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

EagleMan said:
I'm trying to be respectful but your comment in bold is just ridiculous. NO reasonable human being would require there a be a rule in pool that says that "If you scratch while shooting the 1 ball it is a foul"...and then have to go on to specify that it is a foul on each and every other ball.
The rule I cited is UTTERLY SPECIFIC with respect to the scenario you cited and to say that it isn't is just silly.

Sorry.

EagleMan
Click to expand...

EagleMan,

I'm sorry too, but I can't follow your logic in the above statements.

Are you not saying because there is no specific rule requiring that one call fouls on oneself, then no rule is broken & no penalty should be accessed & therefore no cheating has occurred?

Is that your logic regarding the question of should one call a foul on oneself if no one else has seen it?

Regards,
 
Last edited:
CreeDo said:
You have not adequately answered the point that I, JB, Patrick, and others keep bringing up.

You keep saying "I have violated no rule [etc], no rule exists that says I must call the foul [etc]."

The fact is, you already DID violate a rule (such as tapping the CB)
So the idea that "there is no rule about calling fouls" is irrelevant!
It's ALREADY FIRMLY ESTABLISHED YOU BROKE A RULE.

Or do you deny that?

Of course I don't deny it. READ THE THREAD. But now YOU step up and answer THESE questions.

1. In a ref'd match...IF a player calls a foul on his opponent, is the penalty automatically imposed or does the REF decide whether there was or wasn't...in SPITE of what ACTUALLY happened????

2. In a ref'd match...If a player calls a foul on HIMSELF....is the penalty automatically imposed or does the REF (or higher official) decide whether there was or wasn't...in SPITE of what ACTUALLY happened????


Let me help you....the correct answers are NO to both questions.

Is your argument that, if nobody saw a foul, then the foul effectively never happened?

IF NOBODY (a term that would include the shooter) saw the foul then YES..."it effectively never happened" because BY RULE...if a subsequent shot took place which would be the case if nobody knew there was a foul...then the foul is deemed to have never taken place....BY RULE!

DITTO if the shooting player DID know he fouled. In SPITE of the foul, if he shoots another shot without protest THEN THE FORMER FOUL IS DEEMED NEVER TO HAVE HAPPENED...BY BLOODY RULE!!!! GET IT????

Sort of like the tree falling in forest and making no sound?
Click to expand...

FYI...if a tree falls in a forest there IS sound in spite of all the debate to the contrary because BY RULE (definition) "sound" is a pressure wave created by a mechanical disturbance in the medium in which it is directly adjacent."

There does not have to be an amplification device present (human or animal ears...tape recorder etc.) for sound to exist...BY DEFINITION.

And it would be impossible for a "tree" to fall onto any surface and not make SOME sound. As a matter of fact, the mere process of falling would create SOME sound before the tree hit any solid surface.

Wanna debate that for a while too???

universetoday.com

Back on topic....you continue to miss the POINT.

In a ref'd match, neither player has ANY RIGHT OR POWER to CALL A FOUL
AND to impose a penalty. ONLY the ref...or higher authority can do so.

And there is NO RULE...either in ref or non-ref matches stating that...if the ref doesnt call a foul...or if there is no ref...the players must call fouls on themselves and BOTH plays must ACCEPT the required penalty for the foul called.

THAT JUST DOES NOT EXIST...or if it does....POST IT.

The issue at hand gets gray ONLY with respect to non-ref matches. And in that context...ABSENT ANY SPECIFIC RULE....why can't the offending player take the position that the OPPONENT plays the role of ref and has the right and power to call fouls on HIS opponent and if he does not...then the game would proceed EXACTY....repeat....EXACTLY as it would continue in a ref'd match.

Just because you WANT there to be a clear and unambiguous RULE re: non-ref matches doesn't mean that there IS one...'cause there ISN'T one.
 
EagleMan,

So, are you saying that if in a referreed match, you commit a foul, but the referee does not see it & does not call it, then no foul was committed and you are free to continue to shoot as though no foul had been committed?

Regards,
 
ENGLISH! said:
EagleMan,

So, are you saying that if in a referreed match, you commit a foul, but the referee does not see it & does not call it, then no foul was committed and you are free to continue to shoot as though no foul had been committed?

Regards,
Click to expand...

How is this possible? The referee determines if a foul has been committed. If the referee doesn't call a foul, how could you have fouled?
 
ChrisBanks said:
How is this possible? The referee determines if a foul has been committed. If the referee doesn't call a foul, how could you have fouled?
Click to expand...

So if someone steals your cue and the police dont catch him does that mean he didnt steal your cue?
 
ChrisBanks said:
Your rhetoric won't work with me. You're a smart man, and you know that these two examples are not comparable.
Click to expand...

What works with you then Chris? whats your take on calling your own fouls all I see you do is stir the pot with these short little comments but you dont really say one way or another.
 
ChrisBanks said:
How is this possible? The referee determines if a foul has been committed. If the referee doesn't call a foul, how could you have fouled?
Click to expand...

The action of the 'foul' has been committed whether the refereee sees it or not. If one ackowledges the spirit of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule & acnkowledges the committment of the foul to the referee, the referee can then 'call' the foul based on ones testimony & impose the penalty for the foul.

Are you saying this is & can not be the case?

Are we mereLy 'discussing' the definition of 'call'? Does it depend on what the definition of 'is' is?

Regards,
 
Last edited:
I'm curious...is there a distinction between breaking a rule and commiting a foul. It's easy to clump them together but there may be distinctions. Does there have to be intent for a rule to be broken?

With a lack of intent is it then nothing more than a foul?

Obviuosly, the rule book states the penalty for a foul but what is the language used in the rule book to indicate that a foul is against the rules?

Just curious.

Some savvy players commit intentional fouls in order to improve their situation. Obviously, these players want their opponent to know they fouled.

Players break rules all the time...half the time they are completely unaware...

Does anyone know the specific language in the rule book that defines a foul as a rule violation.

Not wishing to get off the point since we already know there's no rule that mandates a self-called foul but perhaps the specific language in the rules might shed a little light on the way the rule makers might have framed this argument.
 
Last edited:
PETROBOY said:
What works with you then Chris? whats your take on calling your own fouls all I see you do is stir the pot with these short little comments but you dont really say one way or another.
Click to expand...

The right answer? I don't have that. This is a complicated matter. And I would prefer to withhold judgment until I have studied the issue thoroughly.
 
ChrisBanks said:
The right answer? I don't have that. This is a complicated matter. And I would prefer to withhold judgment until I have studied the issue thoroughly.[/QUOT

Really? You dont have an opionion on this? there is no rule it just comes down to the person you are so really there is no " right answer " what is your side in this. I dont have to wait for other peoples answers I do it beacuse I believe it is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBanks said:
Your rhetoric won't work with me. You're a smart man, and you know that these two examples are not comparable.
Click to expand...

How are they not at least comparable? They both involve the breaking of a rule/law and both perpitrators are free to continue as they were not 'called' for their 'foul'.
 
ENGLISH! said:
EagleMan,

So, are you saying that if in a referreed match, you commit a foul, but the referee does not see it & does not call it, then no foul was committed and you are free to continue to shoot as though no foul had been committed?

Regards,
Click to expand...

NOW you are starting to get the idea!!!!.....YES is the answer to you question. What you are missing....with ALL respect...is the difference between ACTUAL OCCURANCES and those which are deemed to have taken place BY RULE.

Let me explain. Double tapping the CB is an ACTION but its not a FOUL until it is DECLARED to be UNDER THE RULES.

Same with tennis or any other game/sport.

Say you're watching a video of a tennis match and you see what you think is the ball hits outside the OB line. NOW...someone puts the match on pause and asks you if there was a foul. You know what you saw so you are willing to bet $1,000.00 that there was a foul.

Your friend smiles...and starts up the video again and OOOPS...no FOUL WAS CALLED and he points out that in all of recorded history, it will be known as TRUE that there was no foul on that shot.

You lose a grand...but you CERTAINLY can reserve the right to think that the player cheated...or was unethical etc. and that is YOUR CHOICE. But you still lost a grand and you could no more produce a RULE in tennis requiring a player to self-call a foul...OR that the Ref would or even COULD accept that self-call than you can in pool.

GAMES ARE PLAYED BY THE RULES OF THE GAME...NOT THE RULES OF LIFE OR THE BOY SCOUT OATH.

If the RULES are ambiguous or decient...that is the fault of the RULE MAKERS...not the players....and it is OVER THE TOP inappropriate to go around calling people cheaters because they violate one of YOUR rules of life but no RULE of Pool that reasonable people would agree exists.

And FOR SURE...no one has POSTED A RULE that states that a player MUST self-call a foul...AND that the opponent MUST accept that call...AND (unlike the unsportsmanlike conduct rule) a penalty MUST BE IMPOSED.....PERIOD.

It is now WAY past time for folks here to ADMIT that there is no such rule and that GAMES are to be played BY THEIR OWN RULES AND NO OTHER RULES...and simply agree to write letters to the WPA rule makers or WRITE THEIR OWN DAMN RULES FOR THEIR OWN DAMN MATCHES....and stop whining about the issue and TWISTING their own interpretations of what rules there are FAR beyond the breaking point.

EagleMan
 
Here's an interesting "Rule" from the APA rule book

ONLY THE PLAYER OR THE TEAM CAPTAIN
MAY OFFICIALLY CALL A FOUL although anyone may
suggest to the player or the team captain that a foul
should be called.

It seems to me that they are referring to the person or team captain who is not shooting that possess the privledge and apparently the only option to call the foul.

As the shooter you may only suggest that a foul should be called.

The print in bold above is from the rule book not my emphasis.

If we are to follow the rules explicitly, it would seem that according to the APA, calling a foul on yourself is against the rules since you may only suggest that a foul should be called.
 
rrick33 said:
Here's an interesting "Rule" from the APA rule book

ONLY THE PLAYER OR THE TEAM CAPTAIN
MAY OFFICIALLY CALL A FOUL although anyone may
suggest to the player or the team captain that a foul
should be called.

It seems to me that they are referring to the person or team captain who is not shooting that possess the privledge and apparently the only option to call the foul.

As the shooter you may only suggest that a foul should be called.

The print in bold above is from the rule book not my emphasis.

If we are to follow the rules explicitly, it would seem that according to the APA, calling a foul on yourself is against the rules since you may only suggest that a foul should be called.
Click to expand...

Brilliant observation. Now consider if the Captain was not watching the shot. If I suggest that I have fouled, and he was not watching, is he still permitted to make a call?
 
EagleMan,

I agree if one does not break the rules then one is not cheating. So, as in your example we are discussing the difference beween the actual action & how it is ultimately labeled.

Perhas the discussion should be directed toward sportsmanship & that rule. When the video is replayed even though it, the action, was not ultimately 'called' a foul, shows the player committing the action, he better had not ever admit that he knew he did it, 'but the referee or opponent said nothing' so he just continued, because if he did he would certainly be in violation of detrement to the game, etc.

I've got to go play my individual league match, so I'll have to check back later.

Regards,
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Rules aren't as rigidly semantic as you suggest - never heard of the spirit of the rules? There are even official regulations to help interpret the rules.

Anyway, the question of the thread isn't whether you can get away with the foul; it's whether you should. I think you said you don't try to, but I wonder why if you think it's OK for others.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I understand there are regulations which attempt to explain/interpret rules. I've POSTED some of them in this thread.

Yes, I DID say that I would self-call a foul under all realistic circumstances. (I will never play pool for what to me would be a GIGANTIC sum of money so what I would or wouldn't do in that circumstance is unknown and unknowable to me and every other TRUTHFUL person).

The reason I would though...is because I PERSONALLY WOULD FEEL LIKE DOING SO and I CERTAINLY would not DEMAND that the opponent accept the foul.

I would NOT self-call the foul because there is a RULE requiring that I do AND which REQUIRES the imposition of a penaly...quite simply because no such rule exists in spite of how HARD you and others wish there were.

And I CERTAINLY would not refer to someone who didn't self-call as a "cheater" because...due to the above sentence...calling him a cheater would be a LIE and I think that liars are just as bad as cheaters.

If you think there IS a rule requiring the self-calling of fouls AND requiring the imposition of a penalty....POST IT.

Since you have not...we can only assume you can't. All you and others have done is to STRANGLE existing rules to DEATH and impliedly suggest that the game of pool should be played by NON-EXISTANT rules...and that people who violate those NON-EXISTANT RULES are cheaters.

And SURE there is the "spirit of rules." But...the ACTUAL RULES CONTEMPLATE instances when fouls are not called in a timely fasion. And guess what? The RULE provides that if the foul is not called FOR WHATEVER REASON by the time the next shot takes place THEN THERE WAS NO PRIOR FOUL...IT NO LONGER EXISTS IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY ON PLANET EARTH.

So, even the SPIRIT of the rules which MUST be derived from the ACTUAL rules (you cannot determine the spirit of a non-existant entity) suggests that the mere ACT which MIGHT be deemed a foul IS NOT A FOUL...THAT NO SUCH FOUL EVER EXISTED....if it is not CALLED under the RULES!!!

Wanna play some Liar's Poker with me and At Large with thousand dollar bills but be FORCED to play according the the "rules of life" where lying is unethical??? Or would you rather play by the RULES promulgatged by a mutually agreed upon source? I'm OK with the rules cited at pokerterms.com.

OK????



(-:

EagleMan
 
ENGLISH! said:
EagleMan,

I agree if one does not break the rules then one is not cheating. So, as in your example we are discussing the difference beween the actual action & how it is ultimately labeled.

Perhas the discussion should be directed toward sportsmanship & that rule. When the video is replayed even though it, the action, was not ultimately 'called' a foul, shows the player committing the action, he better had not ever admit that he knew he did it, 'but the referee or opponent said nothing' so he just continued, because if he did he would certainly be in violation of detrement to the game, etc.

I've got to go play my individual league match, so I'll have to check back later.

Regards,
Click to expand...

There ya go!!!! Good for you and I hope you "rob 'em" at your league match...ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF COURSE!!

(-:

EagleMan
 
EagleMan said:
There ya go!!!! Good for you and I hope you "rob 'em" at your league match...ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF COURSE!!

(-:

EagleMan
Click to expand...

What if the rules are not right? Are you still cheating?

Do you have an obligation to follow rules that are not right?

In this country, one day it was lawful to drink alcohol, and the next day it was not lawful. Should we say the drinker was right to drink one day, and not the next, just because the lawmaker decided so?

Is there not a higher law than a "rulebook?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top