Loree Jon Snooze.............
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
Do you think if she did see the foul that she had an obligation to tell LJH that she fouled?
IMHO - yes. If there are no rules stating you have to, then it's what you can live with I guess.
I would have handed her the ball "IF" I was playing and saw it.
Jason<-----sleeps very well at night.
I agree. I think the problem with your view, though, is that now I can get out of my obligation to tell my opponent that I fouled simply by not paying attention.
I believe that LJH and JB both had an obligation to pay attention to what happened on that shot, and that they were both at fault for not doing so. So, on my view, even if JB did not know that she fouled, that would not absolve her of responsibility, because she should have known.
Shooter has ethical responsibility..
If there's a positive from all this it'd be that we're prabably not going to be seeing a similar issue in the near future.
Hind sight's 20/20 and in this case that vision will be stuck in many a mind moving forward.....
Where are the rules that specifically say that only an opponent should referee the shooter at the table?
Both players are responsible for refereeing a match when there is no referee present. That includes the shooter and the opponent. Obviously, if the referees don't see it, they can't call it, just like with a match with a presiding referee.
In the case of a dispute in a non-refereed match, the decision will always go to the shooter unless they both agree to bring in outside opinions.
No I'm not... I am fully aware of the difference. I think it's already obvious she wasn't violating the rules, because nothing in the rules states she is required to call a foul on herself.
My post that you were replying to clearly states my reasoning as to why I also don't see it as being unethical. She doesn't need to hold Loree Jon's hand and say "here, even though we both saw the same exact shot, I am going to remind you that what happened was a foul, so please make sure you take ball in hand"
Pretend for a moment you failed to hit a rail and didn't notice. How would it feel to have a 13 page thread appear with people accusing you of behaving unethically and looking at you as a cheater with low integrity going forward?
Innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof she knew she fouled, so she is innocent. Period.
If you want to start a new thread about whether or not players should call foul on themselves that is fine (although a search will reveal many former threads), but I don't think it's fair to JB to keep bumping this thread. I hesitate to post myself but this is still at the top of the main page. I vote we let this die.
Innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof she knew she fouled, so she is innocent. Period.
If you want to start a new thread about whether or not players should call foul on themselves that is fine (although a search will reveal many former threads), but I don't think it's fair to JB to keep bumping this thread. I hesitate to post myself but this is still at the top of the main page. I vote we let this die.
There is a huge difference between not pointing out obvious fouls to your opponent, versus flat out lying to your opponent and saying it wasn't a foul. You have no control over how ethical your opponent is, so it's common sense you will do everything in your power to watch their shots and and directly confront them if there was a foul or close hit. If they choose to lie about it, you just have to get a referee to come watch close hits from then on. I don't understand your logic that you should leave it up to the shooter to call fouls on themselves because you just expect your opponents to A) be perfectly ethical ,and B) agree that it's their responsibility to call fouls on themselves.
Unfortunately, being "nice" is not necessary to act in a professional and ethical manner. She didn't break the rules, and she didn't try to disguise the fact that she fouled. It was obvious to everyone in the room, and Loree Jon was right there watching the shot. I see no violation of rules or ethics, and it is clear that it's completely Loree Jon's fault that she somehow didn't realize a foul occurred in her own match. At her level, there's simply no excuse for that.
Not holding your opponent's hand and pointing out an obvious foul on a shot they were looking right at, is considered "pulling a move" ? "Hey fellow professional player who's been playing this game forever, I just want to make sure you know that when a ball doesn't contact a rail, that's a foul. Make sure you take ball in hand. Would you like assistance with choosing where to put the cue ball?"
Last edited:
What silly logic that is, lol. It doesn't say that in the rules, nor does it say that the shooter needs to referee their own shots. Therefore, there is no rule compelling JB to do anything at all. How can someone violate the rules by not doing something (simply sitting down after their shot is over), if there is nothing in the rules saying they should take additional action and point out the obvious to their opponent?
Somehow I can't find a huge difference between a shooter ignoring obvious fouls in a match that isn't officiated and flat out lying and saying it wasn't a foul. If you said not exactly the same I might agree, huge difference? No.
When we accept your premises that the shooter both isn't ethical and won't call fouls on themselves the game becomes get away with what you can. I have played under those conditions many many times gambling. The other player always quit in frustration after starting the "get away with what you can rule of play" themselves. Often that wasn't because of unethical play on my part, just the appearance I might be playing by their rules. Calling someone to watch close shots doesn't help much since many fouls aren't on close shots.
A couple of questions since you think the other player should serve as the official: Do you expect other people to be seated or standing out of your line of sight when you are shooting? Do you sit quietly in your chair or stand out of the other player's field of view while they are shooting?
Hu
Nonsense. She either didn't realize that she fouled, or she tried to disguise that she fouled.
I don't ever recall playing or witnessing a match in which the shooter who knowingly did not contact a rail did NOT confirm in some manner the shot was indeed a foul (e.g. picking up the CB, tapping the CB with the cue, simply muttering "foul" or "ball in hand"). Not confirming the foul in some way is poor etiquette even if the shooter had zero intention of cheating and getting away with it. But if there is motive to get away with it, then it crosses over to unethical territory.
Going back to JB's situation, she either didn't realize she fouled or she was being unethical. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume the former is the case. But if that were so, she (as well as LJ) won't be able to escape the criticisms of being utterly oblivious.
Well, here is your complete post:
Let me preface my remarks by saying that my main interest in this discussion is in the ethics of this type of situation, rather than the specific occurrence in the match between LJ and JB. My view about that situation is that both players bear some responsibility for the fact that there was no foul called.
So, the first thing you say is that the fault is with LJ because she was inattentive. We know that LJ didn't realize it was a foul, but we don't know whether or not JB knew it was a foul. If JB did not know it was a foul then she was also inattentive. Do you think that means that she is partly at fault in that case? If not, why is LJ's inattentiveness a problem, but not JB's?
The second thing you say is that "She didn't lie, or prevent Loree Jon from taking ball in hand." Well, if she did know it was a foul, and didn't say anything, then she certainly did prevent LJ from taking ball in hand, since LJ did not know it was a foul, and had JB told her it was a foul, then she would have taken ball in hand. Not telling your opponent that you fouled, when you know you fouled and it's clear that your opponent does not know that you fouled, is a kind of lie of omission.
On the other hand, if she didn't know that she fouled, then I contend that she should have known, especially given the fact that she was the only one at the table.
To see why, imagine the same situation, but one in which the cueball is coming to a stop just as it gets near the cushion. In that case it may be impossible for your opponent to know whether or not the cueball reached the cushion, because they weren't close enough to see it. Without a referee, the shooter is the only one in a position to say whether or not it is a foul. If I understand your view, though, if the cueball did not actually reach the cushion then the shooter has no ethical obligation to tell their opponent that they fouled. Is that right?
It wasnt obvious to everyone in the room, I was sitting right there and didnt see it and nobody sitting around me said or mentioned it either.
Jason