No one. Both played within the rules. (Assuming by "shoots the 5 into 1", you mean, "using his cue stick to hit the cue ball, he plays the three ball combo to sink the 9, resulting in a bad hit but a safer position".)
Correct all the way.
No one. Both played within the rules. (Assuming by "shoots the 5 into 1", you mean, "using his cue stick to hit the cue ball, he plays the three ball combo to sink the 9, resulting in a bad hit but a safer position".)
Let me simply ask you straight out so that you can cease being vague. Do you think taking an intentional foul (e.g. intentionally not hitting the lowest numbered ball first in a rotation game) in pool is "breaking the rules", and thus unethical? You may have explicitly stated this in another thread, but I don't feel like surfing through your post history.You are also putting words in my mouth about what percentage of people are willing to break the rules to win. I simply stated my opinion and if the shoe fits, wear it. You are the one saying exact numbers and speaking for people that are not you.
Funny this situation comes up today in the US Open...
http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id...il-mickelson-swats-moving-ball-putter-us-open
Apparently Mickelson intentionally putt a moving ball and took the penalty, since he reasoned it was "better than the alternative".
To me, this is akin to what is considered "unsportsmanlike behavior" in the pool world, such as intentionally hitting an OB with the cue stick or picking up the CB without stroking it with the cue.
The issue should perhaps be framed in terms of what distinguishes cheating from simply breaking the rules. A couple of things that are relevant are: 1) is the breach of rules open and obvious or is there an attempt to conceal it or deceive; and 2) is the penalty accepted or is there an attempt to avoid the penalty for a clear and acknowledged breach of rules.
If the person breaking the rules is doing so in an obvious and acknowledged manner and has simply made a judgment that he is strategically better off with the penalty as opposed to where he would be in the absence of the breach, it is probably not cheating.
In football, occasionally a team intentionally takes too much time in the huddle and accepts a five-yard penalty to improve the angle on a field goal attempt. It's against the rules to take too much time in the huddle but no one calls that cheating. Similarly, if a basketball player makes an intentional foul to stop the clock or even to prevent an obvious layup, it's not cheating; it's a strategic move. In each instance, the team or player makes a conscious decision to violate a rule and accept the penalty as strategic choice. It's not an attempt to gain a unfair advantage. It's part of the game.
If the person or team breaking the rules tries to deny the breach when it's clear that is what he/they did or avoid the penalty, that's different. Otherwise, it's basically liquidated damages. Everybody accepts the consequences and goes on as best they can.
And what if the cue ball was out of spec? Are they permitted to put in a carom ball or a snooker ball?Which team was the home team? Home team gets to use whatever cue ball they want. Some leagues may state that which ever cue ball was used to practice cant be swapped out unless both teams agree. Basically home team cant let you practice with one cue ball then switch it for the match. If they were the home team. They didn't cheat. They used strategy.
Remember 'Deflategate'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflategate
NFL custom was for the home team to provide all of the game's footballs. So under-inflated balls were used in games to the advantage of the home team who had practiced in secret with these same under-inflated balls.
A clear & perfect example of cheating. An excellent analogy.
See it in 1-hole all the time. People moving balls to their side of the tray... "forgetting" to put a coin up when they owe a ball... Feel like it is a bit easier to cheat in 1 hole then it is in 9ball.