The rule was broken when the foul was committed. Everything after that is tapdancing.
pj
chgo
If you foul, but your opponent doesn't see it, should you call it on yourself?
- Thread starter ChrisBanks
- Start date
pj
chgo
And here we have the answer, after all these pages of posts.
Thank you good sir for proving every single point I have attempted to make.
Its ok to do one wrong but not another?
Also a california roll is a perfect comparison to leaning over the table and brushing a ball with your shirt when playing one hole. It doesn't REALLY effect anyone or the game at hand there for I feel no need to call it, and this can be true for many many situations. Here is another example for you, The 9 ball is laying right in the pocket, even off to one side so its near impossible to scratch, I get down on the CB start practice stroking and sneeze, when sneeze I twitch a little a touch the CB with my tip. I look over and my opponent was talking to someone else assuming I would have 0 issue making the ball he is not paying attention. Me touching the ball is really going to have 0 effect on the game at hand at all, and it was by complete accident. So do I need to call the foul on myself?
SAME thing as rolling thru a stop sign
Well, you're equally guilty of 'fouling' either way. That's true. But this thread isn't about fouling, it's about deciding to report them or not.
In pool, someone is negatively affected every time, so I report every time.
In rolling stop signs, someone is negatively affected only sometimes, so I report only sometimes.
There are other factors that may affect my decisions about 'self-reporting' whether the subject is tapping the cue ball, rolling stop signs, reporting income taxes, downloading copyrighted music, etc. These include whether I feel bad about it, how seriously I broke the rules, whether everyone else is doing it, how my parents raised me, etc.
You can DEFINITELY show that I do not apply my 'strict interpretation of the rules' to all walks of life. But let me save you some time
If you or eddie were to show that I'm a hypocrite, all you'd have proven is that I'm a hypocrite. You haven't made your case that it's ok to pretend a foul never happened.
edit for eddie:
You brush a ball with your shirt and it doesn't really affect anything - hey, I can see why you'd feel that's a BS rule.
I actually agree, I don't think that should be a foul.
In fact, I'm sure you know in the APA, little accidental bumps are not a foul.
But we're not playing in the APA. We're playing one pocket. And we're using grown-up rules.
If you want to play a game, you agree to play by the rules, whether you like them or not.
If you strongly feel the rule is bullshit, then don't play that game.
Or play it, but make an agreement with your opponent - "Let's agree not to call nitty fouls, ok?"
Just be up front about it, that's all I'm asking. Don't try to sneak it under the radar.
As for tapping the cue ball... that's amateur hour.
I can't remember the last time I did that, sneezing fit or not.
It certainly affects the game that you didn't hand him the ball he deserved.
Here's a novel idea, instead of pretending the foul never happened, maybe tell your opponent and give him the option to be a gentleman and say "don't worry about it." You might be surprised how when you act decently towards other people, they reciprocate.
Last edited:
Well, you're equally guilty of 'fouling' either way. That's true. But this thread isn't about fouling, it's about deciding to report them or not.
In pool, someone is negatively affected every time, so I report every time.
In rolling stop signs, someone is negatively affected only sometimes, so I report only sometimes.
There are other factors that may affect my decisions about 'self-reporting' whether the subject is tapping the cue ball, rolling stop signs, reporting income taxes, downloading copyrighted music, etc. These include whether I feel bad about it, how seriously I broke the rules, whether everyone else is doing it, how my parents raised me, etc.
You can DEFINITELY show that I do not apply my 'strict interpretation of the rules' to all walks of life. But let me save you some time
If you or eddie were to show that I'm a hypocrite, all you'd have proven is that I'm a hypocrite. You haven't made your case that it's ok to pretend a foul never happened.
That is 110% exactly what I was trying to prove. I never ever said it was ok to not call a foul, all I was saying is that it is wrong and unfair for you or anyone to pass judgement on someone for doing or not doing it when you yourself are hypocritical on a regular basis, WHICH MOST PEOPLE ARE. I know for one I am mostly certainly hypocritical, which is why I don't pass judgement on others saying they are "cheaters", because in reality we are all "cheaters" in one way or another. It comes down to the fact of do you REALLY FEEL that you cheated? And that is a personally opinion that can NOT be noted as black and white like everyone here is trying to do.
It's strange to me this is being used as an argument.
"There's no explicit rule saying I must call fouls on myself. Therefore I don't have to."
Well what if there were? If you're already willing to break the rules without saying anything, why would the 'you must call fouls on yourself' rule change your mind?
What, you need to DOUBLE FOUL before you'll finally give up BIH?
Maybe someone already brought it up, but in WPA:
Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly.
Not calling a foul on yourself meets these criteria.
Creedo, you are correct that the unsportsmanlike conduct rule is the only one that comes even CLOSE to requiring self-reporting (as I've previously stated)...BUT....
1. Not self-calling a foul cannot possibly "bring disrepute to the sport" because you are the only one on the planet who knows there was a foul. So we get down to the "changes the game unfairly" aspect.
2. The REF is the ONLY one who can declare that that rule has been broken and
3. BY RULE...the ref is NOT REQUIRED to impose ANY penalty for violation of that rule. The rule states that he "MAY" impose a penalty...not that he "MUST"...whereas if the shooter scratches, for example...the penalty MUST be imposed. HUGE difference.
4. The rule goes on to SPECIFIY EIGHT DIFFERENT EXAMPLES of what constitutes unsportsmanlike conduct and not self-calling a foul is not one of them!!!
(I agree that those are only a list of examples and it is up to the REF to decide whether ANY given conduct fits the rule. But I suggest that the rulemakers aren't stupid and the list of EIGHT examples certainly includes the most IMPORTANT acts contemplated by the rulemakers).
5. The RULE provides that among the penalties IS A WARNING! So, how do we get from the SPECIFIC RULE permitting a mere warning...to the AUTOMATIC imposition of a BIH penalty for conduct under that rule which is what the "self-call" advocates demand?????
IN PRACTICE...and IN KEEPING with the EXPLICIT language of the rule...why couldn't the shooter who fouled but the opponent didn't see it say...
"I double tapped the CB. You didn't pay close enough attention to notice it and didn't call a foul on me. I am announcing the foul so I am bringing no disrepute on the game. But we are in the 2nd rack of a 10 ahead set so continuing my inning is no big deal and is unlikely to unfairly affect the outcome of the match. So BY RULE, I am issuing myself a warning and will continue my inning."
TRUST me...if I was the opponent, I would say...."Good for you for letting me know. My bad for not seeing the foul. Continue your inning sir."
Bottom line... I AGREE that rule is CLOSE to covering self-called fouls but FALLS FAR SHORT OF ACTUALLY DOING SO. And I suggest that the rules do NOT state or even suggest that a HIGHER standard be imposed on players in a non-ref match vs. a ref'd match.
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.
(-:
EagleMan
SPOT ON Eddie. All I would add is there is no such thing as "cheating" in a GAME by not imposing a PENALTY on yourself when NO RULE...not even the unsportsmanlike conduct rule....REQUIRES THE IMPOSITION OF ANY PENALTY AND SPECIFICALLY PERMITS A MERE WARNING!!!!
(-:
EagleMan
ChrisBanks
Banned
We have nearly enough information in this thread to publish a book on the subject!
Why do you still drive your car? Did you have a meeting with all the cops in the country and let them know to not give "nitty tickets".
Are you seeing my point here....
No. I thought the answer should be blatantly obvious to everybody.
Maybe because you are close minded?
I haven't heard and can't think of any good arguments for not calling a foul.
You clearly have not read this thread or maybe you just arn't understanding what the discussing has changed into.
I think this is actually a HEALTHY discussion and full of good points being made from all camps. I can't understand why someone would open this thread just to say we've wasted enough time on this subject when obviously, there is much to be said and debated upon.
Tired of the subject? Don't open the thread. Simple.
And now......back to our regularly scheduled program :thumbup:!!!
Maniac
Tired of the subject? Don't open the thread. Simple.
And now......back to our regularly scheduled program :thumbup:!!!
Maniac
For the record, I did not state that only a ref could call a foul. Those were EagleMan's. He quoted me and embedded his comments in bold.
Sure.
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."
So...I was "sort of wrong" but essentially correct if the TD is considered quite appropriately as a "super ref" but in ANY event, the final decision does NOT rest with any player.
I also think that Rule 5. Playing with an Area Referee is instructive.
As an introduction, if the Area Ref didn't see the shot being disputed then the Area Ref can be called in and can gather any and all information he thinks would be useful. BUT...
"...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."
So yet again...such a final decision is NOT invested in the players.
(-:
EagleMan
*Of course...any organization conducting a ref'd match can make its OWN rules which can and often do differ from the World Standard Rules. So, I am just referring to "generally accepted rules" under the authority of the WPA/BCA.
PS: I happily answered your question. Would kindly answer mine?
1. Do you think it is POSSIBLE to cheat in a game/sport if no RULE was broken?
2. What EXPLICIT RULE can you cite imposing an obligation on a player to self-call a foul?
Last edited:
If it's wrong for me to pass judgment on people who do this,
isn't it wrong for you to pass judgment people who who call the foul?
And don't say you aren't, the tone you take in your posts is pretty clear.
I mean, if the point of this whole exercise is to say "see, people aren't as honest as they claim to be! Nobody's perfect!" ...well, thanks for that deep insight. In other news, water is wet.
What if a third party catches you pulling this move?
Many games are played without a ref. Absent a ref, it has to be SOMEONE's job to call a foul. The rule doesn't explicitly say it's the seated player's job. It doesn't explicitly say it's the shooter's job either. So we're down to making a GUESS who has the job of calling fouls.
My BEST GUESS is that the authors of the rules intended for BOTH players to police themselves and each other.
It's not spelled out because it's completely, utterly obvious that the player is expected to abide by the rules and submit to the stated penalties if he doesn't.
I guess the shortsighted rulemakers didn't realize someone might try to lawyer out of the rules by saying "nobody saw it so I don't have to submit to the stated penalty for the foul that I committed."
If you truly believe the rulebook left this out intentionally, and the authors are ok with not calling fouls on yourself... let's rewrite the rules so they are more explicit.
6.2 Wrong Ball First
In those games which require the first object ball struck to be a particular ball or one of a group of balls, it is a foul for the cue ball to first contact any other ball, unless nobody else witnessed the shot. In situations where nobody witnessed the shot, no foul has occurred and the player may continue play.
6.8 Push Shot
It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots, unless the shooter is able to do so hidden from the view of others. In this case, the shot is permitted.
Are you serious? lol.
Because double tapping the cue ball is EXPLICITLY stated as a ball in hand foul. The penalty doesn't change just because player A called the foul rather than player B.
Actually I'm fine if you want to say that. At least you're saying something and not trying to sneak shit past me. I'll simply say "ok, thanks for telling me about your foul. I'm taking my ball in hand now. If you disagree and interpret the rules differently, we can go to the tournament director and get his ruling". At which point he'll tell you that you're crazy and award me with ball in hand
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.
I am seeing it. And it's not a bad point. I break the rules, but I don't turn myself in for it, and the cop didn't agree to that.
So why don't I feel bad about that, but I do feel bad about not calling fouls? Probably for the reason I mentioned earlier - there was no victim in the rolled stop or the 1mph speeding. But there was a victim when I fouled and didn't give you the ball in hand you deserved.
This.
I won a match I would have won either way but I accidently tapped whitey during a practice stroke, I shot immediately after and made the bank I was shooting then won the rack.
She would have lost either way 100% so I don't understand why I did it. I actually feel kind of bad right now remembering it.
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.
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.
Last edited: