Hey JV and Pool playa, some very good responses.
JV, we're on the same page. I also agree with you that in today's actual (not hypothetical) world, the social standard is definitely that we ought to call foul on ourselves. For that reason I do so, and I applaud others that do the same. Where I grew up in the 90s this wasn't the case, I was taught to never call foul on myself and no one else did either, but since 2000 or so I've adapted to the global standard instead of what was maybe just my local area, or a different time.
Pool playa, you bring up a great conversation. I think right and wrong are up to our society, but you're right there are larger patterns we follow and hopefully we continue to evolve to higher and higher standards. Clearly we've made a lot of great strides. Yet I think that when our generation is viewed in the rear view mirror we will be found lacking. Maybe in 100 years we are all vegetarian and we find it horrible that we used to breed animals for slaughter when we had viable alternatives. Maybe we have brought the entire world out of poverty and we can't believe we used to use phones made by third world countries with unlivable conditions. So it's not that we don't know right and wrong, but you're right that there are speed bumps that make progress slower than we'd like it.
I feel calling fouls on ourselves is an example. So is taking a break on your own inning (so people don't intentionally or unintentionally shark their opponent), not making concessions, etc. This seems to be a progression that feels right to most people.
There are other times when things aren't as clear. If someone used beta blockers in a world championship that might be considered a disqualification and they would be looked down upon for cheating. But if that same player drinks coffee then we think nothing of it. What's the difference? We can talk degree, but it's all about social norms.
The reason it may not always be as clear is because sometimes there are unforseen consequences. For example, one nice thing about 'don't call fouls on yourself' was that it was FAIR. In other words, honest and dishonest players were on the same playing field. There was no room for cheating. With 'call fouls on yourself' the honest players will follow the expectations, but some might not. This gives an unfair advantage to dishonest players. Easy to say "This shouldn't happen". But the truth is that we set up a standard that rewards cheaters, we are punishing honest players.
I think ANY time you set up a rule that is on an honor system to enforce it creates room for cheating and penalizes integrity. This is why I initially didn't like the 'call your own foul' trend. It is also why I don't like 'no pattern racking' rules. It is too easy for a player to get around this rule by rotating between 3 advantageous patterns (maybe flipping them symetrically). Once again, the player who racks them truly randomly is at a disadvantage. Now we can say "Top players will transcend this and truth and justice will win out". This is a great story. But we've seen too many times this isn't the case.
So do we want social guidelines that make us feel good about how honest we are while also opening the door for, and even incentivizing, cheating? Or do we want rules that protect high integrity professionals from cheaters and actually eliminate it entirely?
I think the pros outweigh the cons on this one. My only point is that it isn't black and white. It's not just "What do we feel is right". It's rather "What will happen if we make this the right rule?" Tournament directors often set up new rules expecting people to follow them. I learned as a manager and a parent that whenever you implement a new policy you can't simply ask "Will people following this rule make things better?" You always have to ask "If people DON'T follow this policy and I have to enforce consequences, will the resulting pain be worth it?" In other words, any new rule should hold up whethher people follow it or not, otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure.
Anyway, I think it's a great conversation. I think the questions are "How should things be set up, why, what are the positives and negatives?" I can go along that calling foul on ourselves is progression towards professional play. I can go along that it's worth the slight opportunity for unscrupulous people taking advantage. I just couldn't go along with thinking it's the only way things could be set up. It wasn't that way in my home room in the 90s and we weren't horrible people, just playing in a different era.
PS- I also used to play with a Pastor that would never take an intentional foul. He would never tie something up in 9 ball or take a scratch in straight pool or one pocket. He felt it was unethical because it was against the rules. Just another example of how we can interpret things differently. What if the day comes intentional fouls are considered unsportsmanlike? Would we look at the players you are today and say you lacked morals?
