Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > 14.1 Pool
Reload this Page is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights?
Reply
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights?
Old
  (#1)
evergruven
AzB Silver Member
evergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 469
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2017
   
is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights? - 07-04-2019, 09:02 PM

obviously it could be a strategic move to run into the pack and not hit a rail,
but is that ever considered poor form? what about other fouls?


peace & love
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,841
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
07-04-2019, 09:08 PM

No knowledgeable player would consider it poor form for an opponent to take intentional fouls. They are integral to the game.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Pushout
AzB Silver Member
Pushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond reputePushout has a reputation beyond repute
 
Pushout's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 7,718
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2006
   
07-05-2019, 05:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLarge View Post
No knowledgeable player would consider it poor form for an opponent to take intentional fouls. They are integral to the game.
Another of the many reasons casual players don't take to the game.


I had a stroke. I had it when I came in, I KNOW I did

"Nothing beats playing pool in your underwear at 2 o'clock in the morning." George Fels 1938-2013

Straight Pool is not a race!

Link to 101 Tips to Improve Your Game by George Fels:http://www.mediafire.com/file/ldhxbl..._Game.pdf/file
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
sjm
Sweating the 2017 Mosconi
sjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond repute
 
sjm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 15,799
vCash: 525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New York, NY
   
07-05-2019, 06:44 AM

For the most part, only knowledgeable players take intentional fouls against other knowledgeable players, so it's not viewed as unsportsmanlike by such players.

Unsportsmanlike fouls, which carry an additional 15 point penalty, are rarely called in an unofficiated game, either. For example, opponent might nudge a dead cluster with their hand as they play safe. I recall this happening to me once, and when they replaced it the dead ball had vanished. They claimed it wasn't dead in the first place, and I really didn't have any idea how to argue the point, so I got the worst of it.

Another issue is when a player tries to take an intentional foul undetected. The most common infraction of this type is when a player is nearly, but not frozen to an object ball and hits through it, sometimes breaking clusters in this manner. It's happened to me more than once and even cost me a match once. My opponent clearly did this in an unofficiated match and the best I could do was ask whether the shot was legal. When they said "yes" I really had no recourse, as, despite the fact that I had looked to see if the cue ball was frozen to the object ball, I could never prove the balls weren't frozen, so I ended up getting the worst of it.

Most intentional fouls are fair game and acceptable to nearly every player but, as noted, there are exceptions.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
evergruven
AzB Silver Member
evergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 469
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2017
   
07-05-2019, 07:44 AM

thank y'all for the replies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjm View Post
Another issue is when a player tries to take an intentional foul undetected. The most common infraction of this type is when a player is nearly, but not frozen to an object ball and hits through it, sometimes breaking clusters in this manner. It's happened to me more than once and even cost me a match once. My opponent clearly did this in an unofficiated match and the best I could do was ask whether the shot was legal. When they said "yes" I really had no recourse, as, despite the fact that I had looked to see if the cue ball was frozen to the object ball, I could never prove the balls weren't frozen, so I ended up getting the worst of it.
hi stu, thanks for the shout back. I want to make sure I understand you..
so the balls weren't frozen, but the other player acted as if they were?
can you please explain more about the rule and why this was advantageous to them?


peace & love
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Bob Jewett
Northern California

Bob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
   
07-05-2019, 09:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by evergruven View Post
...
so the balls weren't frozen, but the other player acted as if they were?
can you please explain more about the rule and why this was advantageous to them?
If the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, you are permitted to shoot at that ball. If the cue ball is not quite frozen, you may not hit the cue ball twice and you may not have the tip of the cue stick on the cue ball when it hits the object ball. This is a very, very common problem and I'm surprised you have not encountered it yet.

As snooker and carom, you are never allowed to shoot towards (or even partly into) a ball that the cue ball is frozen to.

In order for the balls to be considered frozen they must be declared as such. In Stu's situation, the balls were evidently not declared frozen (and agreed to) so the call should have gone in his favor.

There is a video of a match of two world champions playing 14.1. Just after a break shot the cue ball and an object ball are lined up to the side pocket but they are separated by maybe a quarter-inch. The player fumes and whines because he knows that he can't play the only shot available without fouling. His seated opponent is probably looking to see what sort of safe will be played.

Suddenly the player calls the ball in the side and strokes through hitting the cue ball twice. The move does not give the seated opponent time to call over a ref. After the expected complaint by his opponent, the fouler said, "No one was watching -- my word against yours." That was one of the nastiest, cheating, thug moves I've seen a so-called "professional" pull.

The good news is that they met again later and the victim ran out on the cheating thug and eliminated him from the tournament.


Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
evergruven
AzB Silver Member
evergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond reputeevergruven has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 469
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2017
   
07-05-2019, 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett View Post
If the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, you are permitted to shoot at that ball. If the cue ball is not quite frozen, you may not hit the cue ball twice and you may not have the tip of the cue stick on the cue ball when it hits the object ball. This is a very, very common problem and I'm surprised you have not encountered it yet.

As snooker and carom, you are never allowed to shoot towards (or even partly into) a ball that the cue ball is frozen to.

In order for the balls to be considered frozen they must be declared as such. In Stu's situation, the balls were evidently not declared frozen (and agreed to) so the call should have gone in his favor.

There is a video of a match of two world champions playing 14.1. Just after a break shot the cue ball and an object ball are lined up to the side pocket but they are separated by maybe a quarter-inch. The player fumes and whines because he knows that he can't play the only shot available without fouling. His seated opponent is probably looking to see what sort of safe will be played.

Suddenly the player calls the ball in the side and strokes through hitting the cue ball twice. The move does not give the seated opponent time to call over a ref. After the expected complaint by his opponent, the fouler said, "No one was watching -- my word against yours." That was one of the nastiest, cheating, thug moves I've seen a so-called "professional" pull.

The good news is that they met again later and the victim ran out on the cheating thug and eliminated him from the tournament.
thanks bob.
seems like if there's space in between balls, a player would have options to choose from rather than flat out cheating.
is the no double hit rule a more or less standard rule in all games, 8, 9, 1p, etc.?
in bca 8/9 they told us we had to hit frozen balls at an angle, but that's the only time I've encountered that rule.
the tip not allowed to be on the cue ball at cue-object ball contact seems like a tricky one..


peace & love
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
DynoDan
AzB Silver Member
DynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 277
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2018
   
07-05-2019, 12:29 PM

Unless I’m mistaken, in an ‘unofficiated’ match, your opponent is the referee (thus the necessity of calling attention to frozen balls you intend to shoot). If the match does have a ref who is distracted elsewhere, and your opponent elects to shoot anyway, then he is automatically deferring to your judgement.

Last edited by DynoDan; 07-06-2019 at 06:38 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Bob Jewett
Northern California

Bob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
   
07-05-2019, 02:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DynoDan View Post
Unless I’m mistaken, in an ‘unofficiated’ match, your opponent is the referee (thus the necessity of calling attention to frozen balls you intent to shoot). If the match does have a ref who is distracted elsewhere, and your opponent elects to shoot anyway, then he is automatically deferring to your judgement.
No, unfortunately. The standard in the US is that if only the two players are present and one claims a foul occurred and the other (shooter) says no foul occurred, it is assumed no foul occurred. It is, of course, a really nasty move to shoot a foul shot in a situation that is very likely to be a problem before your opponent has a chance to ask for a third party to watch.


Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
sjm
Sweating the 2017 Mosconi
sjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond reputesjm has a reputation beyond repute
 
sjm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 15,799
vCash: 525
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New York, NY
   
07-06-2019, 02:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett View Post
In order for the balls to be considered frozen they must be declared as such. In Stu's situation, the balls were evidently not declared frozen (and agreed to) so the call should have gone in his favor.
Wow, neither I nor the ref I called over knew this. I thought myself pretty scholarly on the matter of the rules, but this was a clear hole in my knowledge. Thanks for the lesson, Bob.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
Bob Jewett
Northern California

Bob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
   
07-06-2019, 05:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjm View Post
Wow, neither I nor the ref I called over knew this. I thought myself pretty scholarly on the matter of the rules, but this was a clear hole in my knowledge. Thanks for the lesson, Bob.
I'm not sure when the rule showed up -- I suppose I could research it -- but the idea is the same as a ball frozen to the cushion. It is not frozen unless called and the opponent has time to agree/disagree.


Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights?
Old
  (#12)
K2Kraze
AzB Gold Member
K2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond reputeK2Kraze has a reputation beyond repute
 
K2Kraze's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,486
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Fort Worth, TX
   
is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights? - 07-06-2019, 06:51 PM

Great situations and examples discussed, Bob.


Also, to address the OP question, (IMHO) it’s poor form for any 14.1 player to NOT know the rules in detail - beginner or veteran player - and knowing said rules, every 14.1 player knows that intentional fouls are integral to the great game.

~ K.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
DynoDan
AzB Silver Member
DynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 277
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2018
   
07-06-2019, 07:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett
The standard in the US is that if only the two players are present and one claims a foul occurred and the other (shooter) says no foul occurred, it is assumed no foul occurred
The BCA ‘Rules For Tournament Play’ (#1.16) used to be: “When a referee is not available, the player who is not shooting will assume the duties of the referee to the extent of play on the table”.
So, when did that change become the “US Standard”, and what deterrent is there then against committing a foul if the rules say that you can just deny that you did?

Last edited by DynoDan; 07-06-2019 at 07:23 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Bob Jewett
Northern California

Bob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 16,687
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
   
07-06-2019, 07:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DynoDan View Post
The BCA ‘Rules For Tournament Play’ (#1.16) used to be: “When a referee is not available, the player who is not shooting will assume the duties of the referee to the extent of play on the table”.
So, when did that change become the “US Standard”, and what deterrent is there then to not foul if the rules say that you can just deny that you did?
The main problem with letting the opponent call fouls without appeal is that some opponents will call fouls that did not occur. "Disputed calls go to the shooter" has been sort of the US standard for a while. Here is the current regulation from the World Standardized Rules about this which is in the section of how to handle disputes when there is only an "Area Referee" and no ref at the table:
If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred.


Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
DynoDan
AzB Silver Member
DynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond reputeDynoDan has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 277
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2018
   
07-07-2019, 02:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett View Post
The main problem with letting the opponent call fouls without appeal is that some opponents will call fouls that did not occur. "Disputed calls go to the shooter" has been sort of the US standard for a while. Here is the current regulation from the World Standardized Rules about this which is in the section of how to handle disputes when there is only an "Area Referee" and no ref at the table:
If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred.
While is might appear there would be little ethical difference between situations where your opponent (acting as referee) calls an unjustified foul against you, vs. your denying a foul that you DID commit, the latter is much worse since the result is that ‘unrefereed’ matches are now apparently (?) just that in reality. Can you imagine if the pro sports teams suddenly decided to eliminate all umpires/referees merely in order to save the cost of their salaries? Fans would likely be appalled at the turmoil that would create. Why this issue should now be an exception for pool is beyond me.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.