Allison Fisher called a foul on herself on a hill-hill match!

[rrick33]

If a lion steals a cheetah's kill, did he perform an immoral act? Did he cheat? After all he didn't kill the prey and his actions clearly place the cheetah at a disadvantage. Do you think the cheetah finds himself pondering why life is so unfair? I can promise you...he doesn't. He sets his focus on making his next kill. If he allowed morality to dictate his actions he would be extinct.

If nature considers this to be "fair and equitable" between competing species, then why do we strive to change the laws of nature when we ourselves are in a competitive situation by infusing moral perspectives.

The "rules" or laws of the game, much like the laws of nature, do not specify that one opponent must follow an unwritten law to level the playing field. The lion doesn't have to give the cheetah a warning in advance to be "fair". He doesn't have to contribute to the cheetahs success.

In the same way, the rules of pool do not have a written or unwritten law that states one opponent must forfeit an advantage because his opponent was not paying attention.

If we believe that morals should play a factor then we must also ask ourselves....are morals universal in nature....just as the laws of nature are universal?

It turns out they are not. They vary by religious perspective and even by region and the influences of culture as well as personal experience. With so many variables, we can never apply morality to the rules with any degree of uniformity.

Therefore, it seems logical to me that if we simply follow the written rules just as all other life follows the laws of nature, we wouldn't have to debate whether someone's actions were "moral" or not.

We can effectively eliminate all the morality controversy since at the heart of the matter, it cannot be applied consistently and therefore has no place in the game or the rules.

The spirit of the written rules contribute to this concept. " If you don't call the foul then it never happened" If it never happened then we cannot apply morality to a non-event.

It is only those acting contrary to the laws of nature, as well as the actual written rules, who choose to infuse the variability of morality to the game in order to find some level of comfort in supporting their diverse opinion.

 

[Houstoer]

I was thinking the same thing when I read that article!

I think I threw up a little bit when i read that part !

 

[KRJ]

Which she gave when she was commentating with Vivian during the Han/K Fisher match. She said I just don't want to win that way." Meaning, knowing she had fouled but didn't face any blowback from it. She's a champion, and has the integrity of one.

Exactly, she is pool super star, why do anything to taint her image, anything at all. Win or lose this match is NOT going to define her career, but being called a "cheater" by some is just not worth it to her, so bravo to her.

It's what you do when nobody is looking that defines your character... so respect her decision, if you don't agree with that decision, she surely does not deserve anything other that "you would not do that" but to be called a dumbass just shows how low folks in the pool world go to bring down the true legends. quite sad really.

 

[CreeDo]

Rick:

Yes, morality is relative and affected by society, upbringing, etc.
No, you can't strictly go by the rules alone with zero interpretation, and zero concern for morality.

Why? Because the rulemakers can't think of every possibility.
And if they did, the rulebook would be the size of a telephone book.

They don't explicitly ban spitting on the opponent's cue tip.
They don't explicitly ban drugging his drink.

If you are concerned ONLY with winning, and your argument is we should play with ZERO concern for morality,
then why not do these things? After all, they aren't mentioned anywhere in the WPA rules.
So if you can do them without being seen, you have technically broken no rule.
You can exploit this loophole to win.

It's your choice ultimately, but I don't recommend you "temporarily suspend morality" for any stretch
of time for the rest of your life. Not for pool, not for any other activity.

 

[rrick33]

Creedo asked "They don't explicitly ban spitting on the opponent's cue tip.
They don't explicitly ban drugging his drink.
If you are concerned ONLY with winning, and your argument is we should play with ZERO concern for morality, then why not do these things? After all, they aren't mentioned anywhere in the WPA rules.
So if you can do them without being seen, you have technically broken no rule.
You can exploit this loophole to win."



It has nothing to do with being seen and truth be told you can spit on your opponents cue and call them names and do all kinds of terrible things as long as those actions are not against the law or the rules.

Some might consider certain activity unsportsmanlike or illegal and if you can persuade a "Judge", Ref. or the TD to see it your way, then they are at that time classified as against the rules and by nature not subject to moral interpretation...unless the judge infused his moral perspective to apply the event to a rule.

Even "sharking" as subjective as it is...... is subject to a judge or refs. interpretation to see if it qualifies as a rule violation.....assuming that sharking is against the rules.

Where rules are not explicit, Morality is never imposed by the players. A third party "judge" or ref. weighs the activity and if he finds it profound enough to qualify as applying to a rules, we then transition the activity to become rule related.

Ultimately, in the end....it is still the rules that apply not the morality of the players.

That being said, if a player failed to self call a foul and 2 shots later a judge or ref. was asked to make the call....the rules favor the shooter. Again, no morality applies....it's simply the rules.

Can't we all just play by the rules and leave the morality at home?