Loree Jon Snooze.............

[canwin]

Don't know why all the hate on checking the rack. Watch the game prior to last, where Barretta is racking. She is equally critical of herself.

My point was she's very careful, thorough and deliberate in every facet of her game as evidenced by all of her actions at the table. Her scrutinizing the rack is just an extension of that. .that's all.
Kinda puts you to sleep. . tho. It worked! Jennifer looked like she froze til she noticed Loree made no mention of what happened then rolled with it.. Oh you bad girl you! If its cool with them its cool with me.. but there's a moral to the story when you play on a televised table

 

[railbird99]

The 'I watch you and you watch me' idea doesn't work in a non refereed match because that would require an opponent to stand at the table at all times with the shooter, as a ref would do --- Not just for an occasional close shot.

Not true at all. I don't know about you, but I'm always attentive to my opponent's shots from the sideline, in case they foul. As a player, you can't rely on the ethics of another player, so you must watch for fouls. This is why the responsibility should fall on the non-shooting player, because it's in their self interest, and theirs alone.

Obviously, sitting on the sideline, you won't always be able to detect a foul, but anything that is close, you can simply ask the shooting player if it was a foul. If that player then lies, well that would be considered cheating.

The foul in question doesn't require a special vantage point. Both players could clearly see it, and everyone in the room could clearly see it. Anytime it's close, or the non-shooting player doesn't know if it was a legal hit or not, all they have to do is ask. Just as if you scratch, you shouldn't have to alert the other player that a foul occurred, you shouldn't be required to point out fouls, unless there's no way the opponent could know you fouled.

Again, I have no issue with explicitly stating in the rules that you are required to make sure your opponent is aware you fouled, even if it's obvious. But without a specific rule in place, it just doesn't make sense. There was nothing preventing Loree Jon from recognizing a foul occurred and taking ball in hand. It's her fault the foul went unpunished.

I guarantee you that Loree Jon was not upset at Jennifer because she lost the match based on not recognizing a foul occurred. She is blaming herself, as would any player who fails to notice something so obvious that could have won them the match.

 

[skip100]

The topic of whether a player has an obligation to call fouls on himself has been debated many times on AzB. Some people feel the answer is "no," because they can't find any explicit statement to that effect in the rules. Others feel differently. I feel the current WPA (world-standardized) rules, though lacking explicit language requiring self-reporting, still require it in order for the given rules to operate properly. I have written on that subject several times in the past.

But adding explicit language to the rules could help. A few years ago, Joe Tucker actually did that, for his American Rotation game:

• Honor and integrity, "own fouls"
  
  • 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."
    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.

I am not aware of any problems caused by this in Joe's events.

This would be a great addition to the standard rules.

 

[Art Amato]

Baretta vs Hassan match

Watched a great match between two players and enjoyed it immensely. It sickens me to read that some viewers seem to think that one of the players cheated by not calling a foul on themselves. How can a person be so sure that JB actually knew that she fouled? In my opinion she was NOT aware of the foul and that's why she walked from the table. JB played a great match as well as Hasson, and to call the winner a cheater is low class.

 

[BRussell]

Watched a great match between two players and enjoyed it immensely. It sickens me to read that some viewers seem to think that one of the players cheated by not calling a foul on themselves. How can a person be so sure that JB actually knew that she fouled? In my opinion she was NOT aware of the foul and that's why she walked from the table. JB played a great match as well as Hasson, and to call the winner a cheater is low class.

Gimme a break. It's a match with a stream and commentators, obviously geared to be watched by the public. We all play pool and know how likely it is that a player doesn't know they fouled in that situation: Very unlikely.

Can you imagine people watching a football game and not talking about penalties and who committed them and who got away with them and who plays dirty and who doesn't? It's about half of what people talk about when they watch a game.

 

[jasonlaus]

Gimme a break. It's a match with a stream and commentators, obviously geared to be watched by the public. We all play pool and know how likely it is that a player doesn't know they fouled in that situation: Very unlikely.

Can you imagine people watching a football game and not talking about penalties and who committed them and who got away with them and who plays dirty and who doesn't? It's about half of what people talk about when they watch a game.

What is wrong with you people?
Jason

 

[jasonlaus]

Watched a great match between two players and enjoyed it immensely. It sickens me to read that some viewers seem to think that one of the players cheated by not calling a foul on themselves. How can a person be so sure that JB actually knew that she fouled? In my opinion she was NOT aware of the foul and that's why she walked from the table. JB played a great match as well as Hasson, and to call the winner a cheater is low class.

Agree 100%

Seems like a lot of people on here would sell their own Mother for a Dollar. Just because they would doesn't mean everybody would.
Jason

 

[BRussell]

What is wrong with you people?
Jason

Believe it or not, I'm actually just one person.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Watched a great match between two players and enjoyed it immensely. It sickens me to read that some viewers seem to think that one of the players cheated by not calling a foul on themselves. How can a person be so sure that JB actually knew that she fouled? In my opinion she was NOT aware of the foul and that's why she walked from the table. JB played a great match as well as Hasson, and to call the winner a cheater is low class.

The word cheater is derogatory. So the best way to describe the situation is that she either knew that she fouled, or she was really careless.

Sure, it is certainly possible that a player could miss a foul that they committed, but not realizing that a ball didn't hit the rail shows a real lack of attention to the game. Jennifer is a very deliberate player, which reduces the odds even more that she just missed it. I don't know if she knew she fouled or not, so at a minimum I would say that she was rather careless.


_______

 

[FranCrimi]

Not true at all. I don't know about you, but I'm always attentive to my opponent's shots from the sideline, in case they foul. As a player, you can't rely on the ethics of another player, so you must watch for fouls. This is why the responsibility should fall on the non-shooting player, because it's in their self interest, and theirs alone.

Obviously, sitting on the sideline, you won't always be able to detect a foul, but anything that is close, you can simply ask the shooting player if it was a foul. If that player then lies, well that would be considered cheating.

The foul in question doesn't require a special vantage point. Both players could clearly see it, and everyone in the room could clearly see it. Anytime it's close, or the non-shooting player doesn't know if it was a legal hit or not, all they have to do is ask. Just as if you scratch, you shouldn't have to alert the other player that a foul occurred, you shouldn't be required to point out fouls, unless there's no way the opponent could know you fouled.

Again, I have no issue with explicitly stating in the rules that you are required to make sure your opponent is aware you fouled, even if it's obvious. But without a specific rule in place, it just doesn't make sense. There was nothing preventing Loree Jon from recognizing a foul occurred and taking ball in hand. It's her fault the foul went unpunished.

I guarantee you that Loree Jon was not upset at Jennifer because she lost the match based on not recognizing a foul occurred. She is blaming herself, as would any player who fails to notice something so obvious that could have won them the match.

I never said you should rely on the ethics of another player. Rules are rules. If both players are required to referee the match, then both must follow the rules. If they notice a foul, they have to call it. If they don't notice it, they can't call it.

 

[Art Amato]

Great post Jason.

 

[railbird99]

If both players are required to referee the match

First, why is this considered axiomatic? Why are we assuming this is the case? Where in the rules for this specific tournament does it say that, and what is the exact verbiage?

Furthermore, if we assume that exact wording is in the rules, your interpretation is not as logically sound as you seem to think it is. Just because both players are required to be referees, does not necessarily mean that both players are required to verbally call all fouls on every shot. If so, Loree Jon would share just as much responsibility in not calling the foul as JB. The rules do not go in to detail about how the responsibility is shared between two referees.

In addition, this means that Loree Jon failed in her duties as a referee on that shot, even when she had a vested interest in making sure the foul was called. She was looking directly at the table when it happened, and had just as good a vantage point as JB for seeing the balls after contact.

 

[railbird99]

We all play pool and know how likely it is that a player doesn't know they fouled in that situation: Very unlikely.

It's just as unlikely for Loree Jon to have missed the foul, given she has a vested interest in it, and everyone, including the commentators could immediately tell how obvious the foul was. Do you really think Loree Jon is blaming JB for her own inattentiveness? She is undoubtedly blaming herself. How do you not notice something like that, in a professional tournament, at the end of very close match, where every shot is crucial?

 

[BRussell]

It's just as unlikely for Loree Jon to have missed the foul, given she has a vested interest in it, and everyone, including the commentators could immediately tell how obvious the foul was. Do you really think Loree Jon is blaming JB for her own inattentiveness? She is undoubtedly blaming herself. How do you not notice something like that, in a professional tournament, at the end of very close match, where every shot is crucial?

OK, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. It's inattentive to miss a foul committed by your opponent, but it's not unsportsmanlike or unethical.

 

[railbird99]

Because there is a basic conflict between sitting in your chair and calling the other person's fouls I think common sense dictates a player calls their own fouls. When players blatantly foul and don't call it on themselves I am done sitting while they shoot. If I am functioning as a referee I am going to act like one if it mean getting directly over the shot. I asked a tournament director to watch a shot once and they got directly over the shot. I was playing them at the time!

The conflict is the conflict of interest between the two players. The shooting player would obviously rather not give their opponent ball in hand. So ask yourself if it's common sense that you trust your opponent to call fouls on themselves or you take responsibility for making sure your opponent's fouls don't go unpunished.

Yes, the player shooting has the best vantage point, so in a perfect world, he would be the best referee if not for the conflict of interest. You don't have to get right behind your opponent's shot like a referee. 99% of fouls are either obvious to anyone looking at the table, or close calls. If you see a "close call", a shot that may have been a foul, but maybe not, simply ask your opponent if they fouled. If they then lie, that would be considered cheating. If they are willing to lie, then there really isn't anything you can do but get a referee to watch.

I'm all for rules that specifically require a player to make absolutely sure their opponent knows they fouled, but if there are no such rules, responsibility should fall on the player who benefits from the foul to either call the foul, or confer with the opponent to make sure the foul gets called if it indeed was a foul.

 

[railbird99]

OK, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. It's inattentive to miss a foul committed by your opponent, but it's not unsportsmanlike or unethical.

The point is it's Loree Jon's fault the foul didn't get called, because of her inattentiveness. Since the fault is with Loree Jon, I'm not understanding how JB did something unethical. She didn't lie, or prevent Loree Jon from taking ball in hand. And, it wasn't against the rules for JB to not call an obvious foul on herself.

At the league level, some players might not actually know it was a foul, or not notice it, and then we may be on a grey area of whether or not it's unethical to not make absolutely sure your opponent knows you fouled.

In a professional tournament, however, if you watch a shot happen, which is clearly a foul, and then fail to recognize that it's a foul, there is no responsibility for your opponent to make you aware of your right to ball in hand.

 

[PoolBum]

The point is it's Loree Jon's fault the foul didn't get called, because of her inattentiveness. Since the fault is with Loree Jon, I'm not understanding how JB did something unethical. She didn't lie, or prevent Loree Jon from taking ball in hand. And, it wasn't against the rules for JB to not call an obvious foul on herself.

I think you may be conflating following the rules with acting ethically. They are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I think you may be conflating following the rules with acting ethically. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Thank you. I was going to say the same thing, but in many more words, and probably not as clear.

 

[ShootingArts]

pool becomes unplayable if the shooter is not ethical

The conflict is the conflict of interest between the two players. The shooting player would obviously rather not give their opponent ball in hand. So ask yourself if it's common sense that you trust your opponent to call fouls on themselves or you take responsibility for making sure your opponent's fouls don't go unpunished.

Yes, the player shooting has the best vantage point, so in a perfect world, he would be the best referee if not for the conflict of interest. You don't have to get right behind your opponent's shot like a referee. 99% of fouls are either obvious to anyone looking at the table, or close calls. If you see a "close call", a shot that may have been a foul, but maybe not, simply ask your opponent if they fouled. If they then lie, that would be considered cheating. If they are willing to lie, then there really isn't anything you can do but get a referee to watch.

I'm all for rules that specifically require a player to make absolutely sure their opponent knows they fouled, but if there are no such rules, responsibility should fall on the player who benefits from the foul to either call the foul, or confer with the opponent to make sure the foul gets called if it indeed was a foul.

You yourself point out that if a player is willing to lie there is little you can do without a referee. Either both players have a fairly strong sense of ethics and how the game is to be played or the game just isn't possible to play. It doesn't really matter if the game's weakness is revealed in the player not calling their own fouls or lying about it afterwards. Without a referee which is how almost all pool is played, the shooter has ultimate say so. It doesn't matter if they don't call their own fouls or they lie about it afterwards the result is exactly the same.

What good does it do to put the weight of calling a foul on the nonshooter when they have no authority to do anything about it?

Hu

 

[ChrisinNC]

It's just as unlikely for Loree Jon to have missed the foul, given she has a vested interest in it, and everyone, including the commentators could immediately tell how obvious the foul was. Do you really think Loree Jon is blaming JB for her own inattentiveness? She is undoubtedly blaming herself. How do you not notice something like that, in a professional tournament, at the end of very close match, where every shot is crucial?

She certainly is blaming herself, but I assure you LJH will take a mental note that JB failed to call the foul on herself. I would suggest a majority of veteran WPBA pro players in JB's position would have simply picked up the cue ball when it stopped rolling and handed it to their opponent. My observations from attending numerous WPBA tournaments in the past is that the respect, courtesy and etiquette shown towards their opponents among the WPBA players as a whole is far greater than the men players, not that they aren't extremely competitive.