How would you rule in this situation?

[BRKNRUN]

He can speak for himself but I think that is an utterly unfair position.

You said it yourself. Golf is golf and pool is pool. In golf, it is often impossible to perform the DUTY imposed upon pool players to monitor the opponent's play in the absence of a ref.

You have NO IDEA whether he would call fouls on himself in GOLF. Why don't you ask him if he would or wouldn't before you LEAP to judgment?

Jim

When lawers parade witnesses to the stand to speak about a defendant, they are creating a thing called credability.....The origonal poster has made enough posts (and statements) in this thread for me to establish his "credability". My determination (from his posts is that if he could get away with it...he would)

He could very well come on here and say that he would...I would have to take his word on that...but his credability points in a different direction....I don't think there is any leap...I think I have been "pushed" by his posts to that judgment.

The reason I brought up Golf is because somewhere in this thread someone was asking about what other sports have self imposed rules.

The fact of the matter is that some sports have officials that are watching for infractions during each play of the game. The eithics of sports is to follow the ruling of officials.

Some sports like Golf and Pool do not have full time officials that are able to watch every swing or stroke. They do have marshalls and spotters, that can be asked for rulings, but the majority of play is self imposed rulings.

If an official is called to make a ruling the players are bound to follow that ruling (which the player did and even declined the re-play later) That was following the proper eithics of the sport.

In this particular case the official made an incorrect ruling. They should have awarded the game to the other person.

You speak of DUTY...I think the more important question is....Why is it not the DUTY of the player to play within the proper ethics of the game.

Do you dispute that the game was over under the rules when the opponent scratched? If so then the player that scratched has the DUTY to follow that rule and declare the game is over.

You can call them guidelines you can call them rules...I call it common sense.

If you want to claim DUTY of players...make sure you claim it for both sides.

 

[kobyp]

When lawers parade witnesses to the stand to speak about a defendant, they are creating a thing called credability.....The origonal poster has made enough posts (and statements) in this thread for me to establish his "credability". My determination (from his posts is that if he could get away with it...he would)

He could very well come on here and say that he would...I would have to take his word on that...but his credability points in a different direction....I don't think there is any leap...I think I have been "pushed" by his posts to that judgment.

The reason I brought up Golf is because somewhere in this thread someone was asking about what other sports have self imposed rules.

The fact of the matter is that some sports have officials that are watching for infractions during each play of the game. The eithics of sports is to follow the ruling of officials.

Some sports like Golf and Pool do not have full time officials that are able to watch every swing or stroke. They do have marshalls and spotters, that can be asked for rulings, but the majority of play is self imposed rulings.

If an official is called to make a ruling the players are bound to follow that ruling (which the player did and even declined the re-play later) That was following the proper eithics of the sport.

In this particular case the official made an incorrect ruling. They should have awarded the game to the other person.

You speak of DUTY...I think the more important question is....Why is it not the DUTY of the player to play within the proper ethics of the game.

Do you dispute that the game was over under the rules when the opponent scratched? If so then the player that scratched has the DUTY to follow that rule and declare the game is over.

You can call them guidelines you can call them rules...I call it common sense.

If you want to claim DUTY of players...make sure you claim it for both sides.

Hey man, we all have our own opinions. I posted this up to see everyone else's views. That's all.

I understand what you are trying to say, and after all this bashing I think that maybe I should start changing my ways....but it's not going to happen over night.

 

[RunoutalloverU]

When lawers parade witnesses to the stand to speak about a defendant, they are creating a thing called credability.....The origonal poster has made enough posts (and statements) in this thread for me to establish his "credability". My determination (from his posts is that if he could get away with it...he would)

He could very well come on here and say that he would...I would have to take his word on that...but his credability points in a different direction....I don't think there is any leap...I think I have been "pushed" by his posts to that judgment.

The reason I brought up Golf is because somewhere in this thread someone was asking about what other sports have self imposed rules.

The fact of the matter is that some sports have officials that are watching for infractions during each play of the game. The eithics of sports is to follow the ruling of officials.

Some sports like Golf and Pool do not have full time officials that are able to watch every swing or stroke. They do have marshalls and spotters, that can be asked for rulings, but the majority of play is self imposed rulings.

If an official is called to make a ruling the players are bound to follow that ruling (which the player did and even declined the re-play later) That was following the proper eithics of the sport.

In this particular case the official made an incorrect ruling. They should have awarded the game to the other person.

You speak of DUTY...I think the more important question is....Why is it not the DUTY of the player to play within the proper ethics of the game.

Do you dispute that the game was over under the rules when the opponent scratched? If so then the player that scratched has the DUTY to follow that rule and declare the game is over.

You can call them guidelines you can call them rules...I call it common sense.

If you want to claim DUTY of players...make sure you claim it for both sides.

Its not his duty because it isnt in the rules for it to be his duty.

 

[BRKNRUN]

Its not his duty because it isnt in the rules for it to be his duty.

So your telling me you have never herd of the term unwritten duty?

 

[av84fun]

I think you are finally beginning to see the light. Your opponent did not do anything that was against the rules, but he was a "total jerk". Think about that and you will begin to understand where sportsmanship comes in. Calling fouls on yourself is one of the things you could do to avoid being a total jerk.

Mark

Mark, in fact, I saw the light long ago. It was red...at 4:00am at a country intersection that shouldn't have had a light in the daytime.

I was sober...looked CAREFULLY both ways and then proceeded through the red light without a whit of remorse over the "bad sportsmanship" associated with an intentional violation of the traffic law!

The problem with your apparant position is that you have elected to require a vastly more sanctimonious definition of sportsmanship to be attached to pool than nearly every other sport on the planet.

What is your LOGIC in support of doing so? I know that pool is not football...let's get real here. They are BOTH SPORTS...they both have Halls of Fame. They both have popular heroes who children and adults alike are supposed to look up to.

No one but a perfect FOOL would advocate the self-calling of fouls in football. So...bring it...what is the LOGICAL underpinning of your notion that there is any greater reason for calling self-fouls in pool vs. football.

And make no mention of referees being required in all but sand lot football. The best referees on earth miss a LOT of fouls in football. Many think there is an ACTUAL foul on every 3rd or 4th play.

There are 7 on-field officials in NFL games...each having one pair of eyes that can focus on only one thing at a time. But there are TWENTY TWO players on the filed so there are more than THREE TIMES the number of players vs. sets of referee eyes. Even given that most, but not all fouls involve two players, there is STILL 57% more player pairs than pairs of eyes.

SO...why don't you be fair, reasonable and balanced and offer the opinion here that football players who are not caught in the commission of a foul should self-call the fouls on themselves?

You really should do that because this thread NEEDS a BIG LAUGH!

Or, you could just say to hell with logic and hold to the opinion that everyone who does not adopt YOUR defintion of sportsmanship is a jerk.

Fine...whatever. But the TRUTH is that if such sanctity is supposed to attach to the sport of pool...which is a rather silly notion given the relatively seedly reputation this sport has...the rules are flawed by not SIMPLY STATING that players are required to call fouls on themselves.

If that ONE SENTENCE appeared in the rules...this thread wouldn't exist. And the difficulty in enforcing the rule is IRRELEVANT! The ISSUE is whether a given conduct is or is not against the rules! If conduct is against the rules and players violate them, then we all could rise up in righteous indignation and damn the pertetrators as cowardly cheats but you CANNOT DO THAT if a given behavior does not violate any RULE.

Well, someone COULD but they would be illogical and hypocritical if you did.
The ONLY justification for self-calling of fouls...given the rules...is MINE, which is I am personally ego-involved in winning based SOLELY on superior SKILL in a given match.

It is my SKILL that I want to put to the test...not some grammar school blather about nobility, truth, justice and the American way.

That is my PERSONAL CHOICE and I am not so PRESUMPTUOUS as to impose MY PERSONAL SENSIBILITES on others...and CERTAINLY not with respect to the game of pool which...let's face facts... on the amateur level is significantly used as an excuse to drink beer and on the professional level is primarily a gambling event

(-:

 

[av84fun]

When lawers parade witnesses to the stand to speak about a defendant, they are creating a thing called credability.....The origonal poster has made enough posts (and statements) in this thread for me to establish his "credability". My determination (from his posts is that if he could get away with it...he would)

He could very well come on here and say that he would...I would have to take his word on that...but his credability points in a different direction....I don't think there is any leap...I think I have been "pushed" by his posts to that judgment.

The reason I brought up Golf is because somewhere in this thread someone was asking about what other sports have self imposed rules.

The fact of the matter is that some sports have officials that are watching for infractions during each play of the game. The eithics of sports is to follow the ruling of officials.

Some sports like Golf and Pool do not have full time officials that are able to watch every swing or stroke. They do have marshalls and spotters, that can be asked for rulings, but the majority of play is self imposed rulings.

If an official is called to make a ruling the players are bound to follow that ruling (which the player did and even declined the re-play later) That was following the proper eithics of the sport.

In this particular case the official made an incorrect ruling. They should have awarded the game to the other person.

You speak of DUTY...I think the more important question is....Why is it not the DUTY of the player to play within the proper ethics of the game.

Do you dispute that the game was over under the rules when the opponent scratched? If so then the player that scratched has the DUTY to follow that rule and declare the game is over.

You can call them guidelines you can call them rules...I call it common sense.

If you want to claim DUTY of players...make sure you claim it for both sides.

No, Ken. You rushed to judgment of the poster who said he does not call fouls on himself IN POOL MATCHES because it is not required under the rules. In no court in America would a jury be correct in concluding that a person who has violated no rule is nevertheless not a credible or trustworthy person.


And you should have read this thread more carefully. On further reflection, I AGREED that the game was over when the scratch on the 8 ball took place.

I realize that you are adamant about your PERSONAL definition of what sportsmanship is.

And true integrity has no price. In that context, let me give you this scenario.

Mr. A is not wealthy. But he elected to play a round of golf for $100,000.00. He has a 1 shot lead going into the 18th hole but jerks his approach shot into the trees. His opponent finishes the hole while he is looking for his ball and makes par.

Mr. A...takes a step a foot away from his ball and the ball MOVES 1/4 inche due to the compression of the leaves. He has no better or worse lie and has a cleary shot to the green.

If the calls the foul on himself, he is almost certain to lose $100k.

Given the above, if Mr. A told me he WOULD call the foul, I would cuss him for a fool or a liar TO HIS FACE! Given the above scenario, there are not 2 people in 100,000 that would call the foul....probably not 2 in a million!

So let's get off the santimonious soap box and live in the real world...and let's not condemn people we don't even know for being incredible cheaters when they have not broken a single rule so far as we know.


The notion that pool is some sport where personal integrity is at such an elevated level that conduct identical to that which is normal in almost all other sports is unsportsmanlike is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!

"This is Ames mister"...and POOL is played here by people who would be HAPPY to give you the 8 ball for $100 a rack when they know for a fact that they are TWICE your speed.

Name me the pro who would turn that deal down from a known APA 6! The only two I can think of would be Toney Robles and Thorsten. The rest would take every last DIME they could get their hands on.

LOL

 

[jbullerjr]

...and CERTAINLY not with respect to the game of pool which...let's face facts... on the amateur level is significantly used as an excuse to drink beer and on the professional level is primarily a gambling event

(-:

Jim,

It saddens me that you feel this way about pool.

Although your views are shared by many, I wish that we (who truly love the game) would do anything we can to help pools image. Supporting those who bend the rules or find any and all loopholes in the rule book is not the best way to change our image.

I have stated earlier why I think we should consider holding ourselves to a higher standard. I have asked you opinion on what I stated and still await your response.

You come off as a learned and well spoken individual, I am sure that you would be a great asset if you chose to help change pools image.

Jimbo

 

[mbvl]

What is your LOGIC in support of doing so? I know that pool is not football...let's get real here. They are BOTH SPORTS...they both have Halls of Fame. They both have popular heroes who children and adults alike are supposed to look up to.

<snip>

(-:

Professional football is not a sport. It is a multi-million dollar business, and that has ruined virtually every professional "sport". Greed has replaced "sport". I do not look up to people just because they earn millions of dollars. I look up to people who have the moral character to act in a sportsmanlike manner. I think there may be some professional athletes who still show some moral character, but not many. From elementary school onward they have coaches who tell them things like: "If you aren't cheating, you're not trying hard enough." The unwritten rules of moral conduct have gone by the board.

Have a good laugh,

Mark

 

[BRKNRUN]

Mark, in fact, I saw the light long ago. It was red...at 4:00am at a country intersection that shouldn't have had a light in the daytime.

I was sober...looked CAREFULLY both ways and then proceeded through the red light without a whit of remorse over the "bad sportsmanship" associated with an intentional violation of the traffic law!

The problem with your apparant position is that you have elected to require a vastly more sanctimonious definition of sportsmanship to be attached to pool than nearly every other sport on the planet.

What is your LOGIC in support of doing so? I know that pool is not football...let's get real here. They are BOTH SPORTS...they both have Halls of Fame. They both have popular heroes who children and adults alike are supposed to look up to.

No one but a perfect FOOL would advocate the self-calling of fouls in football. So...bring it...what is the LOGICAL underpinning of your notion that there is any greater reason for calling self-fouls in pool vs. football.

And make no mention of referees being required in all but sand lot football. The best referees on earth miss a LOT of fouls in football. Many think there is an ACTUAL foul on every 3rd or 4th play.

There are 7 on-field officials in NFL games...each having one pair of eyes that can focus on only one thing at a time. But there are TWENTY TWO players on the filed so there are more than THREE TIMES the number of players vs. sets of referee eyes. Even given that most, but not all fouls involve two players, there is STILL 57% more player pairs than pairs of eyes.

SO...why don't you be fair, reasonable and balanced and offer the opinion here that football players who are not caught in the commission of a foul should self-call the fouls on themselves?

You really should do that because this thread NEEDS a BIG LAUGH!

Or, you could just say to hell with logic and hold to the opinion that everyone who does not adopt YOUR defintion of sportsmanship is a jerk.

Fine...whatever. But the TRUTH is that if such sanctity is supposed to attach to the sport of pool...which is a rather silly notion given the relatively seedly reputation this sport has...the rules are flawed by not SIMPLY STATING that players are required to call fouls on themselves.

If that ONE SENTENCE appeared in the rules...this thread wouldn't exist. And the difficulty in enforcing the rule is IRRELEVANT! The ISSUE is whether a given conduct is or is not against the rules! If conduct is against the rules and players violate them, then we all could rise up in righteous indignation and damn the pertetrators as cowardly cheats but you CANNOT DO THAT if a given behavior does not violate any RULE.

Well, someone COULD but they would be illogical and hypocritical if you did.
The ONLY justification for self-calling of fouls...given the rules...is MINE, which is I am personally ego-involved in winning based SOLELY on superior SKILL in a given match.

It is my SKILL that I want to put to the test...not some grammar school blather about nobility, truth, justice and the American way.

That is my PERSONAL CHOICE and I am not so PRESUMPTUOUS as to impose MY PERSONAL SENSIBILITES on others...and CERTAINLY not with respect to the game of pool which...let's face facts... on the amateur level is significantly used as an excuse to drink beer and on the professional level is primarily a gambling event

(-:

I must say your writing and presentation skills are superior, however your overall veiw is flawed.

Notice how you carefully word in Sober, CAREFULLY looked both ways and then proceeded through a red light?

Even though it technically was breaking the law, you were using moral judgement to make sure that no one else was affected by your actions.

The case of the player not taking a loss DID have an affect on another party and was more akin to having three drinks and then running a red light without stopping or any regard for other people on the road.

Regarding the Football...Of course there is no way on earth that the officials can catch all of the fouls...(this instant replay)......In the case of the pool match had instant reply been available as in football, the ref would have most likely ruled the other way.

Also...the unwritten ethics of most team sports, and sports that are using a "full time" watch every shot event are instructed to go by the officials judgement (right or wrong)

Sporting events that use "part time" officals are self governed events and must rely on the integrity of the players to make the correct calls.......Even if there was no one at the instersection watching them run the red light...

 

[BRKNRUN]

No, Ken. You rushed to judgment of the poster who said he does not call fouls on himself IN POOL MATCHES because it is not required under the rules. In no court in America would a jury be correct in concluding that a person who has violated no rule is nevertheless not a credible or trustworthy person.


And you should have read this thread more carefully. On further reflection, I AGREED that the game was over when the scratch on the 8 ball took place.

I realize that you are adamant about your PERSONAL definition of what sportsmanship is.

And true integrity has no price. In that context, let me give you this scenario.

Mr. A is not wealthy. But he elected to play a round of golf for $100,000.00. He has a 1 shot lead going into the 18th hole but jerks his approach shot into the trees. His opponent finishes the hole while he is looking for his ball and makes par.

Mr. A...takes a step a foot away from his ball and the ball MOVES 1/4 inche due to the compression of the leaves. He has no better or worse lie and has a cleary shot to the green.

If the calls the foul on himself, he is almost certain to lose $100k.

Given the above, if Mr. A told me he WOULD call the foul, I would cuss him for a fool or a liar TO HIS FACE! Given the above scenario, there are not 2 people in 100,000 that would call the foul....probably not 2 in a million!

So let's get off the santimonious soap box and live in the real world...and let's not condemn people we don't even know for being incredible cheaters when they have not broken a single rule so far as we know.


The notion that pool is some sport where personal integrity is at such an elevated level that conduct identical to that which is normal in almost all other sports is unsportsmanlike is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!

"This is Ames mister"...and POOL is played here by people who would be HAPPY to give you the 8 ball for $100 a rack when they know for a fact that they are TWICE your speed.

Name me the pro who would turn that deal down from a known APA 6! The only two I can think of would be Toney Robles and Thorsten. The rest would take every last DIME they could get their hands on.

LOL

Well that would be up to a jury of peers to decide...Not you....and I did mention that he might come on the forum and say he would have called an infraction on himself in GOLF...so in essance I did not commit him to any actions.....I really do like the way you flower up the verbiage to try and make it look like I am calling him an incredible cheater though....

You need to watch or re-watch the movied Bagger Vance. It pretty much has the exact scenario you are describing....apparantly there were people that have called fouls on themselves....sure it was a hollywood dramitazation....but its based on some truth about golf and how infractions are governed.

I've done it to myself...I have committed fouls that I am SURE no one saw and I picked up the CB and handed it to my opponent... in key match situations.....I am not trying to preach my personal greatness or anything like that...but I have done it....

I am also not saying that there are not people out there that would not call infractions on themselves in that situation...Unfortunatly it is the society we live in.....

The whole jist of the thread turned into between whats right and wrong.....not what the rules say...

I think you know what was right and what was wrong...In the end that is all that really matters......

I REALLY do like your writing skills though...You can "spin it" with the best of them...

Peace out

 

[av84fun]

Jim,

It saddens me that you feel this way about pool.

Although your views are shared by many, I wish that we (who truly love the game) would do anything we can to help pools image. Supporting those who bend the rules or find any and all loopholes in the rule book is not the best way to change our image.

I have stated earlier why I think we should consider holding ourselves to a higher standard. I have asked you opinion on what I stated and still await your response.

You come off as a learned and well spoken individual, I am sure that you would be a great asset if you chose to help change pools image.

Jimbo

Genuinely...thanks for the compliment. But I do not support people who "bend rules." And besides, in sports, you cannot "bend" a rule. You can only abide by it or BREAK it. There are no "7.5 yard penalties" in football because a rule was only bent but not broken.

As for pool's image, I am not responsible for creating it nor is there anything I can do to change it.

But I will tell you what I would VOTE for. Rules that are clear enough that 150 post threads would not take place.

And with all genuine respect, I would vote for people not imposing their own personal sensibilities and sitting in judgment of others for being less than noble...or outright cheaters, when no rules has been violated.

Have your own tournaments and make your own rules. Totally COOL. But don't unilaterally write rules or accuse people of bending or "loopholing" when there is no FOUNDATION in the ACTUAL RULES. Don;t impose your own wish for what the rules SHOULD BE...especially when I have stated ad nauseum, the overwhelming precedent in the sporting world DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR WISHES!

For some reason you suggest that I have not responded to your question about why I think pool should not be held to a higher standard but I have at least 10 posts that provide that answer quite thorougly.

But let me make that point in reverse for sake of clarity. If nearly all other sports imposed the standard rule requiring the self-calling of fouls and POOL resisted such a rule for itself...THEN you would have a totally solid foundation for complaining about that....and you WOULD complain about it...and you WOULD cite other sports in justification of your position.

So now, if you will merely turn that coin over, you will see how little merit there is in your position...except your own idyllic and nearly unprecedented personal sensibilities on that matter.

Make no mistake. I FULLY support your right to your opinion. More importantly, I would behave EXACTLY as you would with respect to the self-calling of fouls.

BUT...I WRITE IN CAPITALS TO BE SURE YOU DON'TMISS MY POINT WHICH IS THAT I WOULD CALL A FOUL ON MYSELF FOR A REASON HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY OR SPORTSMANSHIP BECAUSE THOSE CONCEPTS ARE VARIABLE ACROSS AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DECIDE WHAT THEIR DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE.

RATHER, I WOULD CALL A FOUL BECAUSE I COMPETE TO TEST MY SKILLS......NOT MY NOBILITY...AND I WANT SKILL TO BE THE ONLY CRITERION UPON WHICH I JUDGE MY OWN PERFORMANCE!

To the contrary, basing complaints on issues of bending rules or loopholes or nobility or sportsmanship (with few actual PRECEDENTS to support my version of that word) is illogical, nearly unprecedented and demonstrably judgmental.

Please trust me. I don't mean to be harsh with you personally. This is a debate on an important issue and I am merely making my case as best I can.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

BRKNRUN..."I REALLY do like your writing skills though...You can "spin it" with the best of them...

Peace out"

THANKS!!! I genuinely appreciate that comment. And peace to you as well.

I think those expressions are an excellent way to conclude my contributions to this thread.

I'll only chime in again if there is any new territory to cover...which I can't imagine there will be!

My BEST to you.

Jim

 

[jbullerjr]

Genuinely...thanks for the compliment. But I do not support people who "bend rules." And besides, in sports, you cannot "bend" a rule. You can only abide by it or BREAK it. There are no "7.5 yard penalties" in football because a rule was only bent but not broken.Thats a fair statement, I should not have said rule bending.

As for pool's image, I am not responsible for creating it nor is there anything I can do to change it.If not you or I, then who? Someone has to speak up, take action and implement changes or nothing will ever change.

But I will tell you what I would VOTE for. Rules that are clear enough that 150 post threads would not take place.As will I.

And with all genuine respect, I would vote for people not imposing their own personal sensibilities and sitting in judgment of others for being less than noble...or outright cheaters, when no rules has been violated.So, if I find a way to beat you using something other than superior skill, but don't break any written rule, thats ok with you?

Have your own tournaments and make your own rules. Totally COOL. But don't unilaterally write rules or accuse people of bending or "loopholing" when there is no FOUNDATION in the ACTUAL RULES. Don;t impose your own wish for what the rules SHOULD BE...especially when I have stated ad nauseum, the overwhelming precedent in the sporting world DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR WISHES!I have never stated that the rules have to change to meet my wishes, I just have my opinion of the way that certain people conduct themselves when playing this game. I don't play football, basketball or any other sport at a highly competitive level. As I stated before if I told someone that I play semi-pro baseball, I doubt that their first statement wouldn't be to label me with a derogative title (ie...Pool Hustler).

For some reason you suggest that I have not responded to your question about why I think pool should not be held to a higher standard but I have at least 10 posts that provide that answer quite thorougly. I guess I missed it, I will reread all your posts, since I asked the question.

But let me make that point in reverse for sake of clarity. If nearly all other sports imposed the standard rule requiring the self-calling of fouls and POOL resisted such a rule for itself...THEN you would have a totally solid foundation for complaining about that....and you WOULD complain about it...and you WOULD cite other sports in justification of your position.If all other sports were viewed as a bunch of liars and thieves (as pool is now generally thought of), I can assure you that I would not use them as an example.

So now, if you will merely turn that coin over, you will see how little merit there is in your position...except your own idyllic and nearly unprecedented personal sensibilities on that matter.

Make no mistake. I FULLY support your right to your opinion. More importantly, I would behave EXACTLY as you would with respect to the self-calling of fouls.Agreed.

BUT...I WRITE IN CAPITALS TO BE SURE YOU DON'TMISS MY POINT WHICH IS THAT I WOULD CALL A FOUL ON MYSELF FOR A REASON HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY OR SPORTSMANSHIP BECAUSE THOSE CONCEPTS ARE VARIABLE ACROSS AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DECIDE WHAT THEIR DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE.

RATHER, I WOULD CALL A FOUL BECAUSE I COMPETE TO TEST MY SKILLS......NOT MY NOBILITY...AND I WANT SKILL TO BE THE ONLY CRITERION UPON WHICH I JUDGE MY OWN PERFORMANCE!I agree that we disagree here, I will judge myself on my performance as a player AND my performance as a person.

To the contrary, basing complaints on issues of bending rules or loopholes or nobility or sportsmanship (with few actual PRECEDENTS to support my version of that word) is illogical, nearly unprecedented and demonstrably judgmental.If that is the way you still feel about my opinion then either I am inept or you are too closed-minded to even try to see my point.

Please trust me. I don't mean to be harsh with you personally. This is a debate on an important issue and I am merely making my case as best I can.I assure you, I take no offense. I am merely trying to make my case as well.

Regards,
Jim

Jimbo

 

[memikey]

I was playing league last night (unsanctioned VNEA) and a guy on our team scratched on the 8 (rules say it's a loss). His opponent walked up, took BIH and missed leaving my teammate a short, straight shot on the 8 which he made.

Then the opponent realized what had happened, and tried to say that he won..blah blah blah. But my teammate argued that since he kept shooting, it wasn't a loss.

We called the league director, he decided in our favor which kinda suprised me. The opponent was furious, but he and I have history so I thought it was quite entertaining.

All Biased opinions of the players aside, I'm not sure how I would rule this. My thoughts are that the opponent should know the rules and it's his loss if he doesn't.


What do you guys think?

First of all this post in answer is predicated on the assumption that the situation you desribed is the shooter having played the 8 without potting it but in the course of the same shot having scratched the white.

In WPA rules scratching the white in a shot when the 8 does not drop is of course not loss of frame to the shooter, it is simply penalised by ball in hand, so this entire scenario would not have arisen in the first place had you been playing WPA World Standardized Rules.

A further assumption is therefore that VNEA have their own specific different rule making any scratch of the white a loss of frame foul if you are shooting at the 8 at the time, irrespective of whether the 8 drops or not. I think thats a plain bad rule but that's a different subject lol.

Several people have drawn various parallels to golf in relation to the 'morals'. Ill submit one golf example which is more in relation to the "rules" as opposed to the morals......in a stroke play event a player plays his second shot at a par four hole over a hill towards a hidden green that is invisible to both him and his playing partner and neither he nor his playing partner can then find the ball within the allocated maximum of 5 minutes. The player declares the ball lost and goes back and plays another ball from the same place as the original shot under an additional penalty of one shot and hits the green with that shot (his fourth). On reaching the green he holes out in two putts at which time to his surprise he then finds the original ball resting in the bottom of the hole. What is his score at that hole? Many would say 6, but they'd be wrong.

The answer is that the player has scored a 2 at that hole. The ruling is that a player is deemed to have holed out and finished the hole as soon as the ball he is playing has came to rest in the hole. Everything he did after that point, including declaring his ball lost and playing a second ball is irrelevant.

I can see that there may be reasons why it was or is appropriate to have a rule covering some situations in some forms of pool stating that all the consequences of "non loss of frame fouls" can be automatically cancelled if an opponent does not claim the foul before playing a subsequent shot.....but to have such a rule in the case of "loss of frame fouls" seems to have little possible justification.

The frame was over as soon as the white scratched in the same way that the golf hole was over as soon as the first ball landed in the hole. There is no obvious logic or useful purpose in any rule then being able to transform the dead frame into 'not being over' simply as a result of the opponent fetching the white out of the pocket and playing it.

 

[BRKNRUN]

First of all this post in answer is predicated on the assumption that the situation you desribed is the shooter having played the 8 without potting it but in the course of the same shot having scratched the white.

In WPA rules scratching the white in a shot when the 8 does not drop is of course not loss of frame to the shooter, it is simply penalised by ball in hand, so this entire scenario would not have arisen in the first place had you been playing WPA World Standardized Rules.

A further assumption is therefore that VNEA have their own specific different rule making any scratch of the white a loss of frame foul if you are shooting at the 8 at the time, irrespective of whether the 8 drops or not. I think thats a plain bad rule but that's a different subject lol.

Several people have drawn various parallels to golf in relation to the 'morals'. Ill submit one golf example which is more in relation to the "rules" as opposed to the morals......in a stroke play event a player plays his second shot at a par four hole over a hill towards a hidden green that is invisible to both him and his playing partner and neither he nor his playing partner can then find the ball within the allocated maximum of 5 minutes. The player declares the ball lost and goes back and plays another ball from the same place as the original shot under an additional penalty of one shot and hits the green with that shot (his fourth). On reaching the green he holes out in two putts at which time to his surprise he then finds the original ball resting in the bottom of the hole. What is his score at that hole? Many would say 6, but they'd be wrong.

The answer is that the player has scored a 2 at that hole. The ruling is that a player is deemed to have holed out and finished the hole as soon as the ball he is playing has came to rest in the hole. Everything he did after that point, including declaring his ball lost and playing a second ball is irrelevant.

I can see that there may be reasons why it was or is appropriate to have a rule covering some situations in some forms of pool stating that all the consequences of "non loss of frame fouls" can be automatically cancelled if an opponent does not claim the foul before playing a subsequent shot.....but to have such a rule in the case of "loss of frame fouls" seems to have little possible justification.

The frame was over as soon as the white scratched in the same way that the golf hole was over as soon as the first ball landed in the hole. There is no obvious logic or useful purpose in any rule then being able to transform the dead frame into 'not being over' simply as a result of the opponent fetching the white out of the pocket and playing it.

First off let me say I agree with you 100%

However....I already see the typing from someone with much better english vocabulary than I could imagine putting together a reply to this...It will have somthing similar to what follows...but worded much better

The difference is that (in Golf) this situation is written in the rule book...(as is many other situations where a "provisional" ball is to be played)

There unfortunatley (as far as I know) is no written rule about the end of a pool game or the specific situation that occured.

The foundation of the argument against this be morally wrong is that since it is not written in a rule book it can NOT be considered cheating or just plain wrong.

Personal decisions on what is right and what is wrong is not being allowed... (aka: unwritten ethics) is not being allowed as a viable defense...

Other than that...I totally agree with you 100%...the game should have been over.........