One Pocket Rules - Calling Accidental Foul on Self
- Thread starter FeelDaShot
- Start date
That's not what I mean by bad shot. Let's say you're playing someone who is real shady and you don't trust at all. They play a shot, which sells out the game ball. Then they turn to you and say "I double hit the cue ball on that shot, I'll spot one up". Now the cue ball is blocked by the spotted ball and you don't have an easy shot anymore. You didn't notice the double hit and you're confident that the guy is pulling a move you. Do you have the ability to refuse the foul?
If someone follows your winning ball into the pocket, can you refuse the foul?
As per above: The rules are the edge.
I was talking about gentlemanly behavior.
Then someone interjected that one could pose as a gentleman and act gentlemanly when it suited him.
The first ungentlemanly action pops the bubble that he actually is a gentleman.
That bubble is popped forever; even if a few gentlemanly actions follow.
Well it's surely against the rules to call a foul when no foul was committed. So how would this situation be handled?
No one seems to be able to answer this question: What stops someone from calling a foul on themself when no foul was actually committed? Is this just a weird loop hole in the rules that is unavoidable?
I would describe that as unsportsmanlike conduct. There's a penalty for that.
Yeah, now that I think about it, I guess it's no different than the player at the table denying a foul occurred when their opponent calls a foul. It's just your word against theirs. Thanks
Sounds like they're both gonna get an unsportsmanlike flag if the alleger alleges the allegation is false.
Ok, how about this one. Your out ball is deep in your pocket. No chance to get it out. There are also a few balls up table to easily shoot in your hole if your opponent makes it and follows it in. Your opponent slowly shoots the cue towards pocketing your last ball and clearly, as the ball is rolling, hits the cue a second time for the double hit. No ball in hand behind the line.
Had it done to me. I was so amused I let it go and we both laughed at the move after.
Had it done to me. I was so amused I let it go and we both laughed at the move after.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I believe that would be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. I saw a 14.1 match where the other player took an intentional foul. Efren, wanting to return the intentional, tapped the cue ball with the ferrule of his cue. The ref ruled that it was illegal stroke and penalized him same as three fouls, 15 ball penalty. Didn't matter much. I believe the match was against Dallas West if you want to look for it on YouTube.
That's the closest analogous ruling I can think of.
Why?
I double hit the other night in my lowly league match, picked up the cue ball and handed it over, the other player was dumbfounded. His captain smiled and thanked me. Not the same as doing that playing at DCC, I'll grant you, tho I'd like to think I'd still do the same there, as well.
Yes, playing at Derby City is quite different. From the current Derby City rules, available online:
Double Hits, Push Shots, and Miscues
Object balls frozen to the cue ball or very close to the cue ball, require you to elevate the cue approximately 45 degrees to stroke the shot. This will be considered a legal shot even though a double hit may occur. Even with an elevated cue, you cannot place the cue tip on the cue ball and shove it forward or it will be called a push shot and result in a foul.
It may have been my post on Facebook that brought on the discussion -- but my post was Fedor Gorst vs Roberto Gomez, where Gorst appears to call a foul on himself at a key point in the end game, and it gives Gomez an easy shot for game ball. I posted to give props to Gorst for calling a foul on himself even though it was immediate game loss consequence. To my eyes it looked like a pretty subtle foul, and it did not appear from his body language that Gomez saw it as a foul at all, even though you could see him intently watching Gorst shoot. I say that because Gomez first turns his attention towards the ball Fedor just missed, and only after Gorst spots the ball does he pivot to where he would go to shoot the spotted ball.
This was in the hot seat match in the HUGE Buffalo's Pro Classic One Pocket, and the game score at the time was 3-2 Gomez, so calling that foul directly led to Gomez taking a 4-2 lead. Gomez went on to win that match 5-2, and the title for that matter.
It was about 2 in the morning so all the commentators had already called it a night, so we don't get their input. PoolActionTV if you are a subscriber you can find it about a half hour or so from the end of Saturday's matches.
I took screen shots on my phone I can post in a bit.
This was in the hot seat match in the HUGE Buffalo's Pro Classic One Pocket, and the game score at the time was 3-2 Gomez, so calling that foul directly led to Gomez taking a 4-2 lead. Gomez went on to win that match 5-2, and the title for that matter.
It was about 2 in the morning so all the commentators had already called it a night, so we don't get their input. PoolActionTV if you are a subscriber you can find it about a half hour or so from the end of Saturday's matches.
I took screen shots on my phone I can post in a bit.
This was Fedor's shot -- a "close proximity" cross corner bank shot to his pocket (lower left as we view it).
And here he spots up the ball and you see Gomez moving over to take advantage of the unexpected opportunity. Gomez can be seen in his chair behind Gorst watching as Gorst shoots, but you can see from the second photo he is not coming from the chair, he is coming from the head of the table, which is where he went after Gorst shot, appearing to size up what to do with the bank Gorst hung, before Gorst spotted the ball and informed Gomez that he fouled.
And here he spots up the ball and you see Gomez moving over to take advantage of the unexpected opportunity. Gomez can be seen in his chair behind Gorst watching as Gorst shoots, but you can see from the second photo he is not coming from the chair, he is coming from the head of the table, which is where he went after Gorst shot, appearing to size up what to do with the bank Gorst hung, before Gorst spotted the ball and informed Gomez that he fouled.
The irony is Lou, by Derby City rules, if you had elevated your cue 45 degrees (assuming it was a close proximity shot), it would not even have been considered a foul by their special 45 degree rule. It's why purists don't like their 45 degree rule, they prefer the classic test of "did the cue ball go forward of the tangent line unnaturally?" to call a double hit. In the case of the Gorst shot, the cue ball did apparently go forward of the tangent line a little bit. In real time I did'nt see it to be honest, and I kinda doubt Gomez saw it either based on his movements and focus immediately following the shot -- before Gorst must have told him and spotted that ball.
Props to Gorst for his honesty in calling a foul on himself at a key moment like that.
On really hard to decide shots like that the shooter is the one in the best position to make the call. Gorst knew exactly where the cue ball was intended to go with the hit/spin he used and he was the one who would feel the second hit.
…and to his credit, he immediately made the call.