ChrisBanks
Banned
After 30 pages of dialogue, what could adding my opinion bring to the table?
If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?
- Thread starter ChrisBanks
- Start date
After 30 pages of dialogue, what could adding my opinion bring to the table?
Maybe not, but you only stir the pot in one direction.
I agree with you, both events are within the rules. I feel the rules were written with some morals/integrity in mind of the person fouling. They would have the integrity and say "I fouled". not so much the case nowadays, its a interpretation of a rule, no morals allowed! LoL. Clearly, you are well within the rules either way and it's a conscience decision to do what you feel is correct....rules wise and ethically wise.
You have made a great point and I respect that. I don't respect the "it's ok the cheat to feed your family" BS!
Krupa asked of Chris:
"That we're 30 pages into a thread you started and you still haven't released your opinion, but you're willing to periodically pipe up to stir the pot, leads me to believe that you're a very subtle troll."
It could be that Chris is leaning toward the "dark" side. Darth Vader has gotten into his head.
Perhaps these new revalations on the interpretations of the rules have awakend a new sense of awareness.
Perhaps he doesn't want to admit his opinion because he will be judged and called names like "cheater" and "scumbag."
"Luke....I am your father"
Chris, it's OK to succumb to the moral pressure.
I will forgive you.
"That we're 30 pages into a thread you started and you still haven't released your opinion, but you're willing to periodically pipe up to stir the pot, leads me to believe that you're a very subtle troll."
It could be that Chris is leaning toward the "dark" side. Darth Vader has gotten into his head.
Perhaps these new revalations on the interpretations of the rules have awakend a new sense of awareness.
Perhaps he doesn't want to admit his opinion because he will be judged and called names like "cheater" and "scumbag."
"Luke....I am your father"
Chris, it's OK to succumb to the moral pressure.
I will forgive you.
Sorry to burst your bubble...but sure they can. You probably "cheat" the speed limits on a daily basis...like everyone else.
Can you PROVE each and every tax decuction you have ever taken on your tax returns? If so, you can't count youself in one of the smallest minorities in America.
When you are late to work have you ALWAYS told the truth...that you over slept or had some errand you had to run or have you said...."Sorry...there was an accident that jammed up the traffic."
C'mon....This is Ames mister!
(-:
EagleMan
ChrisBanks
Banned
As far as stirring the pot, aren't we browsing the forum in order to correspond with others? What should I be doing instead while I am in the forum?
I'd actually accept this if I hadn't seen him do the same thing in a thread about APA scorekeeping.
I admire your attitude...I really do...and would behave exactly as you say you would...but for a different reason.
There is no "honor" involved. There is no dishonor in obeying the rules.
But if YOU PERSONALLY think what is BEST FOR YOU to call a foul on yourself...THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.
However, I would caution people to not hurt themselves by patting themselves on the back too hard for self-calling fouls. All they are doing is providing a gift to the opponent. That is "generosity" not "honor."
(-:
EagleMan
The issue is not whether a foul is a foul. It is. The argument that it is not up to the player to call their own foul is ridiculous. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the opponent has to call a foul, either. That argument should be put to rest. A foul is a foul. Yes, that falling tree does make a sound, even if no one hears it. And no, it's not brilliant strategy ... just deception.
The important fact is that not calling a foul DOES NOT have an impact on the game. The reason it does not is because the opponent doesn't know that a foul occurred. He has NOT been harmed because he DOES NOT KNOW that he's been harmed. This may sound a bit esoteric and but it's a fact.
Ultimately, "SHOULD" is only a question of ethics. IMVHO, it's a matter of how much the person can live with. It's innate. Personally, I have more respect for someone who acknowledges human frailty, if you will, than someone who attempts to rationalize deception. If you try hard enough, you can rationalize almost ANYTHING!
The important fact is that not calling a foul DOES NOT have an impact on the game. The reason it does not is because the opponent doesn't know that a foul occurred. He has NOT been harmed because he DOES NOT KNOW that he's been harmed. This may sound a bit esoteric and but it's a fact.
Ultimately, "SHOULD" is only a question of ethics. IMVHO, it's a matter of how much the person can live with. It's innate. Personally, I have more respect for someone who acknowledges human frailty, if you will, than someone who attempts to rationalize deception. If you try hard enough, you can rationalize almost ANYTHING!
ChrisBanks
Banned
If you have fouled and do not call it, are you doing any harm to yourself?
IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PROGRESS OF A MATCH A FOUL?
I think so. I think that not paying attention is disrespectful to the game and could cause an unnecessary delay of the game due to the need for the self-calling foul shooter to explain what has happened.
Both those behaviors can reasonably be assumed to fall under the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule.
Now, that doesn't mean that an opponent HAS to call unsportsmanlike conduct and as I've noted, there is no REQUIRED penalty for that conduct.
But IF the shooter instantly loses his inning when he fouls...then the OPPONENT would instantly lose HIS inning if an unsportsmanlike loss of inning penalty was imposed...as it COULD be.
In that case...the original shooter gets his inning back.
So, I am just curious whether any of those who ADAMANTLY stated that a foul is a foul and HAD to be called by the shooter if no one else...would impose that SAME standard on a player who didn't see the foul because he didn't respect the game sufficiently to even PAY ATTENTION to it.
Just askin'
(-:
EagleMan
I think so. I think that not paying attention is disrespectful to the game and could cause an unnecessary delay of the game due to the need for the self-calling foul shooter to explain what has happened.
Both those behaviors can reasonably be assumed to fall under the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule.
Now, that doesn't mean that an opponent HAS to call unsportsmanlike conduct and as I've noted, there is no REQUIRED penalty for that conduct.
But IF the shooter instantly loses his inning when he fouls...then the OPPONENT would instantly lose HIS inning if an unsportsmanlike loss of inning penalty was imposed...as it COULD be.
In that case...the original shooter gets his inning back.
So, I am just curious whether any of those who ADAMANTLY stated that a foul is a foul and HAD to be called by the shooter if no one else...would impose that SAME standard on a player who didn't see the foul because he didn't respect the game sufficiently to even PAY ATTENTION to it.
Just askin'
(-:
EagleMan
ChrisBanks
Banned
You raise valid arguments, and it is something we need to consider.
I have an interesting question for those who seem committed to self calling a foul......
If there is a referee involved, would you still self call the foul?
Do we pass on some level of accontability to the refferee that would allow us to justify not self calling a foul?
I ask this because I'm confident that if you could track players who self call fouls, you would most certainly find a percentage of them that would not self call, if a referee was involved.
Are we to accept that varrying moral codes should define how the rules are to be interpreted for everyone?
I say let the rules stand on their own merit and forget about judging others who play by the rules but differently than you play by the rules!
If there is a referee involved, would you still self call the foul?
Do we pass on some level of accontability to the refferee that would allow us to justify not self calling a foul?
I ask this because I'm confident that if you could track players who self call fouls, you would most certainly find a percentage of them that would not self call, if a referee was involved.
Are we to accept that varrying moral codes should define how the rules are to be interpreted for everyone?
I say let the rules stand on their own merit and forget about judging others who play by the rules but differently than you play by the rules!
I call fouls on myself. I read Artie's and others replies on One pocket.org, also.
English asked........"In the scenario being discussed table fouls not called may not break certain specific rules but their is also a rule regarding sportmanship. What about that rule? If one breaks that rule, is one a cheater or simply a bad sportsman?"
Are you implying that failure to self call a foul is unsportsmanlike?
If so, Logic prevails.
If no foul is called....there is no foul, therefore no unsporsmanlike conduct.
Are you implying that failure to self call a foul is unsportsmanlike?
If so, Logic prevails.
If no foul is called....there is no foul, therefore no unsporsmanlike conduct.
No....SHOULD has nothing to do with ethics. It has ONLY to do with RULES. Hey, if anyone wants to give the other player a GIFT out of the goodness of their hearts....SUPER GREAT!!! But if they DON'T feel like giveing a gift does NOT make them unethical or a cheater and what IS unethical is calling someone a cheater WHO IS NOT.
This WHOLE DEBATE is a result of people not understanding the difference between giving a GIFT...which is FINE if you bloody well WANT to*...vs. it being JUST as fine NOT to give a gift which is EXACTLY what self-calling a foul is since there IS NO RULE REQUIRING IT....PERIOD.
If there IS a rule in any rule set that I know of...and NO ONE has posted one in this massive thread that provides that players MUST self-call fouls AND that a specific penalty MUST be imposed.
If you know of such a rule...PLEASE POST IT. (-:
*Where giving the GIFT CAN be "unethical" would be in a bracket tournament where YOUR gift to Joe could cause Pete to go out on two losses because Joe beat him in a subsequent match when Joe should have been knocked out and never have played Pete.
So...NOW...is giving a GIFT to another player Unsportsmanlike Conduct because doing is UNFAIR to the rest of the players in the tournament??
I sure as HELL would call that FOUL if I saw Joe drop the 9 ball by hand if Pete FIRED it in and it popped back out. AND I SAW EXACTLY THAT HAPPEN IN A TOURNAMENT that I wasn't playing in.
RULES ARE RULES and obeying them CANNOT be unethical or cheating whereas GIFTING absolutely CAN and SHOULD be regarded as fouls...at least in a tournament/league event as opposed to a 1 on 1 match where the players can do whatever the please withoug impacting OTHER players.
(-:
EagleMan
In the context you refer to...Webster says "honor" is..."A keen sense of ethical conduct." Now, we have to look at what "ethcis" means and again, Webster says it means...A set of moral principles...a guiding philosophy."
So, to answer your question, I think that "honor" means what Webster says it means.
Now, turning to the POINT.... with respect to a GAME....ANY game....I think that a perfectly appropriate "guiding philosophy" would be to OBEY the unambiguous RULES of THAT game and to not impose the rules of any OTHER game...OR...my own PERSONAL PREFERENCES regarding generosity.
OK?
Regarding Sportsmanship, the RULES have a section dedicated to that particular topic and they DO NOT require the self-calling of fouls and in fact DO NOT REQUIRE ANY PARTICULAR PENALTY....INCLUDING NO PENALTY AT ALL.
So, since there is a SPECIFIC RULE on Sportsmanship...you CANNOT impose ANY OTHER RULES upon that topic...including the Boy Scout Code...or the way YOU choose to conduct yourself...regardless of how noble you might think your attitudes are.
(-:
EagleMan
PS: And just in case you missed it...I have pointed out how being NOBLE to one player can SCREW others! So....Be careful out there, to make sure that your nobility doesn't bite someone in their bootay.
(-:
You raise another good point! However, there are instances when you are paying attention and you can't see what's happening at the table. Sure, you could jump up and look, but now you're "sharking". There's a million "what ifs" and even more, "what should be dones".