Earl's Foul

supergreenman

truly addicted
Silver Member
Purdman said:
Why thank you very much! For your information, my way has done me just fine. I sleep well and have nothing to be ashamed of. The best day of my life I pulled in $68,000 ( or should I say ribbons ) in your wonderful country and didn't cheat anybody to do it.;) As a matter of fact, I ain't doing to bad today either. You do it your way Poolislife and I will continue to do it mine. No problem buddy.
Purdman:D

I would rather get my ribbons your way Purd and know that I won based on my own merit not by some mistake of the ref. Not all Canadians feel the same way as poolislife. In fact I don't know too many who do.
~mumbles something about we should have tarred and feathered that Ben Johnson guy for his use of steriods.
 

Fuji-whopper

Fargo: 457...play some?
Silver Member
TheOne said:
I murdered some guy last week, nobody saw me so its ok, hey its not my job to admit it let the cops do that. Besides I read in the paper that some other guy murdered somebody so Im not the only one!

Geez, what a thread!

OJ? Is that you?
 

Purdman

Banned
supergreenman said:
I would rather get my ribbons your way Purd and know that I won based on my own merit not by some mistake of the ref. Not all Canadians feel the same way as poolislife. In fact I don't know too many who do.
~mumbles something about we should have tarred and feathered that Ben Johnson guy for his use of steriods.


I know many fine Canadians green guy. I lived in and around Montreal for 5 years. I had an office in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Qubec City and PEI. I have many friends up north who put a lot of trust and money in my hands. I never once let anybody down.
Purdman;)
 

Snorks

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Poolislife said:
Fact #1--Earl did not Cheat, it is not his job to call fouls with a ref present.
Fact #2--Every other pro player has done a similiar thing, so don't hang Earl out to dry.
Fact #3--This thread should be called Scotts Mistake, not Earl's Foul
Fact #4--Alot of people live in a fantasy world. Sport is about winning, and Earl didn't not cheat here. I'm sure he will sleep at night as 99% of his opponents would do the same thing if in the same situation.
Fact #5--I am not an Earl fan, I used to be, but seeing him live several time, I think he is a shark, and has no respect for his opponents.

I give up:
- Earl gets down, makes shot, commits foul
- Charlie gets up - calls foul
- Earl says its not a foul because the ref didn't see it

50% say that this behaviour is OK, 50% think that it is not OK. I know what 50% I am in.

I think Earl should of looked at Scott and said, yes I committed the foul like Charlie called me on. Then Scott could decide how to proceed. His instanteous excuse to me was a sign of a very bad sport.
 

BlackDragon

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Charlie has no right to call a foul in my opinion. Thats bad sportsmanship. Its an interesting EarlHunt going on here. By the good doers who can't do what Earl has done. How would you feel if you were him and had to read this drivel.
Umpires are there so there is no cheating. You can't cheat where there is an umpire, thats it. Many posters have said this yet others remain staunch in their moral rightness and their personal inner code of values. Good for you but how loudly you complain. Thats a form of cheating and sharking too, isn't it? As for "Pool is not a physical sports, it is a gentlemans game". Countless times I'm convinced its anything but a gentlemans game. In my experience. :cool:
 

wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Snorks said:
I give up:
- Earl gets down, makes shot, commits foul
- Charlie gets up - calls foul
- Earl says its not a foul because the ref didn't see it

50% say that this behaviour is OK, 50% think that it is not OK. I know what 50% I am in.

I think Earl should of looked at Scott and said, yes I committed the foul like Charlie called me on. Then Scott could decide how to proceed. His instanteous excuse to me was a sign of a very bad sport.

Maybe someone could check with Charlie and find out what the rules were. It is quite possible that only the ref could make a call and if he didn't see it the players did not have the option of calling the foul. The way it looks with Charlie not protesting after his initial reaction and with Scott saying he didn't see it and not pursuing it at all and Earl acting suprised that Scott didn't see it, seems to indicate that only the ref could call a foul and if he didn't see it then it wasn't a foul (per the rules).

There is a lot of speculation that Earl could have called the foul on himself but it is quite possible that this was not an option.

Wayne
 

Poolislife

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
When a Ref is present he is the only one that can call a foul. Strickland calling a foul would show him up and would be frowned upon. BlackDragon is right, Charlie jumping up complaining is sharking. Hmm I'm watching the NYM/Boston game right now, wonder what would happen if Ortiz says to the ump, "excuse me that was a strike not a ball, what are you blind??? please change it, that should have been strike 3." Pretty sure the umpire would not tolerate this and probably kicks him out, not like Ortiz would do this anyway, as he is playing to win, and not to impress people with his high morals.

But whatever, not like its going to change any of your minds.
 

Barbara

Wilson deleted my avatar
Silver Member
The fact of the matter is, Earl fouled. Scott Smith was not in position to call the foul. Earl admitted he fouled only to his opponent. His opponent has no recourse. Earl has no obligation to dismiss himself from the inning.

Losers all around, in varied degrees. Scott Smith is the real culprit here.

Barbara
 

wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Barbara said:
The fact of the matter is, Earl fouled. Scott Smith was not in position to call the foul. Earl admitted he fouled only to his opponent. His opponent has no recourse. Earl has no obligation to dismiss himself from the inning.

Losers all around, in varied degrees. Scott Smith is the real culprit here.

Barbara

If Scott saw the video I am sure he would admit he was the one at fault. I had a similar thing happen in Reno with the ref watching my opponent fouled in a similar fashion, I saw it, my opponent saw it, the people in the stands saw it, the only one who didn't see it was the ref so it was no foul. In this instance the opponent could have called the foul on himself and the ref would have gone along with it or the opponent could have handed me the cueball. Earl could have done the same thing of telling the ref he fouled or handing Charlie the cueball but he is not obligated to and there may have been a rule in effect to prevent him from doing this even if he wanted to. Unless someone gets the story from Charlie, Earl, or Scott or possibly some other pro who was involved in the tournament then it is just speculation on what could or couldn't be done.

Maybe Jam could ask Keith (since I think he was in the tournament) what the rules were and what Earl's options were.

Wayne
 

skins

Likes to draw
Silver Member
the ref obviously put himself in the wrong position for the shot. at this level the ref should be able to stand anywhere to observe the shot, this means directly in the vision of the shooter, as long as, when the ball is addresed, he stands still. it was the refs fault or a flaw in the "code" set forth by the governing body who trains the refs during a match, period. just as in any other sport earl has no "duty" to anyone but himself. IMO ethics, though an admired trait, plays no role in a professional situation such as this. when big money is involved it's every man for himself. it's sad, i agree, but that's the way the world is.
 

Fleece3

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Poolislife said:
Fact #1--Earl did not Cheat, it is not his job to call fouls with a ref present.
Fact #2--Every other pro player has done a similiar thing, so don't hang Earl out to dry.
Fact #3--This thread should be called Scotts Mistake, not Earl's Foul
Fact #4--Alot of people live in a fantasy world. Sport is about winning, and Earl didn't not cheat here. I'm sure he will sleep at night as 99% of his opponents would do the same thing if in the same situation.
Fact #5--I am not an Earl fan, I used to be, but seeing him live several time, I think he is a shark, and has no respect for his opponents.

TAP TAP TAP
 

Fleece3

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
TheOne said:
I murdered some guy last week, nobody saw me so its ok, hey its not my job to admit it let the cops do that. Besides I read in the paper that some other guy murdered somebody so Im not the only one!

Geez, what a thread!

You are comparing MURDER to not calling a pool foul on yourself?

OK, can we get a LITTLE PERSPECTIVE HERE!?!?!?!
 

Leil gay

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This threads is a farce don't post it goes away,unless a idiot keeps it going, that why i have been offline the foolish posters,like the guy who wanted to know about Bad Efrem, WHAT! RIDICULOUS what next ungh.
 

gregory

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tennis, like pool, is often self-refereed, but in bigger events, there is an official umpire/ref.

Here are some examples of good sportsmanship in tennis matches, from http://www.ethics.org/resources/article_detail.cfm?ID=819 , where the players had no "duty" to do wha tthey did, but they still do because they value their integrity. The article has many examples, but I'll highlight a couple involving big names in major events.

... he cites a match he watched at the French Open a few years ago, when two Spaniards who were also friends faced each other in the finals. Neither had ever won a Grand Slam tournament. Carlos Moya won the first set and had broken Alex Corretja's serve once in the second. He was serving, however, and was behind in that game. Moya hit a powerful serve that was called out. If the call stood, it would have given Corretja the game and evened up the score. But Corretja overruled the linesman, giving the crucial point to Moya. The game went back to deuce and Moya eventually won.

In another case, Andre Agassi was playing in a major tournament and was scheduled to meet Pete Sampras in the final. Sampras, however, came down with food poisoning and could not get himself together before the time of the match. Agassi was told he had won by default. Instead, he suggested waiting to see if Sampras would feel good enough to play a little later. He did, they played the match, and Sampras won. This experience confirmed Steve's belief that both are great sportsmen and exemplary champions.


In each case the player makes a decision that is against the official ruling and that goes against their own self interest. Lots of people in pool would act the same way. Lots of people in tennis wouldn't.

Many posts in this thread point out that it is not the players' responsibility to make calls against themselves, and that it is not cheating not to make a call against yourself that overrules an official's call (or lack of call). Be that as it may, people still do it all the time, not because they are obliged to, but because fairplay and sportsmanship means more to them than winning at all cost. Some people seem to think that's stupid.
 

TheOne

www.MetroPool.club
Silver Member
Fleece3 said:
You are comparing MURDER to not calling a pool foul on yourself?

OK, can we get a LITTLE PERSPECTIVE HERE!?!?!?!

Obviously it was tongue in cheek, of course they not the same gravity I was just making a point. The point being the people keep defending what happened with:

a) The refereee didn't see it so its not Earls fault!
b) Other people have done the same so its ok!

Both IMO are extreemly poor defenses, this thread has proved that there are two camps of opinion on this topic. You either beleive that if you do something wrong you own up to it, or you wait to be caught.

I doubt either camp is going to change its mind
 

Leil gay

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
2 more posts reminds me of mymy unfavorite"i would like to throw up in my mouth" good work the one pathetic. goodbye by to all you good people at AZ.
 

Snorks

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
wayne said:
If Scott saw the video I am sure he would admit he was the one at fault. I had a similar thing happen in Reno with the ref watching my opponent fouled in a similar fashion, I saw it, my opponent saw it, the people in the stands saw it, the only one who didn't see it was the ref so it was no foul. In this instance the opponent could have called the foul on himself and the ref would have gone along with it or the opponent could have handed me the cueball. Earl could have done the same thing of telling the ref he fouled or handing Charlie the cueball but he is not obligated to and there may have been a rule in effect to prevent him from doing this even if he wanted to. Unless someone gets the story from Charlie, Earl, or Scott or possibly some other pro who was involved in the tournament then it is just speculation on what could or couldn't be done.

For the record, I agree it was Scott's "fault".

Now, I wonder if Earl had grabbed the cueball and handed it to Charlie if this thread would of been "What a great Ambassador", or "Earl proves he wants to preserve the integrity of the game" instead of the controversy and tarnished reputation this incident cost him (even if it is only from a minimal number of people on this thread)?
 

pharaoh68

Banned
BlackDragon said:
Charlie has no right to call a foul in my opinion. Thats bad sportsmanship. Its an interesting EarlHunt going on here. By the good doers who can't do what Earl has done. How would you feel if you were him and had to read this drivel.

Are you serious? Charlie has no right to call a foul??? You must be one hell of a gambler! We should play sometime.

In short, what your saying is that someone can cheat you, he can admit to cheating you, he can look at the authorities and say "I'm cheating him!" and you'll sit there, spineless and just accept the fact that you are getting hosed?
 
Top