If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?

rrick33 said:
Let's try a little logic using what seems to be the gneral concensus of those who think failure to self call a foul is cheating.

Assumption 1.

A foul is against the rules.
Failure to call a rule violation is cheating,
Therefore, according to the transitive theory of equality,
failure to call a foul is cheating.


Let's assume this is true for the time being.

Ask yourself, how many times have you bent the rules in the "best interest" of pool? or essentially cheated.

Every time you allow a skill level 2 to drive through a shot where the balls are very close and then don't call the foul, you are cheating.

Every time your opponent does something that fits the guidelines of "unsportsmanlike" conduct and you don't call a foul on him...it's cheating.
Forget the fact that it may be more trouble than it's worth and you may not win the debate. The truth is, he broke a rule and you can cite language that fits the bill.

Could it be now that honor takes a back seat to convenience.

If you don't pursue it, you are technically cheating by not calling the foul based on the logic above.

There are perhaps a half dozen other situation that may apply.

While many seem to be basing their logic on the proposition above, they readily find reasons to break that logic when it's convenient for them to do so.
Click to expand...

Your post illustrates how the ideas of "honor" and "integrity" are not black-and-white and that "rules" are not sacrosanct. Would you not be dishonorable for calling fouls on the SL 2 if you were much more skilled? Would you not be dishonorable for calling "unsportsmanlike conduct" if you knew (for instance) that your opponent is going through a messy divorce? But wouldn't you also be dishonorable for committing a foul and not giving your opponent his proper due?

Aren't the ideas of honor and integrity (and therefore our behavior towards those around us) more important than the artificial rules of games?

Logic is cold and hard and dictates that dresses make women look fat and that you should say so when asked. What kind of cad would insult a lady thusly!?
 
Last edited:
Your'e on the right track...we all define situations differnely. For those who boldy state that failure to self call a foul is cheating do so because it serves some self imposed value system that they now wish to impose upon their opponent.

Why are so many close-minded to the fact that we do not all share the same value systems.

It would be reasonable to say that you find the behavior contrary to your own and even say that it is not playing fair in your opinion but to blatantly accuse someone of cheating carries a much deeper stigma.

Cheating is defined by intent and intent is defined by the value system.

If you know a persons value system and recognize they are cheating... call it like it is but when you group the entire world into one bucket and label all people who do not self call a foul as cheaters, then you show how narrow your perspective really is.
 
Last edited:
Creedo...

Quote: EagleMan
Finally...for all who read this...ALL I care about is playing GAMES according to the RULES and NOT by the standards of "ethics and morality" of the contestants because doing that would be both foolish and chaotic.

Quote Creedo
"Reads like you think ethics and morality have no place once you're on the pool table. Thanks for the warning, I know not to gamble with you now."

That's both mistaken and unfair. I have stated REPEATEDLY that I would call fouls on myself unless there has HUGE money at stake. (And just for the record, if you say that you would call a foul against yourself REGARDLESS of how much money is at stake...I respectly choose not to believe you.)

No living person (or dead ones either) has EVER had to worry about my ethics on ANY matter at ANY time.

And you are mistaken, because it is SELF-EVIDENT that if no RULE is broken in a GAME then BY DEFINITION....there CANNOT POSSIBLY be "cheating" or "unethical conduct"....PERIOD.

Anyone who doesn't get at least THAT has what my old man called "A thinking problem."

(-:

The only matter reasonably discussed here is what the RULES state regarding self-called fouls and IMHO the matter is CLOUDY AT BEST.

Now for the UMPTEENTH TIME....I WOULD CALL A FOUL AGAINST MYSELF in any reasonable scenario. I don't KNOW what'd I'd do with mega-bucks on the line...and tell ya what pardner...YOU DON'T EITHER...and neither does anyone else WHO HAS NOT BEEN FACED WITH THAT DECISION....PERIOD!

Talk is cheap boys and girls. And where I used to be from (Chicago) "Money talks and Bull$it walks."

(-:

EagleMan
 
krupa said:
Your post illustrates how the ideas of "honor" and "integrity" are not black-and-white and that "rules" are not sacrosanct. Would you not be dishonorable for calling fouls on the SL 2 if you were much more skilled? Would you not be dishonorable for calling "unsportsmanlike conduct" if you knew (for instance) that your opponent is going through a messy divorce? But wouldn't you also be dishonorable for committing a foul and not giving your opponent his proper due?

Aren't the ideas of honor and integrity (and therefore our behavior towards those around us) more important than the artificial rules of games?

Logic is cold and hard and dictates that dresses make women look fat and that you should say so when asked. What kind of cad would insult a lady thusly!?
Click to expand...

With GENUINE RESPECT...your views above...at least your questions...are OFF THE CHARTS in terms of their place in the game of pool. Someone opponent's personal state of mind has NOTHING to do with how the opponent should behave...ZERO....ZIP...NADA.

This is a game of POOL folks...not a Boy Scout outing. It is a GAME that can ONLY be played within the RULES. Anything else is just pure personal preference that everyone has a RIGHT to have...so long as their non-rule based preferences don't impact negatively on the opponent.

If someone wants to WAVE a foul and let the opponent keep on shooting...FINE...KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF...but IMHO...such a thing would actually VIOLATE the unsportsmanlike conducte rule because waving fouls is an UNFAIR act. It may be unfair to the player waiving the foul...but it is UNFAIR...by definition since it could alter the outcome of that rack and possibly the entire match...and that BY RULE is unsportsmanlike.

And that would be especially true in league or tournament play when the outcome for ALL OTHER PLAYERS could be impacted.

So, I say...PLAY BY THE RULES and reserve your Boy Scout Code for Boy Scount functions.

(-:

EagleMan
 
Last edited:
EagleMan said:
1.10

For example referring to Prompting Calls and Protesting Rulings...."...the referee's decision on judgment calls is final."


Elsewhere...

1.8 Restoring a Position...."...The players must accept the referee's judgment as to placement."

In addition to WPA RULES...there are WPA REGULATIONS...which, for sake of argument we should assume would be adopted by all organizations conducting refereed matches.*

In Reg. 7 (which shows that I was somewhat incorrect by the way) "The referee will form his decisions by all means that seem suitable to him. If the player wants to protest against that ruling he may contact the head referee (I'm not wrong yet) and after that, the tournament director. In any regular tournament, the tournament director's decision is final."
Click to expand...
None of these prohibit a player from calling a foul on himself - they just say the ref can overrule it if he disagrees.

"...If the area referee (finds that) there is no EVIDENCE (emphasis added) of the foul except the claim of one player...then it is assumed that no foul occurred."
Click to expand...
I doubt that this would be applied to a player calling a foul on himself - unless it somehow benefitted him (I can't imagine how it could).

Do you think it is POSSIBLE to cheat in a game/sport if no RULE was broken?
Click to expand...
We're talking about fouls, which are broken rules by definition.

What EXPLICIT RULE can you cite imposing an obligation on a player to self-call a foul?
Click to expand...
The rule against the foul itself is enough for me. Where's the rule that explicitly says it's OK to foul if you can get away with it?

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Most rules I've read state that it is the opponent's obligation to watch for, and call, fouls and not the shooter (in the absence of a ref of course). Due to that, it is not unethical to not call a foul on yourself as your opponent should be watching. That said, if you notice that your opponent is not watching and purposely foul in order to gain an advantage then I would consider that cheating, or at the very least an abuse of the spirit of the rules.

If the rules of the game state that the shooter/player is responsible for calling fouls on themselves, such as in golf, then it is unethical to not call a foul on yourself.

My $.02

That said, I almost always call fouls on myself but I very rarely play for money and have never played for high stakes so who knows what I would do then...lol.
 
Have we made any progress? Are we closer to the answer? What are the key points that are dividing both parties? Let's work towards a resolution!
 
I think all parties have had more than their fair share of expression. It's unlikely that any minds have been changed significantly on the subject but I'm ready to step out of the ring and put it to bed.
 
Funny!!!

This is funny, very ****ing funny. You guys are all very sell-winding. All Chris has to do is chime in once every 3 hours and just watch you go.

Classic!

:thud:


ChrisBanks said:
Have we made any progress? Are we closer to the answer? What are the key points that are dividing both parties? Let's work towards a resolution!
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBanks said:
Have we made any progress? Are we closer to the answer? What are the key points that are dividing both parties? Let's work towards a resolution!
Click to expand...

There is no resolution to be had Its a question you have to ask yourself you either do it or you dont, there is no rule saying you have to but you will find most people do it because they love the game and have respect for it and the other players. I will always do it no matter how much I am playing for because I know that if I have fouled my opponent is sapposed to have BIH! not only if he seen me, I respect the rules of the game and I follow them even if it doesnt help me.
 
EagleMan said:
With GENUINE RESPECT...your views above...at least your questions...are OFF THE CHARTS in AWESOMENESS :tongue: in terms of their place in the game of pool. Someone opponent's personal state of mind has NOTHING to do with how the opponent should behave...ZERO....ZIP...NADA.

This is a game of POOL folks...not a Boy Scout outing. It is a GAME that can ONLY be played within the RULES. Anything else is just pure personal preference that everyone has a RIGHT to have...so long as their non-rule based preferences don't impact negatively on the opponent. is is just a game.

If someone wants to WAVE a foul and let the opponent keep on shooting...FINE...KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF...but IMHO...such a thing would actually VIOLATE the unsportsmanlike conducte rule because waving fouls is an UNFAIR act. It may be unfair to the player waiving the foul...but it is UNFAIR...by definition since it could alter the outcome of that rack and possibly the entire match...and that BY RULE is unsportsmanlike.

And that would be especially true in league or tournament play when the outcome for ALL OTHER PLAYERS could be impacted.

So, I say...PLAY BY THE RULES and reserve your Boy Scout Code for Boy Scount functions.

(-:

EagleMan
Click to expand...

The computer demands that enter 10 characters. All hail the machines!
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You need to "study" whether or not to cheat? Didn't you have parents?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Why do people always say this if they are debating morality? As if havign parents somehow means that a person should have gotten morals along with them. Well what if the parents were no good? What if their weren't any parents?

How about dropping this line of argument and simply accepting that any rational adult can at least understand both sides of an issue and choose one?
 
ChrisBanks said:
Have we made any progress? Are we closer to the answer? What are the key points that are dividing both parties? Let's work towards a resolution!
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm in no danger of being convinced I should stop calling fouls on myself. Probably nobody in this thread is about to do a 180.

The key point dividing parties seems to be who is responsible for foul enforcement.
To some people, it's apparently 100% someone else's job and 0% the shooter's job.
I feel it's the shooter's job. Others might help me with that job, but ultimately it's up to me.

--

When I play with someone, there's an unspoken contract that both players will be honest with each other. Not calling a foul on yourself is dishonest... a lie of omission is still a lie.
I don't need an explicit written instruction to not lie, it's a given.

You can point to other facets of life where I tell 'little white lies', and maybe I could improve in those parts of my life (such as driving). But all the proves is, nobody's perfect and most of us only follow the rules when it's convenient. Well, there's nothing especially inconvenient about calling my foul in pool. 99% of them will get called anyway, because the opponent will see it. Why should I handle the other 1% differently? It's no skin off my back. And I won't feel right if I won by cheating anyway.

I honestly don't mind doing it because I consider it a screwup, the same as if I hit the cueball poorly and missed the shot, or played lousy position and hooked myself. If I screw up, I deserve to lose, I don't like the idea of ducking the penalty... that just encourages future screwups and sloppy play.

---

I guess one of the other major points of contention is the use of the word "cheater". I recently got offended when someone labelled me a cheater for disagreeing with how you'd mark a safe in the APA. So I can empathize with people who feel 'cheater' is too strong a word to use in this situation.

Nonetheless, I think it's a fair term to use here. Someone broke the rules and found a way to turn it to their advantage (by not subjecting themselves to the written penalty for their foul). They may not have broken the rules intentionally, but it's certainly no accident when they see it and don't tell me. Deceiving someone intentionally is pretty much the textbook definition of cheating.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
... I doubt that this would be applied to a player calling a foul on himself - unless it somehow benefited him (I can't imagine how it could). ...
Click to expand...
If you are on two fouls at 14.1 and you miss a tough shot and scatter the rack wide open and you are playing John Schmidt, it is to your advantage to have fouled on the shot. This situation is rare.

Another situation when it is good to foul is also at 14.1 and you want to set the high run record. If you can foul into negative territory, you have a chance to run more than the nominal game length. I've heard that Lassiter used to foul this way at the start of games because he really, really did not like the person who held the high run record.

In both of those cases the foul is unlikely to be unseen.
 
You need to "study" whether or not to cheat? Didn't you have parents?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
JB Cases:
Why do people always say this if they are debating morality? As if havign parents somehow means that a person should have gotten morals along with them. Well what if the parents were no good? What if their weren't any parents?
Click to expand...
Because it illustrates the point that the moral in question is fundamental and universal, John, just as you interpreted it.

pj
chgo
 
I guess being honest is very complexed.I thought the truth shall
set you free?I guess it might but not in the poolroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top