When is a Foul a Foul?

[FranCrimi]

The rulebook for American Rotation has removed the ambiguity as to whether a player is obligated to call fouls on himself:

2. Honor and integrity, and “own fouls”
2.1 — A player is obligated to call his or her “own fouls,” even if the referee or opponent (player who was not shooting) failed to see or call the foul. It is not acceptable to “get by.”
2.2 — When a referee (a designated third person) calls a foul, and the opponent (player who was not shooting) believes that a foul did not occur, then the player who was not shooting may “override” the referee and call “no foul”. Because the referee’s ruling is subject to this “override,” the referee is prohibited from touching the balls after calling a foul.

The reason why it is so difficult to write rules (you can ask Bob Jewett) is because they have to work in conjunction with each other, and the logic and intent have to be consistent throughout the entire body of rules.

You also have to be careful about citing specifics as rules. So, it states above that a player is obligated to call his own fouls. What if the player legitimately didn't notice the foul? According to the rule, the player has just committed an infraction by not calling a foul on himself that he did not see. What if the player legitimately did not believe that he fouled? Another can of worms.

All you're really trying to do is to address unsportsmanlike conduct. Call it what it is and bring it to the attention of the TD or referee and allow them to assess the situation and make a call on it in an independent way. If you're frustrated with players not being honest, then it's more about refereeing unsportsmanlike conduct than a rule change. Talk to refs and TDs about being more aggressive in dealing with poor sportsmanship.

The 2nd rule --- overriding a ref's call, is extremely dangerous and can lead to all kinds of issues. This undermines the authority of an independent decision, and the very reason for the existence of referees. The referee's word should always be the final word, with the exception in rare cases, of the TD.

Picture this: A ref is called to watch a hit. The ref calls it a bad hit. The shooter argues that it's a good hit and looks over at the opponent to override the ref. Suddenly the decision is in the opponent's hands. Seriously? That's what you want? Is it fair to lay it on the opponent who is doing nothing but sitting in his chair? So then, should the opponent stand right next to the ref to get a good look at all hits because he may have to override the ref if the shooter doesn't agree?

So wait.....Then wouldn't you also need another rule stating that an opponent must override a ref on a bad call? What if the opponent doesn't want to? Would that be poor sportsmanship? Would it lead to a fight in the parking lot? Where does it end?

 

[pt109]

The 2nd rule --- overriding a ref's call, is extremely dangerous and can lead to all kinds of issues. This undermines the authority of an independent decision, and the very reason for the existence of referees. The referee's word should always be the final word, with the exception in rare cases, of the TD.

Picture this: A ref is called to watch a hit. The ref calls it a bad hit. The shooter argues that it's a good hit and looks over at the opponent to override the ref. Suddenly the decision is in the opponent's hands. Seriously? That's what you want? Is it fair to lay it on the opponent who is doing nothing but sitting in his chair? So then, should the opponent stand right next to the ref to get a good look at all hits because he may have to override the ref if the shooter doesn't agree?

So wait.....Then wouldn't you also need another rule stating that an opponent must override a ref on a bad call? What if the opponent doesn't want to? Would that be poor sportsmanship? Would it lead to a fight in the parking lot? Where does it end?

Even refs are prone to failures...they're human.
In snooker, you may appeal to the chief referee.

Terry Griffiths, the '79 world champion, was awarded a free ball...
...this was MUCH in his favor...
..he disagreed with the ref and refused to take advantage by shooting
the ball on.

Common sense, class, and goodwill should never be discouraged.

 

[rrick33]

Because you say so?



The rules state it is illegal to double hit. The cue ball - please quote me a rule where it is written as you state it. "Unless the opponent doesn't call it" something like that would convince me.



Yes, actually it is, and a referee can be called in to rule and assess a penalty.



I agree, it defines a foul as a foul, there is no "unless you can get away with it"

Some rules eliminate the foul if a successive shot has been taken, but that does not mean it was not a foul to begin with.

WOW...I don't know where to begin shooting down all your assumptions. Since this has been debated so many times before I will use the one sword in the rule book arsenal that kills all your objections.

The rules state that if no foul is called and the shooter continues to play, then "It is as if no foul occurred at all....It never happened!!!"

Clearly, if it was illegal to not call a foul on yourself there would never be an option for a foul to have never happened. Simple logic.

Surely, if it was the intent of the rules that you must call a foul on yourself, then the rules would simply say so. They do not!

How utterly simple it would be to include a "one liner" that says you must call all fouls. So simple and yet it cannot be found in the RULE book.
I can assure you...it is no coincidence that this situation is not included in the rule book. Why??? because it's not against the rules.

Are you suggesting that the authors of the rule book have hidden it in there somewhere just to crate controversy for AZ billiard trolls?

 

[pocket]

WOW...I don't know where to begin shooting down all your assumptions. Since this has been debated so many times before I will use the one sword in the rule book arsenal that kills all your objections.

The rules state that if no foul is called and the shooter continues to play, then "It is as if no foul occurred at all....It never happened!!!"

Clearly, if it was illegal to not call a foul on yourself there would never be an option for a foul to have never happened. Simple logic.

Surely, if it was the intent of the rules that you must call a foul on yourself, then the rules would simply say so. They do not!

How utterly simple it would be to include a "one liner" that says you must call all fouls. So simple and yet it cannot be found in the RULE book.
I can assure you...it is no coincidence that this situation is not included in the rule book. Why??? because it's not against the rules.

Are you suggesting that the authors of the rule book have hidden it in there somewhere just to crate controversy for AZ billiard trolls?

Like I said, please quote from a rule book.

 

[rrick33]

Like I said, please quote from a rule book.

Read the line where is says "the rules state"

That means it's from the rule book.

We had a 30 page debate on this 2 years ago. I suggest you look in the archives.

 

[Mickey Qualls]

I call fouls on myself. I wouldn't want to win any other way.

Playing league, my teammates and I have been burned a few times by opponents that will either call a questionable hit in their favor, or not notify their opponent of BIH when they should.
As it's between the two players, the gallery (us) technically can't say anything.

So we currently have a short list of "catch phrases" that triggers the teammate playing to ask the question ("Is that ball-in-hand ?").

Could be anything from asking our guy playing if he's ready for another drink, to our captain asking us on the sidelines if any of us (or the opponent's team) can break a $50.

Call it what you want (Flame Suit: Activated).

The way I see it, if the opponent isn't going to be forthcoming with the foul, all I'm doing is leveling the field.

Mickey <--- Can't stand when players don't call fouls on themselves...

 

[FranCrimi]

Even refs are prone to failures...they're human.
In snooker, you may appeal to the chief referee.

Terry Griffiths, the '79 world champion, was awarded a free ball...
...this was MUCH in his favor...
..he disagreed with the ref and refused to take advantage by shooting
the ball on.

Common sense, class, and goodwill should never be discouraged.

Of course, and there are ways that an opponent can make a statement if he disagrees with a particular call. But putting it in the rules to outright allow an opponent to override a ref's call is asking for trouble.

 

[pocket]

Read the line where is says "the rules state"

That means it's from the rule book.

We had a 30 page debate on this 2 years ago. I suggest you look in the archives.

Since you are proclaiming it's in the rulebook, please provide the quote or link. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected. "the rules state" is what you are saying, I got that, please quote from a rule book. From what I have read there is no such rule.

 

[hang-the-9]

Even refs are prone to failures...they're human.
In snooker, you may appeal to the chief referee.

Terry Griffiths, the '79 world champion, was awarded a free ball...
...this was MUCH in his favor...
..he disagreed with the ref and refused to take advantage by shooting
the ball on.

Common sense, class, and goodwill should never be discouraged.

There was a match where someone had a foul called on them by the ref, Earl Strickland was the other player. Earl clearly did not agree that a foul should have been called, when he went to shoot, he shot one or two shots, then missed one by 6 inches. I remember there was some discussion on that shot and if Earl missed on purpose in order that the opponent did not punished by the bad call. I though he did miss on purpose.

 

[rrick33]

Since you are proclaiming it's in the rulebook, please provide the quote or link. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected. "the rules state" is what you are saying, I got that, please quote from a rule book. From what I have read there is no such rule.

I will assume you haven't read the APA rule book and I think there is a similar reference in the BCA.

I'm not here to change your mind or correct you...I'm simply providing little known info. that's relevant to the interpretation of the rules.

This debate was resolved 2 years ago.

I would suggest you read the section on fouls. It was in there 2 years ago when we had the initial debate.

Last time the rule came up it opened a big can of worms. Some players were in denial and started throwing out opinions on why it was written that way and then justifying why it didn't really apply. As for me....a rule is a rule.

 

[pocket]

I will assume you haven't read the APA rule book and I think there is a similar reference in the BCA.

I'm not here to change your mind or correct you...I'm simply providing little known info. that's relevant to the interpretation of the rules.

This debate was resolved 2 years ago.

I would suggest you read the section on fouls. It was in there 2 years ago when we had the initial debate.

That's what I figured you would say.

I have read various rule sets and find no reference to what you are claiming.

I'm open minded, life has taught me never to be so sure of your self to not allow being corrected.

I stand by what I said, no such rule exists "unless you don't get caught", a foul is a foul whether or not the opponent catches it.

I'll leave you to the last word. I've said enough on it, I'd rather win by my skill (or luck even).

 

[rrick33]

That's what I figured you would say.

I have read various rule sets and find no reference to what you are claiming.

I'm open minded, life has taught me never to be so sure of your self to not allow being corrected.

I stand by what I said, no such rule exists "unless you don't get caught", a foul is a foul whether or not the opponent catches it.

I'll leave you to the last word. I've said enough on it, I'd rather win by my skill (or luck even).

Good for you grasshopper. Since skill has nothing to do with morality or the perception of morality I suspect anytime you win a game it will be on your own contrived terms.

The answers you seek have been debated ad nauseam on this site and the end result will be the same as it has always been. 50% on the side of personal morality and 50% on the side of the written rules.

Since you like to read I will pull out the Dead sea scrolls of AZ Billiards for you to reference. I suggest you read the forum: "Should the pros call a foul on themselves" from 7/19/2013.

It offers virtually every point and counterpoint that could possibly be addressed on this subject.

You can believe what you want but you'll never gain any ground. In the end it's always a split decision.

 

[hang-the-9]

Good for you grasshopper. Since skill has nothing to do with morality or the perception of morality I suspect anytime you win a game it will be on your own contrived terms.

The answers you seek have been debated ad nauseam on this site and the end result will be the same as it has always been. 50% on the side of personal morality and 50% on the side of the written rules.

Since you like to read I will pull out the Dead sea scrolls of AZ Billiards for you to reference. I suggest you read the forum: "Should the pros call a foul on themselves" from 7/19/2013.

It offers virtually every point and counterpoint that could possibly be addressed on this subject.

You can believe what you want but you'll never gain any ground. In the end it's always a split decision.

Actually I think it's closer to 75% or 85% for calling a foul when you commit one according to what I've been reading not 50-50. And for pros calling fouls on themselves is that WITH or WITHOUT a ref watching? I saw a match where Thorsten was getting down an a shot, then all of a sudden he stood up and handed the ball to the other player. No ref moved (don't remember if there was one), the other player did not move. What happened was that Thorsten tapped the cueball on his practice stroke. I was watching and I did not see the ball move at all, and even one of the announcers wondered what happened. He did not wait for the opponent to jump up and yell at him "Foul! I saw it! Nya Nya poo poo head u foulleeeed!" before he turned over the table.

 

[rrick33]

Actually I think it's closer to 75% or 85% for calling a foul when you commit one according to what I've been reading not 50-50. And for pros calling fouls on themselves is that WITH or WITHOUT a ref watching? I saw a match where Thorsten was getting down an a shot, then all of a sudden he stood up and handed the ball to the other player. No ref moved (don't remember if there was one), the other player did not move. What happened was that Thorsten tapped the cueball on his practice stroke. I was watching and I did not see the ball move at all, and even one of the announcers wondered what happened. He did not wait for the opponent to jump up and yell at him "Foul! I saw it! Nya Nya poo poo head u foulleeeed!" before he turned over the table.

What you're experiencing is called "the squeaky wheel effect". Those who feel very adamant about their moral compass tend to chime in more frequently than those who don't care about your morality.

When we had the "big" debate a couple years back it got heated enough to pull many of those who believe the rules set their own standard and it was clear that the overall mix was fairly evenly divided...especially when we pulled the moral crowd into the aspect of "playing for money" and suddenly morality be damned ...they weren't going to call a foul on themselves if it meant loosing a buck.

Just goes to show you how fickle the morality argument really is.

 

[hang-the-9]

What you're experiencing is called "the squeaky wheel effect". Those who feel very adamant about their moral compass tend to chime in more frequently than those who don't care about your morality.

When we had the "big" debate a couple years back it got heated enough to pull many of those who believe the rules set their own standard and it was clear that the overall mix was fairly evenly divided...especially when we pulled the moral crowd into the aspect of "playing for money" and suddenly morality be damned ...they weren't going to call a foul on themselves if it meant loosing a buck.

Just goes to show you how fickle the morality argument really is.

I think those that would hide a foul are more likely to want to hide that fact on purpose, or lie about it than the fact that people that would not. So it may be true that 90% of pool players would cheat and just lie and say that they would not. I do know for a fact that in 100% of the cases when it comes to me, if someone wants to cheat to get my money, they won't. If I see them commit a foul then act like nothing happens, the game is over and no-one won. I'll go play at a table with an honest player.

 

[rrick33]

I think those that would hide a foul are more likely to want to hide that fact on purpose, or lie about it than the fact that people that would not. So it may be true that 90% of pool players would cheat and just lie and say that they would not. I do know for a fact that in 100% of the cases when it comes to me, if someone wants to cheat to get my money, they won't. If I see them commit a foul then act like nothing happens, the game is over and no-one won. I'll go play at a table with an honest player.

You may be right in respect to your remark that many players who would not call a foul on themselves might hesitate to admit it but not necessarily because they think it is cheating but rather, they don't want to be accused of cheating by others who hold a different opinion.

The term "cheating" becomes very subjective.
" Ones mans trash is another mans treasure".

Playing within the scope of the rules should never be considered cheating.

For the few isolated leagues where they choose to I.D. self called fouls as a requirement, cheating might qualify but for the vast majority of leagues who choose to omit this clause, then failing to self call a foul is well within the rules....after all, if there is no penalty for the infraction then it is a condoned behavior.

 

[alstl]

It is not, cheating is cheating. With money involved and you cheat, that is called stealing. I would have no issues calling out a thief if i saw this happen.

When you have backers, people gambling on the rail, etc it is different. You can call it whatever you want to call it but it's not the same as a league. If you call a foul on yourself which nobody else saw you are going to have problems.