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

I keep hearing people boast about "character", "honesty" , "honor" and "integrity".....What should it matter that there's money involved.

Money should have nothing to do with these attributes; however since it's apparent that people will modify their assessment of a situation if there's something to gain; it's clear that these "honoarable attributes" are simply illusions that are subject to modification at our personal whim as it suits the situation.

Therefore, they hold value only to the person who chooses to believe they are relavant. It is foolish to believe that your opponent will hold the same illusions that you do.
 
scsuxci said:
Its very simple,being honest has nothing to do with complying to a rule of any game but everything to do with that persons moral compass on
or off the pool table.
If it takes rules to make people honest, then to me ,they weren't that
honest to begin with.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point...at least in ref'd matches. If you don't break a RULE then you are not being "dishonest"...period.

When there is no ref...the matter becomes a little harder to reconcile but not THAT much. With no ref...there are still RULES...and as I've pointed out, there IS no rule requiring a player to self-call a foul and even if he did, there is no rule saying the ref has to agree OR that he even has to impose a penalty if he does agree.

So, injecting "morality, integrity and ethics" into the equation is a slippery slope.

Personally, I think it is a matter of PURE PERSONAL PREFERENCE and that people should self-call fouls if it makes them FEEL good to do so...and not if it doesn't.

I would like to think that I would call one on myself...AND HAVE every time I've faced that situation. But if $100k was on the line would I? Probably not.

If $1 million was on the line there would be NO WAY I would and to be perfectly frank...I would seriously question the honesty of anyone who says they would....except someone who is VERY wealthy. FOR SURE...I'd have to see it, or have it reported to me by credible sources, to believe it.

EagleMan

PS: It's like the old joke about the guy who offers a woman a million dollars to sleep with him. She says..."Well....yes." Then the guy says..."OK...will you for 20 bucks?" Indignantly she says..."What do you think I am...a PROSTITUTE?"... to which he replies..."We've already established that you are. Now, we're just negotiating on price."

(-:
 
Despite my apparent disregard for those who choose to label their opponent as "dishonorable" or a "cheater" for not calling a foul on themselves; I do empathise with those who operate on their own "code of ethics". "To each his own"

If my opponent is actually competing and focused on playing the game. I will respect the level of competition and "fair play". If I foul, I will not call a foul on myself but I will usually just sit down and allow my opponent to take his inning.

If he asks if I fouled, I tell him the truth.
If he approaches the table and plays the shot without the benefit of BIH, I say nothing....it's his inning. Not mine.

It is not upon me to advise my opponent on the progress or rules of the game.

This is how I apply my personal code of ethics.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Rick,

I doubt that that would happen. Choosing your team mates is very important, especially your life mate. However if so, that would make doing the right thing a bit unpleasant. However, I would report my foul to the officials in charge. Pool is a bit different than the other major team sports. My team is dependent on my personal performance in a one on one match with in the realm of the game. I would be forfeiting my match not the team effort. If the team could not win without my undeserved match 'win' then they don't deserve the 'win'. The other team deserves the win. Once I report my foul, it is out of my hands, but I would let the other team know that I consider them to be the winners.

Regards,
Click to expand...

My Ignore List: Scott Lee - nobcitypool - Neil

Just curious as to whether you think that carrying a grudge is "moral/ethical/the right thing to do?

(-:
 
EagleMan said:
You're missing the point...at least in ref'd matches. If you don't break a RULE then you are not being "dishonest"...period.

When there is no ref...the matter becomes a little harder to reconcile but not THAT much. With no ref...there are still RULES...and as I've pointed out, there IS no rule requiring a player to self-call a foul and even if he did, there is no rule saying the ref has to agree OR that he even has to impose a penalty if he does agree.

So, injecting "morality, integrity and ethics" into the equation is a slippery slope.

Personally, I think it is a matter of PURE PERSONAL PREFERENCE and that people should self-call fouls if it makes them FEEL good to do so...and not if it doesn't.

I would like to think that I would call one on myself...AND HAVE every time I've faced that situation. But if $100k was on the line would I? Probably not.

If $1 million was on the line there would be NO WAY I would and to be perfectly frank...I would seriously question the honesty of anyone who says they would....except someone who is VERY wealthy. FOR SURE...I'd have to see it, or have it reported to me by credible sources, to believe it.

EagleMan

PS: It's like the old joke about the guy who offers a woman a million dollars to sleep with him. She says..."Well....yes." Then the guy says..."OK...will you for 20 bucks?" Indignantly she says..."What do you think I am...a PROSTITUTE?"... to which he replies..."We've already established that you are. Now, we're just negotiating on price."

(-:
Click to expand...
Thats a good joke:smile:
I think it was the World cup of Pool where a guy fouled and nobody seen
it including the Ref.
He proceeded to call a foul on himself and people had no clue what
was going on including the Ref.
Even though they lost the match due to this,in my opinion he did the
right thing morally.
I can't remember who it was but I'm sure one of the AZ'ers will
remember.It wasn't that long ago.

Trust me,I've done enough wrong doings in my life and am clearly no
saint but as my life has continued,I've done my best to keep it real
and honest.
Sometimes it real tough,but I surely sleep better having a clear conscience.

Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying that all the people that don't
call a foul on themselves are a horrible person.
I just feel its a bad decision.
 
The funny thing is... how many times have you paid attention to your opponent, called an obvious foul on him and... he denies it and has a tantrum! :lol:
 
EagleMan said:
The ISSUE is whether the shooter is somehow obligated to ASK the ref to reconsider an incorrect judgment...in the form of NOT calling a foul when one supposedly occurred....according to the "honest shooter."

This is where we part company. I see NOTHING in the rules that REQUIRES the player to self-report a foul. If the rulemakers WANTED that to be a rule...it would BE a rule.

So, I stand by my position that since there IS NO SUCH RULE then the player who does NOT wish to ask the ref for reconsideration is PERFECTLY abiding by his rights and is therefore, NOT being "unethical."
Click to expand...
As I have said more than once now, I consider the rules sufficient in this regard. Again, here is why. I agree that they contain no explicit language requiring self-reporting of fouls. But the rules specify (1) those actions that are fouls and (2) the consequences of those fouls. The rules do not say such actions are fouls only if the opponent or referee is paying attention, or is able to see them, and calls them. So if they occur, they are fouls, and the specified consequences should follow. But the specified consequences cannot occur unless someone acknowledges that the foul occurred. And in some cases it is only the fouling player who is aware that it occurred. Hence, by the rules, he is obliged to call it.

you said:
me said:
So if a player knowingly commits a foul and allows the game to continue as if he did not commit a foul, he is violating the rules of the game. That is dishonest/cheating.
Click to expand...
No...that point is FAR from clear or being definitive. ... I hope we can agree that there is no CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS RULE in pool, obligating a player to self-call a foul AND which REQUIRES the ref to impose a penalty...ANY penalty...even if the player does report the foul.

In the absence of any such clear and unambiguous rule, it is simply inappropriate to accuse a player of "cheating" or being "dishonest" because both those things require a RULE to have been violated.[/B]
Click to expand...

I agree that it's not unambiguous (or we wouldn't have thread after thread, year after year, on this subject). But sometimes the proper operation of the rules has to be deduced from what is written in black and white. My interpretation of the rules, by deduction, tells me that self-reporting of fouls is required.

But even if that deduction could not be made, I think it's still the right thing for the game. Do we really want pool to be like football/baseball/basketball/etc., where the code of conduct seems to be to try to get away with anything you possibly can that will help you win? Fool the ref and you're just smart/clever! That's not what I want for pool.
 
EagleMan said:
My Ignore List: Scott Lee - nobcitypool - Neil

Just curious as to whether you think that carrying a grudge is "moral/ethical/the right thing to do?

(-:
Click to expand...

EagleMan,

grudge: a persistent feeling of resentment, esp. one due to some cause, such as an insult or injury

Ethics: the rules of conduct rocognized in a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

I carry no grudge, I often pray for those on my list. If you'll notice, names have been removed, as was Mr. Lee's....briefly.

A grudge, as it is most commonly taken, implies 'hard' feeelings regarding past activity. If the situation & activity is ongoing it is not of an in the past nature.

I had & still have a logical reason for 'publishing' my ignore list. I was going to explain it in another thread before it, the thread, was removed.

I was even considering offering an 'olive branch' so to speak given the season. However, some recent activities have caused me to reconsider that thought.

I find it interesting that two(2) people in one(1) week ask me questions regarding 'my ingnore list'.

But, since you brought it up, what is wrong with publishing a list of the people that I have chosen to ignore for civility reasons & the betterment of the general readership?

Let's see where this takes us,
 
Last edited:
MitchDAZB said:
The funny thing is... how many times have you paid attention to your opponent, called an obvious foul on him and... he denies it and has a tantrum! :lol:
Click to expand...
I remember being in a match where
my opponent called a ref over to watch my shot.After I hit the ball,we
both looked at the ref and waited for the call.It was clear the ref was unsure
by the long pause.
Next thing you know,I hear''Foul". I thought WTF that was clean but bit
the bullet cause that was the refs call.
We all make mistakes,but the ones we know and can take responsibility
for,we really should. imo
 
AtLarge said:
As I have said more than once now, I consider the rules sufficient in this regard. Again, here is why. I agree that they contain no explicit language requiring self-reporting of fouls. But the rules specify (1) those actions that are fouls and (2) the consequences of those fouls. The rules do not say such actions are fouls only if the opponent or referee is paying attention, or is able to see them, and calls them. So if they occur, they are fouls, and the specified consequences should follow. But the specified consequences cannot occur unless someone acknowledges that the foul occurred. And in some cases it is only the fouling player who is aware that it occurred. Hence, by the rules, he is obliged to call it.

Where I must respectfully agree to disagree is your non-recognition of the fact that the referee and ONLY the referee has the POWER and RIGHT to declare that a foul has, in fact, been committed. A player could get down on his knees and swear to God that he double tapped the CB but if the ref doesn't delcare the foul there WAS no foul...BY RULE.

I agree that an ACT was taken which MIGHT be judged to be a foul but if the ref does NOT make that judgment, then it is self-evident that there was no foul BY RULE. I think...but am not sure...that the WPA accepts suggestions regarding its rules which are revised from time to time. So those who wish to might propose to the WPA that players are REQUIRED to admit to fouls before their next shot and that the ref is REQUIRED to impose the appropriate penalty. Without that language...noble personal preference aside....there simply is no RULE that anyone could be accused of "cheating" on for not self-calling a foul.

I agree that it's not unambiguous (or we wouldn't have thread after thread, year after year, on this subject). But sometimes the proper operation of the rules has to be deduced from what is written in black and white. My interpretation of the rules, by deduction, tells me that self-reporting of fouls is required.

That is absolutely your right...which I respect.

But even if that deduction could not be made, I think it's still the right thing for the game. Do we really want pool to be like football/baseball/basketball/etc., where the code of conduct seems to be to try to get away with anything you possibly can that will help you win? Fool the ref and you're just smart/clever! That's not what I want for pool.
Click to expand...

Actually, I mean NO disrespect....REALLY...but I just had to laugh out loud at the notion that there is...or ever has been...or should be....any particular reason to annoint the game of pool as being one of high moral purpose or ethics. The entire image of pool...with quite a lot of justification...is just the opposite...like it or not.

Golf is the only sport/game that comes to mind when morals and ethics are mentioned but even then ONLY at the pro level...or maybe at a Boy Scout Golf Outing!!! (-:

In FACT, the VAST majority of amateur golfers will "nudge" a bad lie...game their handicaps etc...and often even wealthy guys do such things to win their stinking Member/Guest tournaments!!! (-:

Respectuflly,
EagleMan
 
ENGLISH! said:
EagleMan,

grudge: a persistent feeling of resentment, esp. one due to some cause, such as an insult or injury

Ethics: the rules of conduct rocognized in a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

I carry no grudge, I often pray for those on my list. If you'll notice, names have been removed, as was Mr. Lee's....briefly.

A grudge, as it is most commonly taken, implies 'hard' feeelings regarding past activity. If the situation & activity is ongoing it is not of an in the past nature.

I had & still have a logical reason for 'publishing' my ignore list. I was going to explain it in another thread before it, the thread, was removed.

I was even considering offering an 'olive branch' so to speak given the season. However, some recent activities have caused me to reconsider that thought.

I find it interesting that two(2) people in one(1) week ask me questions regarding 'my ingnore list'.

But, since you brought it up, what is wrong with publishing a list of the people that I have chosen to ignore for civility reasons & the betterment of the general readership?

Let's see where this takes us,
Click to expand...

It won't take us anywhere. I was just jerking your chain!

(-:

EagleMan
 
EagleMan said:
Where I must respectfully agree to disagree is your non-recognition of the fact that the referee and ONLY the referee has the POWER and RIGHT to declare that a foul has, in fact, been committed. A player could get down on his knees and swear to God that he double tapped the CB but if the ref doesn't delcare the foul there WAS no foul...BY RULE.

I agree that an ACT was taken which MIGHT be judged to be a foul but if the ref does NOT make that judgment, then it is self-evident that there was no foul BY RULE.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all failing to recognize the authority of the ref in a refereed match. I'm saying that when a player thinks he has fouled and the ref does not call it, that player has an obligation to inform the ref of the foul. Now, it's possible that the player thinks he fouled when he really did not. [Example -- the ball the player is watching fails to hit a rail and the player thinks he fouled, but, in fact, he did hit a rail with another ball he didn't see.] So the player should inform the ref of the foul he thinks he committed. It is then up to the ref to make the call or not. If the player is sure he fouled and the ref won't call it (example -- he knows he touched a ball in an all-balls-foul match), he can continue play knowing that he fully satisfied his obligation. [Some people might even go so far as to make an obvious, compensatory foul at the next opportunity.]

In a non-refereed match, the obligation is to inform the opponent.

you said:
me said:
Do we really want pool to be like football/baseball/basketball/etc., where the code of conduct seems to be to try to get away with anything you possibly can that will help you win? Fool the ref and you're just smart/clever! That's not what I want for pool.
Click to expand...
Actually, I mean NO disrespect....REALLY...but I just had to laugh out loud at the notion that there is...or ever has been...or should be....any particular reason to annoint the game of pool as being one of high moral purpose or ethics. The entire image of pool...with quite a lot of justification...is just the opposite...like it or not.

Golf is the only sport/game that comes to mind when morals and ethics are mentioned but even then ONLY at the pro level...or maybe at a Boy Scout Golf Outing!!! (-:

In FACT, the VAST majority of amateur golfers will "nudge" a bad lie...game their handicaps etc...and often even wealthy guys do such things to win their stinking Member/Guest tournaments!!! (-:
Click to expand...

It's up to you whether you choose to reinforce that image; some players won't. Again, as to the question immediately at hand in this thread, I deduce from the rules that self-reporting is required.
 
AtLarge said:
I'm not at all failing to recognize the authority of the ref in a refereed match. I'm saying that when a player thinks he has fouled and the ref does not call it, that player has an obligation to inform the ref of the foul.

We have agreed to disagree on your assumption and without question there is certainly no EXPLICIT rule to that effect.

Now, it's possible that the player thinks he fouled when he really did not. [Example -- the ball the player is watching fails to hit a rail and the player thinks he fouled, but, in fact, he did hit a rail with another ball he didn't see.] So the player should inform the ref of the foul he thinks he committed. It is then up to the ref to make the call or not. If the player is sure he fouled and the ref won't call it (example -- he knows he touched a ball in an all-balls-foul match), he can continue play knowing that he fully satisfied his obligation. [Some people might even go so far as to make an obvious, compensatory foul at the next opportunity.]

And some people...the really, really nice ones...could just forfeit to be SURE they don't commit any fouls at all. (-:

In a non-refereed match, the obligation is to inform the opponent.

That is your opinion....I respect it...and would do the same thing. But the "obligation" you refer to is PURELY personal and is NOT specified in any rule set that I am aware of. Having said that, I have not studied ALL rule sets and ZERO league rule sets having never competed in a league.




It's up to you whether you choose to reinforce that image; some players won't. Again, as to the question immediately at hand in this thread, I deduce from the rules that self-reporting is required.
Click to expand...

I understand the process and rationale underlying your deduction. But I most assuredly disagree with you. My deduction is based on FACTS while yours is based on inference. The FACT is that there is no EXPLICIT rule requiring the self-reporting of POSSIBLSE fouls. (As you point out, the player might be WRONG in his thinking that there was a foul either because of misperception or misunderstanding of the rules.)

Even in contract and statutory law, ambiguity is ample grounds for finding against the party that seeks to impose a penalty upon another. In games/sports "rules" and "laws" are synonymous....and AT BEST, the rules which MIGHT relate to the self-calling of fouls are ambiguous on their face.

I further deduce that if the WPA officials responsible for maintaining the rules wanted an EXPLICIT rule obligating players to self-report, they could write such a rule in a single brief sentence...probably in the unsportsmanlike conduct section. But they have not.

My GUESS is that the issue has likely been raised with the rulemakers and debated and that they specifically declined to promulgate such a rule based on their realization that the purported foul would likely be known only to the shooter (or some quite possibly biased spectator) and they cannot regulate the unknown.

Yet again...I FAVOR SELF-REPORTING. I just hold the view that doing so is NECESSARILY a matter for the players to decide upon for themselves...given the absence of an EXPLICIT rule requiring it and absent hooking players up to a lie detector after every shot.

As for deciding for themselves...yet again, absent an EXPLICIT rule on point...then not self-calling cannot be "cheating" becaue there is no EXPLICIT rule to be cheated. So it all comes down to how individuals PERSONALLY ELECT to conduct themselves.

FINALLY, 'cause I'm done on this subject...I think it is nonsensical to impose a "higher moral standard" on the game/sport of pool than exists in any other game/sport that I know of wherein players who know damn well that they have fouled not only won't admit it but will cuss a blue streak at an official who called the foul....AS WILL their coaches and managers and sometimes 50,000 fans who SAW the foul but just didn't want it called!

In The Hustler*...the man said..."This is Ames mister." On this topic, I say..."This is the world mister."

(-:

EagleMan

PS: For all you Hustler fans there is a site that has the text of the original screenplays....including The Hustler.

www.script-o-rama.com

Navigate to movie scripts and then to The Hustler.
 
What if your opponent fouls but doesnt know about it? There was once my friend was playing with another. Let's call them S and D.

They were playing small money game and D was down 4-1 in a race to 7 in 9 ball. S broke and potted the 1 on the break and continued potting the 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.. then only did he realize that he did not pot the 2 ball at ALL! D went on laughing and kept his mouth shut saying that he wanted S to do all the work so he did not have to worry about making so many mistakes.
 
EagleMan said:
... if the WPA officials responsible for maintaining the rules wanted an EXPLICIT rule obligating players to self-report, they could write such a rule in a single brief sentence...
Click to expand...

Or, they could have done the opposite -- explicitly say that the player has no obligation to call a foul on himself, that only the opponent or referee can do so. But they did not.

As for deciding for themselves...yet again, absent an EXPLICIT rule on point...then not self-calling cannot be "cheating" becaue there is no EXPLICIT rule to be cheated. So it all comes down to how individuals PERSONALLY ELECT to conduct themselves.
Click to expand...

The rules do not contain explicit statements regarding everything that can happen on (or off) the table. Sometimes one has to read more than one part of the rules, or combine parts of the rules, or even consider the intent of what is written before knowing exactly what to do in a particular situation.

FINALLY, 'cause I'm done on this subject...
Click to expand...
Good! I'm sure you and I are not the only ones who have heard enough from you and me on this topic.:smile:

I think it is nonsensical to impose a "higher moral standard" on the game/sport of pool than exists in any other game/sport that I know of wherein players who know damn well that they have fouled not only won't admit it but will cuss a blue streak at an official who called the foul....AS WILL their coaches and managers and sometimes 50,000 fans who SAW the foul but just didn't want it called!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider it nonsensical. I'd like pool to have the "higher standard" we see in pro golf than the lower standard we see in some other sports. Under my reading of the rules, however, I'm not imposing a higher standard, I'm just following the rules.
 
Depends

At league I will always call fouls even game losing ones. It has happened and crushed me but this build character and you play better because of it.

If a weaker player double taps the cueball. I let it slide. If its a stronger player it wouldnt happen in the first place. but id call it. they should know better. pragmatically. If you cant be bothered to watch your own game. dont be surprised if you get screwd alittle. human nature and all that.

At my home with the mates... Some things are fouls and some are not! For instance we have gentlemanrules such as accidentally tapping the cue ball at address is ok. You just must say 'that didnt happen' and it didnt. but you must shoot the slightly longer shot without repositioning hand etc. if you hit it hard you better blast it quick before it gets to far!

Accidentally moving balls is frowned upon and generally your opponent tells you to 'put them wherever you want asshole.

We play so much all the time tho. We dont count games. After an hour I could'nt tell you how many racks were played and who won past the last rack. we just play and mark time. Ive never cheated my friends and *know* the have never cheated. too many times i go relieve myself and I come back to cueball on a chalk. to which I always shake my head and say why? and the response is usually I got dumb for a moment. It happens.

Victory can be a fleeting. When you can unhitch your wagon from that star so to speak you can learn alot. calm in a positive environmen. Shoot hard shots. shots your bad at. stupid combos. jumps. masse. and other jackassery.

I guess what im trying to say is dont sweat the small shit and you free yourself to appreciate larger more important aspects of the game. momentary victory won through deceit does nothing for you.

and in a more relaxed environment it is my opinion that people who nitpick over small things are lame. play for the game. play for the companionship. if you want to play for victory go compete. or go practice. i play for fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top