play - we know that a single mistake can lead to at least a three game swing, or the entire match.

Shame on those who take advantage of others.

Nice to see you posting buddy.I've agreed with every word you've said.Its a pretty simple concept,
just be honest!When people try and cloud a simple solution are the very people
that are finding a way to rectify there own actions they've probably already done
to others.

 

[JoeyA]

Shooter vs. Opponent

There seems to be many differences of opinion; none of them from professional pool players.

For distinction I will now refer to the person in the chair as the "opponent".

Often, the opponent (not the shooter) will be sitting in their chair and the shot is blocked by the shooter. The opponent in the chair cannot call a foul if one occurs because of visibility issues. We really don't want our opponents jumping out of their chair to move just within our eyesight while we are at the table. We also don't want them making noises as they jump out of their chair to see the shot.

So these are some additional reasons to REQUIRE the shooters to call fouls on themselves.

If the rules don't state clearly that the shooters are required to call a foul on themselves, then we should not expect the professional players to call fouls on themselves. Furthermore, if the rules do not address this specifically, then we, as the biggest sweaters in Pooldom should not come on Internet forums and wail about how the pro players demean themselves and our sport. It isn't fair to them in my opinion.

If rules are written so ambiguously that it allows for such different interpretations, then the rules have failed us.

Rules are constantly revisited and sometimes revised. This is one of the rules that requires visitation by those who make them.

If you agree, then you should continue to wail, just like I do, that something needs to be done with rules.

As Atlarge has mentioned, it might help and it would most likely not harm the game or the rules if the rules explicitly state that the shooter is obligated to call a foul on himself especially if the opponent does not call the foul. If a referee is present at the table, the shooter NOR the opponent should be allowed to call a foul. Either player should continue to be allowed to ask the referee to change their call or to have other entities higher up the chain, to interpret the rule in question if needed.

I don't like seeing the players portrayed in a negative manner unless they deserve it. This lack of specificity concerning who is responsible for calling fouls encourages very negative discussions about our professional players when there should be none, unless the rules clearly state that the shooter is obligated to call a foul on himself.

JoeyA

 

[pt109]

I don't like seeing the players portrayed in a negative manner unless they deserve it. This lack of specificity concerning who is responsible for calling fouls encourages very negative discussions about our professional players when there should be none, unless the rules clearly state that the shooter is obligated to call a foul on himself.

JoeyA

I really don't think the game needs more rules on this subject, Joey.

...bringing disrepute to the game could cover it.

A player should conduct his affairs on 'what happened'...
...NOT 'what he can get away with'.

 

[JoeyA]

I really don't think the game needs more rules on this subject, Joey.

...bringing disrepute to the game could cover it.

A player should conduct his affairs on 'what happened'...
...NOT 'what he can get away with'.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.................

I disagree with your statement about the players bringing disrepute to the game. The shooting player is abiding by the rules when they don't call fouls on themselves. This isn't bringing disrepute to the game by following the letter of the rules. As far as bringing disrepute to the game/sport; that is similar to an opponent calling a foul on the shooter when the shooter fails to specifically state out loud that he is playing a combination, which is apparent to anyone who plays the game, even a little. To me that brings more disrepute to the game than does the fact that a pro player doesn't call a foul on themselves. Competitors will use the rules to their advantage as they should.

Rules need to be SPECIFIC.

 

[pt109]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.................

I disagree with your statement about the players bringing disrepute to the game. The shooting player is abiding by the rules when they don't call fouls on themselves. This isn't bringing disrepute to the game by following the letter of the rules. As far as bringing disrepute to the game/sport; that is similar to an opponent calling a foul on the shooter when the shooter fails to specifically state out loud that he is playing a combination, which is apparent to anyone who plays the game, even a little. To me that brings more disrepute to the game than does the fact that a pro player doesn't call a foul on themselves. Competitors will use the rules to their advantage as they should.

Rules need to be SPECIFIC.

I have always felt that the 'spirit' of the law is more important than the 'letter'.

I was gambling when I was a kid and a player on the next table bumped
my opponent in mid stroke....I didn't have to think about it....
...I told him to take the shot over.

The player and his backer thought that was a very classy move.
I told them it was only reasonable.....otherwise people would get
hired to interfere on game balls.

 

[JoeyA]

I have always felt that the 'spirit' of the law is more important than the 'letter'.

I was gambling when I was a kid and a player on the next table bumped
my opponent in mid stroke....I didn't have to think about it....
...I told him to take the shot over.

The player and his backer thought that was a very classy move.
I told them it was only reasonable.....otherwise people would get
hired to interfere on game balls.

I understand what you are saying but you, nor I make a living playing pool.

Personally, I do believe that it makes a difference whether you play pool for a living or if you do it for entertainment or gambling.

It is easy for those of us who have comfortable well-paying jobs that do not have to rely on our earnings from playing pool to sit back and pontificate about how unseemly it is for a shooter to not call a foul on himself because he and others believe that he is not required to because of what the rules state.

I dare say that many of us when posed with the choice of calling a foul on ourselves or bringing home needed money to feed our family, might easily defer to the "letter" of the law/rules. Until I live the life of a professional pool player, I will try to resist the temptation to say that they bring disrepute to the game when not calling a foul on themselves; that is, until the rule is changed and specifically requires them to call a foul on themselves. Until that time, I will condone their choice to follow the letter of the law/rules in favor of themselves.

JoeyA

 

[5aheadforpinks]

Obviously situation dependent... because some fouls are not clearly observed.

1. If I think I made a good hit on a close shot, and my opponent thinks I fouled but he didn't call a ref to watch.
Very specific in this case, shooting player wins whether or not he really thinks he fouled or not. No morels needed, stated clearly in the rules that you need to designate a third party ref to make a close call.

2. Shooting player doesn't contact a rail, but opponent had his back turned.
Did the shooter see and know he fouled? Should the opponent be paying attention?
Moral decision is necessary, and a man of integrity will give up BIH every time; unless of course he didn't notice or the shot was to close to call from his perspective.

3. Stupid rules, i.e. touching any ball is a foul even if it doesn't move. If I bridge over a ball, and my hand ever so delicately grazes the ball but it doesn't move and nobody could tell I touched it but me.
Even though it has NO effect on the game... call it on yourself?
Is a person immoral for not declaring an inconsequential foul on himself? Clearly the rule is there to dissuade moving a ball and cheating, but it did not move and there is no cheating.

4. Your opponent is obviously shooting at the wrong ball.
Do you let the Law of Free Will prevail? Moral, immoral? What if it is strategy?

Clearly both players need to be paying attention and both need to call fouls on themselves and each other, until we can have a ref for every shot we shoot.
Nothing in pool is so critical that ignoring a foul will change the constitution of the universe.

 

[AtLarge]

I have always felt that the 'spirit' of the law is more important than the 'letter'.

I was gambling when I was a kid and a player on the next table bumped
my opponent in mid stroke....I didn't have to think about it....
...I told him to take the shot over.

The player and his backer thought that was a very classy move.
I told them it was only reasonable.....otherwise people would get
hired to interfere on game balls.

Actuallly, what you did is the letter of the law (WPA rules), not just the spirit. It's in the General Rules:

"1.9 Outside Interference
When outside interference occurs during a shot that has an effect on the outcome of that shot, the referee will restore the balls to the positions they had before the shot, and the shot will be replayed. If the interference had no effect on the shot, the referee will restore the disturbed balls and play will continue. If the balls cannot be restored to their original positions, the situation is handled like a stalemate."

 

[AtLarge]

Here is the rule from the WPA

6. Fouls
The following actions are fouls at pool when included in the specific rules of the game being played. If several fouls occur on one shot, only the most serious one is enforced. If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened. ...

Come on, that last sentence is just to prevent squabbles later (or calling the foul later after other shots have been taken). It has nothing to do with the fact that properly observing the rules requires the shooter to notify the opponent or referee when the shooter thinks he has committed a foul and it has not been called by the opponent or referee.