if a player admitted to a foul the ref would take his word and give ball in hand.HIRUN526 said:
Earl admits cheating Charlie Williams in the Skins on Tape
- Thread starter Fast Lenny
- Start date
the referee didn't see it. it's the ref's responsibility to see it. therefore Earl violated no rules. now yes he was probably MORALLY in the wrong, but who are we to say he should do the supposed morally right thing when there is thousands of pounds on the line? all very well acting high and mighty saying he should call a foul on himself but there was a lot at stake, and he technically hadn't done anything wrong anyway! people are citing george breedlove calling foul on himself which ultimately cost him a tour card for the IPT. fair play to the man. it was a noble act. but that was his decision. he chose to take the moral high ground instead of taking what is arguably a more logical decision. and that's to just play on.
as to what Earl actually said in this piece of audio, if what he's saying is true, then it does add another slant to the debate. i believe it does strengthen Earl's case. if you feel you've been the victim of poor table conditions, then you're going to be more inclined to not calling a foul on yourself. makes logical sense to me.
and anyway, this whole debate reminds me of a recent debate here in England, regarding the tv show big brother. a few of the housemates, one in particular jade, were bullying another indian housemate. now while quite a bit of what she was saying was based around race, it clearly was a case of her just being a dumb idiot and a big bully. yet it caused national outcry, accusing her of being a racialist. anyone with half a brain could see she was just being immature and didn't really hate her because she was indian.
but everybody seems to WANT to take the moral high ground. nobody really cared about it, but they WANTED to care. they so badly wanted to be angry about it but the truth is they were'nt. bacause there's no need to be.
now i have gone off on a tangent here but if you are still reading the point is this. earl made a logical decision which he chose over the moral option. i think most the people who crucify earl for what he did don't really feel the way they say they do. they WANT to feel like they'd call foul on themselves because it makes them feel good. there's nothing to be ashamed of by not calling foul on yourself in many situations.
ahhhh. rant over!
as to what Earl actually said in this piece of audio, if what he's saying is true, then it does add another slant to the debate. i believe it does strengthen Earl's case. if you feel you've been the victim of poor table conditions, then you're going to be more inclined to not calling a foul on yourself. makes logical sense to me.
and anyway, this whole debate reminds me of a recent debate here in England, regarding the tv show big brother. a few of the housemates, one in particular jade, were bullying another indian housemate. now while quite a bit of what she was saying was based around race, it clearly was a case of her just being a dumb idiot and a big bully. yet it caused national outcry, accusing her of being a racialist. anyone with half a brain could see she was just being immature and didn't really hate her because she was indian.
but everybody seems to WANT to take the moral high ground. nobody really cared about it, but they WANTED to care. they so badly wanted to be angry about it but the truth is they were'nt. bacause there's no need to be.
now i have gone off on a tangent here but if you are still reading the point is this. earl made a logical decision which he chose over the moral option. i think most the people who crucify earl for what he did don't really feel the way they say they do. they WANT to feel like they'd call foul on themselves because it makes them feel good. there's nothing to be ashamed of by not calling foul on yourself in many situations.
ahhhh. rant over!
John Barton said:
Bobby Jones stiffed Alister Mckenzie for years on the price of building Augusta National and also did not pay him after it was built even while Mr. Mckenzies wife was dying! Bobby Jones the greatest golfer ever? Maybe, but not the most honest person ever to play that game, either.
i think its just numerous things that earl has done in the past 10 years that makes this incident get blown out of porportion.worriedbeef said:
Just in case anyone wants to dispute my claim against the great Bobby Jones:
"The club was in debt to many creditors, among them Alister MacKenzie, who never received his full fee for designing the course. The last time he saw the course, in 1932, grass had not yet been planted. He died in 1934 at age 63.
MacKenzie's original fee was $10,000. He reduced it to $5,000 in hopes of being paid, but he received just $2,000. He wrote to Roberts to ask for $500 “to keep us out of the poor house,” but Roberts either could not (his supporters would say) or would not (the view of his detractors) pay. Roberts did issue Mackenzie two notes, each with a face value of $1,000, but warned the architect that trying to cash them in Augusta, where the club's financial state was well-known, would be fruitless. MacKenzie died without receiving another cent."
Boby Jones is in the same catagory as a lot of other cheaters!
"The club was in debt to many creditors, among them Alister MacKenzie, who never received his full fee for designing the course. The last time he saw the course, in 1932, grass had not yet been planted. He died in 1934 at age 63.
MacKenzie's original fee was $10,000. He reduced it to $5,000 in hopes of being paid, but he received just $2,000. He wrote to Roberts to ask for $500 “to keep us out of the poor house,” but Roberts either could not (his supporters would say) or would not (the view of his detractors) pay. Roberts did issue Mackenzie two notes, each with a face value of $1,000, but warned the architect that trying to cash them in Augusta, where the club's financial state was well-known, would be fruitless. MacKenzie died without receiving another cent."
Boby Jones is in the same catagory as a lot of other cheaters!
John Barton
New member
Perhaps the designer of Augusta remained unpaid. It is however not entirely logical to draw a line between sporting conduct in the performance of a game to am incident with many other factors involved.
This particular thread isn't really about developing a biography of either Earl Strickland or Bobby Jones. It is about identifying what is sporting and ethical in the pursuit of victory.
I fall on the side that money and glory won through unethical means is hollow. Unethical for me, includes breaking the rules even if you can "get away with it". EVERY individual sport allows a player to call a foul on himself. Team sports are perhaps different in that more than one member of a team may have differeing opinons on whether a foul occurred or not AND such decisions affect the whole team. Still, the right thing to do is to admit a foul if you committed one.
The argument that the rules only allowed the ref to call a foul ONLY applies to the opponent calling fouls. A player is allowed to call a foul BECAUSE there is NO DISPUTE there, because you can't force the player to continue play. As Earl knows well, no one can force you to play your best.
Bobby Jones exemplified sportsmanship by calling a foul on himself at the US Open. Whatever he did before of after that is no matter as pertains to this particular example of how it "should" be.
This particular thread isn't really about developing a biography of either Earl Strickland or Bobby Jones. It is about identifying what is sporting and ethical in the pursuit of victory.
I fall on the side that money and glory won through unethical means is hollow. Unethical for me, includes breaking the rules even if you can "get away with it". EVERY individual sport allows a player to call a foul on himself. Team sports are perhaps different in that more than one member of a team may have differeing opinons on whether a foul occurred or not AND such decisions affect the whole team. Still, the right thing to do is to admit a foul if you committed one.
The argument that the rules only allowed the ref to call a foul ONLY applies to the opponent calling fouls. A player is allowed to call a foul BECAUSE there is NO DISPUTE there, because you can't force the player to continue play. As Earl knows well, no one can force you to play your best.
Bobby Jones exemplified sportsmanship by calling a foul on himself at the US Open. Whatever he did before of after that is no matter as pertains to this particular example of how it "should" be.
John Barton
New member
I had a guy blatantly foul against me once in a good sized regional tournament. When I called him on it he reminded me that we were playing without a referee so the call goes to the shooter. Man was I pissed off. The people watching were also disgusted.
I briefly considered playing that game and doing the same to him. But, just as quickly I understood that it's a zero sum game. In other words playing deliberate fouls and claiming they aren't would only lead to change in strategy on both sides to cope with "new rules", the skill levels wouldn't change. So I resolved to just be more careful and call a referee to watch the rest of the match.
I won. And felt better because of it!!!!! Won the tournament too.
I briefly considered playing that game and doing the same to him. But, just as quickly I understood that it's a zero sum game. In other words playing deliberate fouls and claiming they aren't would only lead to change in strategy on both sides to cope with "new rules", the skill levels wouldn't change. So I resolved to just be more careful and call a referee to watch the rest of the match.
I won. And felt better because of it!!!!! Won the tournament too.
I saw that video, both of them. It wasn't the cheating. Was it cheating. Theres a ref there for that. But it was just a dumb thing for earl to do at that point in the game : to hit the five ball with his cue. If he didn't see it, he would have felt it. Then he takes off like a naughty boy and is probably a bit psyched out and blows his next shot. But the dumbest thing is him saying to Williams "do you see that ball swerve" after the game concluded as if that was the primary event. It cast a shadow on his pedigree of six times world champion, whatever. It was just dumb thats all. Dumb and dumber, earl and the ref. Maybe he was goofing around too much saying "I'm not going to run out from here'. Self fulfilling prophecy. imo 