Then you call one right back. Essentially the game is either played properly or you each foul forever.
It's either that, or stick with the rules as they are, because a referee for every match isn't happening any time soon.
Proposal: Implement a "call fouls on yourself" rule in pool
- Thread starter BRussell
- Start date
Then you call one right back. Essentially the game is either played properly or you each foul forever.
It's either that, or stick with the rules as they are, because a referee for every match isn't happening any time soon.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
Ya' see, I wouldn't call one back. I would smile at the cheat, unscrew my cue and never play with him again. Ever.
So, you'd basically making it necessary to cheat in order to compete.
I don't cheat...ever. That is why I once memorized the rule book--because I didn't want to cheat even out of ignorance.
What's funny is that when I watch football, basketball, soccer, etc... I see the players flopping, arguing with refs when they know they were wrong (as proved by replay), claiming others broke the rules when they know it's not true... constantly in these huge sports, the players lie and act in order to win. Pool is 1000000000% more ethical that major sports. It's not even close. Even with the moves and cheating that does happen, it's not even close to other sports.
Is that what you do now when someone makes a bad hit and doesn't call it on themselves? If so you must walk out of a lot of matches.
Nope, I'd be giving you a defense against someone cheating you. You can choose to use it or not, but you at least have it.
As things are now you just have to sit there and stew.
Where I play there isn't much cheating like this if at all. Pool players are a notoriously underhanded lot but we do have honor amongst ourselves, at least where I play and the leagues I play in. Do you play in poolrooms or bars?
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
I have walked out of matches because of playing people who blatantly cheat. I don't let someone not calling a foul affect me much...it's generally my fault for not calling for an observer.
Cheating is not a defense against cheating.
I do think the written rules make a difference. Right now many honest people fail to call fouls on themselves because that's the norm. Dishonest people would still try to cheat - passing a law doesn't magically get rid of criminal behavior - but if the rule changed a lot of honest people might change too.
Yeah good point. And in those games you're talking about situations where they try to influence the ref. I'm mostly talking here about situations where a ref isn't present.
In golf, guys are more likely to cheat on their wives than they are likely to cheat on the course.
The rules and how the players view them do make a difference. IF it became standard that ALL players called fouls on themselves AND IF they were caught not doing so it caused them to be kicked out of a tournament while also facing public humiliation -- attitudes would change just about overnight.
I think it all starts with the rules.
The rules and how the players view them do make a difference. IF it became standard that ALL players called fouls on themselves AND IF they were caught not doing so it caused them to be kicked out of a tournament while also facing public humiliation -- attitudes would change just about overnight.
I think it all starts with the rules.
Last edited:
The demographics of the pool room, permeate this behavior across the US. It's difficult for many (because of the environment it's in) to think of pool as anything more than a game (not a sport) with liquor, loud music and the mindsets of many who hang out in the bar/poolroom. It will never change until, the game....GAME....has become a sport, like the PGA with standardized rules. To expect this is................:deadhorse:
I'll bite and assume you aren't a troll. The first issue with your "solution" is that it clearly still doesn't solve the problem, so it's not really a solution. The current rule and your suggestion are both flawed.
The difference is that yours encourages cheating and confrontation. With the current rule, if a player blatantly fouls, but insists he didn't, he gets away with it, which is wrong, but the incident is then over. The opponent is now aware that the player will likely do this again if he fouls, so the opponent will be careful to call a referee over in the future.
The important difference with your suggestion, is that you are allowing players to easily escalate the situation into further cheating and confrontation, which is never good for the game, and will never end well for anybody.
Other than these obvious issues, it's just common sense. There's a conflict of interest in both cases, but with yours it's on every single shot where your opponent gets to be the referee, and with the current rule it's only an issue on shots that result in a foul when a referee isn't watching.
There's the flaw. In order for them to get caught, it would have to be conclusively proven that a foul took place by someone besides the players themselves. If that was possible, then there would be no need for the players to be calling fouls in the first place.
EDIT: If there's no way for them to get caught, then there's no way for them to get kicked out of the tournament. The public's perspective isn't going to change if a rule is added. You lose respect and hurt your reputation when you blatantly foul, and deny it or act like it didn't happen. With or without a rule saying it's wrong, this consequence already exists.
Last edited:
You're carrying things to the extreme though, and that's not really how it would work in practice. The whole idea is to basically change things from 'ties or conflicts go to the shooter' to 'ties or conflicts go to the NON-shooter'. Is that really such an extreme change?
All I think it would result in is that the shooter would be the one tending to want to have a ref there for close hits, rather than the other way around. That's hardly an earth shattering difference.
First of all, it's not the norm for people to not call fouls on themselves. This is not just because of their own moral/ethical code. It's because most fouls are obvious, and there are other people watching besides the opponent. They are pressured by what other people will think. More often than not, it's the player who committed the foul who picks up or nudges the cue ball, not the opponent. They don't wait to see if the opponent is going to call it or not. If a player calls the foul on himself for obvious fouls, but not for the ones noone else sees, then clearly their decisions aren't coming from a place of honesty and integrity.
Secondly, if a person believes it's not their responsibility to call a foul on themselves, a rule isn't going to change that. Since the rule is not enforceable, they are still free to act on behalf of their own moral/ethical code, and use that a means of justification.
Sure, it doesn't hurt to add a rule and maybe it will change the actions of a very small percentage of players, but it really isn't going to solve anything.
I have had shots where I did not see that I fouled, cue ball had brushed my opponents ball so lightly that the ball did not barely even move, just wiggled. My eyes where on my target object ball so I honestly did not see it.
A couple weeks ago my teammates opponent bumped the Qball during warm up strokes, my teammate did not see it so the foul never got called. When the game was over I brought this to the offenders attention, he said "yeah I know I bumped the Qball, thats why I gave a few extra warm-up strokes to see if he would call it". The guy apparently thinks its only a foul if someone sees it, I would have been embarrassed to give an answer like that. I have called a foul on myself in cases like that, also when I double hit the Qball, sometimes it cant be seen and only felt by the player, it would be almost impossible for an opponent to call a foul in that situation.
Really, you can't possibly fathom the issues with this "small change" ?
EDIT: Let's assume (wrongly) for a second that the difference is as negligible as you claim. Then what's the point of making the change in the first place?
Last edited:
Another problem that comes up with the non shooter calling the fouls is that some people do not understand the path a ball may or may not take on a good or bad hit. I had a guy call a foul on me because he thought I hit his ball before I made the 8, he did not understand that his ball was struck along the tangent line of the Qball path and that if I had hit his ball first his ball would have taken a different path. I told him that I was going to spinning that Qball to throw the 8 in but he chose not to even get out of his chair and watch the shot. When I explained it to him his teammates understood and agreed with me but he still thought that I had fouled.
The only shots I may hesitate to call a foul on myself are on in-completes, the opponent should be watching instead of playing with his phone and as long as it is not a case of whether or not a ball is frozen (which I always declare on a safety) he can easily see the shot from where they sit.
The only shots I may hesitate to call a foul on myself are on in-completes, the opponent should be watching instead of playing with his phone and as long as it is not a case of whether or not a ball is frozen (which I always declare on a safety) he can easily see the shot from where they sit.
Last edited:
I just thought of an interesting dilemma for those that believe they are justified in not calling a foul on themselves.
Suppose you commit a foul that no one else sees but you make a ball in the process. So for example, you double hit the cue ball during a shot, and otherwise legally pocket a ball, so it would still be your shot if it weren't for the foul.
The rules are clear that that constitutes a foul. The rules are also clear that a foul, among other things, results in loss of turn. You may be able to justify your decision to not make your opponent aware of the foul, but how do you justify continuing your turn at the table? The foul occurred, the rules say you can't continue your turn after a foul, but you do so anyway. That is in violation of the rules.
If you foul, and don't make a ball, even though a foul happened, there may be nothing in the rules that states you have to make your opponent aware of ball in hand, which is how you get away with justifying it in that case. You aren't denying that a foul occurred and you aren't preventing your opponent from taking ball in hand.
Suppose you commit a foul that no one else sees but you make a ball in the process. So for example, you double hit the cue ball during a shot, and otherwise legally pocket a ball, so it would still be your shot if it weren't for the foul.
The rules are clear that that constitutes a foul. The rules are also clear that a foul, among other things, results in loss of turn. You may be able to justify your decision to not make your opponent aware of the foul, but how do you justify continuing your turn at the table? The foul occurred, the rules say you can't continue your turn after a foul, but you do so anyway. That is in violation of the rules.
If you foul, and don't make a ball, even though a foul happened, there may be nothing in the rules that states you have to make your opponent aware of ball in hand, which is how you get away with justifying it in that case. You aren't denying that a foul occurred and you aren't preventing your opponent from taking ball in hand.
Well duh, so people can't get away with fouling. The way it is now if you foul on a shot and I call it all you have to do is say, "no I didn't," to get away with it and keep shooting. The only way to avoid this is to either a) have referees on every shot, or b) have the sitting player able to call a foul. Since A isn't happening any time soon we're left with B.
Now granted this is probably not a great idea for most leagues where they call fouls on you for not 'patching' a pocket and clap when someone scratches on the 8-ball and stuff, but for serious pool it's a very workable way to do it.
The amount of fouls that go unpunished with the current rule are nothing compared to the amount of wrongly called fouls that would occur with your opponent acting as referee, even if you only consider the fact that the player shooting has the best vantage point to determine if a foul did indeed occur.
Think of the power you are giving players. Let's say the opponent calls a legitimate foul on the shooter. The shooter is angry simply because of the fact the opponent called a foul on him. Your rule gives him the power to do whatever he wants. He could wait until his opponent makes the 9-ball, and then call a foul, and that directly affects the result of the game.
The point is not whether or not someone would actually take advantage of this power, but the fact that they have the ability to, when they clearly shouldn't.
Last edited: