The three foul rule ...

[Bob Jewett]

Unsportsmanlike conduct. Loss of game. That's how I would call it if I had the authority.

I think that's what it should be but the rule needs to be made clearer.

 

[garczar]

What penalty?

pj
chgo

Tend to agree. Start making rulings based on 'intent' gets a little dicey imo. Yeah, it was kind of chickenshit move but i wouldn't lose sleep over it. These things have a way of coming full-circle back to bite you in the ass. Karma, she is a biach.

 

[FranCrimi]

Tend to agree. Start making rulings based on 'intent' gets a little dicey imo. Yeah, it was kind of chickenshit move but i wouldn't lose sleep over it. These things have a way of coming full-circle back to bite you in the ass. Karma, she is a biach.

Then why not just allow someone to pick up the cb with their hand and place it for an intentional foul?

 

[FranCrimi]

I think that's what it should be but the rule needs to be made clearer.

I don't think so. There are no rules to govern what unsportsmanlike conduct is and there shouldn't be. It's a subjective issue governed by common sense. Intentionally double hitting the cb goes beyond a proper stroke to take an intentional foul. It's clearly unsportsmanlike.

 

[Imac007]

be aware that if there is no three foul rule, there has to be a stalemate rule.

I think many don’t understand the pure metaphor this represents at the table.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I don't think so. There are no rules to govern what unsportsmanlike conduct is and there shouldn't be. It's a subjective issue governed by common sense. Intentionally double hitting the cb goes beyond a proper stroke to take an intentional foul. It's clearly unsportsmanlike.

Here is the pertinent section of the World Standardized Rules:

6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct

The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the
referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other
penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a threefoul
sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from
the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points.
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. It includes
(a) distracting the opponent;
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;
(e) practicing during a match;
(f) marking the table;
(g) delay of the game; and
(h) using equipment inappropriately.

 

[FranCrimi]

Here is the pertinent section of the World Standardized Rules:

6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct

The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the
referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other
penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a threefoul
sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from
the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points.
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. It includes
(a) distracting the opponent;
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;
(e) practicing during a match;
(f) marking the table;
(g) delay of the game; and
(h) using equipment inappropriately.

Right, but those aren't rules that must be followed, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Right, but those aren't rules that must be followed, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, since the allowed penalty is everything from a warning to forfeiture of all prizes and ranking points and expulsion from the event, it's pretty hard for the referee to not follow the rules. The list of possible conduct violations does not claim to be complete.

 

[FranCrimi]

Well, since the allowed penalty is everything from a warning to forfeiture of all prizes and ranking points and expulsion from the event, it's pretty hard for the referee to not follow the rules. The list of possible conduct violations does not claim to be complete.

Yes, that's the thing about Unsportsmanlike conduct. The penalties are subjective. In the case of straight rules, the penalties are clear, which is why I don't think we can consider Unsportsmanlike conduct a rule.

 

[Pin]

You mostly have to move balls away from the target ball when taking your second foul.

OP did say "So what now ... do you shoot another foul hoping to break up the balls that have your object ball hidden?" - Was the jump (or creating other clusters) the other tactic?

Another point is that on Luong's second foul, he plays an intentional double hit. I don't think that should be a permitted shot.

Unsportsmanlike conduct. Loss of game. That's how I would call it if I had the authority.

These two points have caused big problems in English pool, with political divisions about what counts as a "push shot" and whether it's okay to deliberate-foul.

Even if you're allowed to deliberate-foul and take the penalty (Luong's first shot), there will always need to be some limits to what you can do (in this case, maybe Luong's second shot, but if that's allowed for a normal foul penalty, you could think of something else that wouldn't be, like if he'd just moved the whole cluster with his hand).

So perhaps you always need some kind of ambiguous catch-all. But I think making things permissible in return for a foul penalty (as far as possible without ruining the game) avoids difficult subjective refereeing decisions and actually deepens the tactical richness of the game.

 

[FranCrimi]

OP did say "So what now ... do you shoot another foul hoping to break up the balls that have your object ball hidden?" - Was the jump (or creating other clusters) the other tactic?



These two points have caused big problems in English pool, with political divisions about what counts as a "push shot" and whether it's okay to deliberate-foul.

Even if you're allowed to deliberate-foul and take the penalty (Luong's first shot), there will always need to be some limits to what you can do (in this case, maybe Luong's second shot, but if that's allowed for a normal foul penalty, you could think of something else that wouldn't be, like if he'd just moved the whole cluster with his hand).

So perhaps you always need some kind of ambiguous catch-all. But I think making things permissible in return for a foul penalty (as far as possible without ruining the game) avoids difficult subjective refereeing decisions and actually deepens the tactical richness of the game.

I understand what you're saying but that's what referees are for. They should be trusted to make a fair decision, even subjectively, and if a referee can't be trusted, then they have to go.