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

[JB Cases]

The BCA rule states:

Any foul not called before the next stroke is taken is considered to have not occurred.

This rule, in and of itself stipulates indirectly that a foul is not the end of the shooters inning....which so many here, have used as a foundation to support their position in favor of self calling a foul.

It cannot be the end of a players inning if we have provisions on how the rules apply should the shooter continue to play after a foul....and especially if there is no penalty for continuing to shoot.

Some might even feel that this encourages players to continue shooting after a foul since the foul never occured once the next shot is taken.

It's kind of like when a football team tries to quickly get off another play before their opponent can review the instant replay to see if the previous play was legitimate and throw the challenge flag.

If you don't act in time, the opportunity is forfieted. Similarly, if the player on the sidelines doesn't call the foul, they may forfiet the opportunity to take their inning.

It's apparent that provisions are in place that address what the ruling is if a palyer does not call a foul on themself and therefore supports the fact that self calling a foul is strictly a matter of choice but by rule completely unnecissary.

You may call the foul or you may not...if you do not ,and choose to keep shooting, the foul never occured and is now a moote point.

While this is clearly evidenced by the BCA rules, this is obviously not the way most players approach the game....myself included. But it does proove that self called fouls are not required on any level if indeed we believe the rules cary the full weight for applying the standards of play.

I believe the rule is in place to prevent the non-shooting player or anyone other than the shooter from calling a foul after the game has progressed. I.e. someone says to the sitting player that the shooting player fouled on the three ball and yet is now shooting the five ball. In other words if it's not caught at the time of the foul then it's considered to be irrelevant to the state of the game at any later point in the game.

As I have stated approximately five times already there CAN be no rule which requires the shooter to call fouls upon themselves. Such a rule is impossible to implement during the game without reviewing the tape before the next ball is struck on every shot.

The whole premise of this is SHOULD you call a foul on yourself if only you know you did it and no one else does.

The ethical answer is yes.

The win-at-all-costs answer is no.

I see zero material difference between an intentional foul that you know only you see and do not call and an unintentional one that only you see and do not call you do not call.

A cheater will not admit to their cheating so a rule requiring self-calling of fouls means nothing to them. The only people that such a rule means something to is honest people who do not seek to win by depriving their opponent of the benefit that comes when a foul happens. Those people would follow such a rule without blinking whether it's a rule or not.

The fact that a subsequent action erases the chance of discussion that a foul did or did not occur does not mean and will never mean that the foul did in-fact occur and the shooter took DELIBERATE action to keep it from the opponent.

I am sorry but the rule on what IS a foul and the penalties for that supercede the the rules governing the erasure of the foul.

We are talking about a situation where ONLY the shooter knows he made a foul. So the choice to self call or "erase" is totally his because no one would know otherwise. Thus because this is a "private moment" thing it's 100% an ethical choice. I have already stated several times that it's the same as cheating in my eyes and so far no one has shown me differently in my opinion.

Sorry but if someone were to beat me and then tell me afterward that I should have had ball in hand at the end of a rack but they deliberately did not call a foul on themselves and kept shooting I would be highly pissed and I guess that most of you would as well. Especially if such an action had cost me money or put me out of the tournament.

I would feel that the other person stole something from me by a dishonest action.

Lastly, I will repeat this because it's 100% true. You can be watching the play intently and still not catch some fouls. Every single person here knows this to be true. Every person that is above an APA4 has had situations where they fouled and no one caught it and had that momentary twinge wondering if anyone saw it.

So the excuse that it's ALL on the opponent to be watching the game doesn't fly. It's really simple, if you as the player accidentally do something that is against the rules then you should be ethical and own up to it. If you intended to do it then by all means do not admit it and take the advantage that such cheating gives you.

 

[JB Cases]

CORRECT AGAIN. You're on a roll. (-:


Now just POST THE RULE that says that a player...knowing he has fouled...and does NOT call it has therefore, committed a FOUL with respect to which a penalty MUST be imposed.

POST THAT RULE and win the debate!!!

Don't post it (and you can't becuase there isn't one)...then by all that is rational...and yes HONEST* you should ADMIT that no such rule exists...whether you like that fact or not....and admit that BECAUSE it doesn't exist, no player can be called a cheater for not self-calling a foul because it is IMPOSSIBLE to "cheat" without violating a RULE IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME.

*Isn't it DISHONEST and therefore UNETHICAL to INSIST that there is a given rule and call people CHEATERS...which can get you a busted nose in some of the places I've played pool...for violating that rule when you know or should know that there WAS no rule violated?

Just askin'

(-:

EagleMan

I already won the debate such as it is because a foul is a foul whether it's called or not.

The penalty for a committing fouls are clearly stated in the rules. Thus it is implied that any HONEST player would immediately forfeit the table upon commission of a foul. No rule is needed to tell them to do what common sense and good morals expect them to do.

IF however a player decides NOT to admit their foul then the rules provide that they cannot be challenged about it later in the rack. Thus cheating is rewarded in the name of peaceful continuance of play.

 

[qghunter]

Yes

Yes. It also give you credibility in any future dispute if you have a reputation for honesty.

 

[rrick33]

JB cases stated: "I already won the debate such as it is because a foul is a foul whether it's called or not. "

"The penalty for a committing fouls are clearly stated in the rules"


You've won no debate that I can see.
Why?

Because the penalty for committing a foul, that is not called, is that the shooter may choose to stay at the table legaly and by rule, if he shoots another shot, then there was no foul at all. So it seems a foul is not always a foul. They can be erased!

The penalty for not calling a foul on the shooter may result in the non-shooting player lossing his inning. So you're right. The penalty for a foul is clearly stated in the rules, but it seems the penalty is a favorable outcome for the shooter. Not much of a penalty is it...especially when it seems to have been applied to the non-shooter.

I'm sure the penalties you were thinking of had something to do with BIH.

You seem content to interject terms like honesty and morals to support your position.
Could you please reference those areas of the rule book for me as I've had great difficulty finding the rule defining morals?

 

[JB Cases]

JB cases stated: "I already won the debate such as it is because a foul is a foul whether it's called or not. "

"The penalty for a committing fouls are clearly stated in the rules"


It's false that you've won any debate.
Why?

Because the penalty for committing a foul, that is not called, is that the shooter may choose to stay at the table legaly and by rule, if he shoots another shot, then there was no foul at all. So it seems a foul is not always a foul. They can be erased!

The penalty for not calling a foul on the shooter may result in the non-shooting player lossing his inning. So you're right. The penalty for a foul is clearly stated in the rules, but it seems the penalty is a favorable outcome for the shooter. Not much of a penalty is it...especially when it seems to have been applied to the non-shooter.

I'm sure the penalties you were thinking of had something to do with BIH.

That's right a foul that no one sees but the shooter is UP TO THE SHOOTER to decide if they want to honor the rule governing the foul or to ignore and move on to the next shot or simply and silently deny the opponent the ball in hand that they are entitled to.

Since the opponent does not know that a foul occurred there will be no challenge and no discussion UNLESS the shooter admits to the foul.

Which is exactly the same as when the shooter deliberately cheats. If not caught in the act then any subsequent discussion favors the shooter.

If something can be erased then that means it existed. So just because a foul is off the table so to speak by continuance of the game does not change the fact that it did happen. Whether the shooter elects to admit it or ignore it the foul happened.

When the foul happened the VERY FIRST THING THAT SHOULD HAPPEN according to the rules is a loss of turn and ball-in-hand for the opponent.

HOWEVER in the event that the shooter's foul is NOT called by anyone else nor himself THEN subsequent play takes it out of the game.

So again, it's an ethical thing because no one on the planet can make you follow a rule that only you know you have broken. Telepathy has not been invented/discovered yet so for the time being we simply have to rely on personal ethics in situations like this.

I am very happy to agree to disagree at this point. Since my direct questions are not going to be answered I see no end in sight.

But I will ask the most relevant one again in hopes that someone will answer it.

If the shooter deliberately moves a ball to block a shot it's cheating. If they accidentally move a ball to block a shot but do not admit to the foul is this also cheating?

 

[JB Cases]

JB cases stated: "I already won the debate such as it is because a foul is a foul whether it's called or not. "

"The penalty for a committing fouls are clearly stated in the rules"


You've won no debate that I can see.
Why?

Because the penalty for committing a foul, that is not called, is that the shooter may choose to stay at the table legaly and by rule, if he shoots another shot, then there was no foul at all. So it seems a foul is not always a foul. They can be erased!

The penalty for not calling a foul on the shooter may result in the non-shooting player lossing his inning. So you're right. The penalty for a foul is clearly stated in the rules, but it seems the penalty is a favorable outcome for the shooter. Not much of a penalty is it...especially when it seems to have been applied to the non-shooter.

I'm sure the penalties you were thinking of had something to do with BIH.

You seem content to interject terms like honesty and morals to support your position.
Could you please reference those areas of the rule book for me as I've had great difficulty finding the rule defining morals?

There are no rules defining morals. It comes down to whether you think taking someone's game position away deliberately is wrong or not.

If you and I are playing for $1000 and I deliberately move a ball and you don't see it and the subsequent hook and NOT having ball in hand costs you the match but someone says something to you afterward what would you think and do?

Same situation but I accidentally move the ball and know it but don't call it? How will you feel about this? Would you say oh well you know it's not in the rules that he has to call a foul on himself so that's just a bad roll that I missed it or would you think of me as a cheater?

 

[meharis]

Yes. It's that simple if you have respect for yourself and for others.

 

[MahnaMahna]

If you take a piss, and then don't wash your hands because you know you didn't get any urine on them, should you be offended when the guy that did wash his hands but saw you didn't doesn't want to shake your hand?

 

[rrick33]

JB Case stated: "That's right a foul that no one sees but the shooter is UP TO THE SHOOTER to decide if they want to honor the rule governing the foul or to ignore and move on to the next shot or simply and silently deny the opponent the ball in hand that they are entitled to.


If something can be erased then that means it existed."





Again you have misinterpreted the rules alltogether.

First of all. The rules do not say your opponent is entitled to receive BIH if you foul. This is a self imposed assumption you have made!
The fact that the rules provide for situations where the shooter continues to shoot is evident of this.

Secondly, the actual wording in the rules say that if the shooter continues to shoot the the foul "Never occured"....not my words...the rules.
So yes, by rule something that did happen can now have never occured.

 

[CreeDo]

Eagle, if I read you right... you feel that if a foul went unseen and the shooter then successfully goes on to shoot again, the foul effectively never happened. This is a basic idea we disagree on. I cannot pretend that foul never happened. It can happen and the shooter got away with it, which tainted the possible outcome of the match.

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

Ok, there are three possible interpretations because you feel the rule is ambiguous.
1. It's only the shooter's job to "play ref"
2. It's only the seated player's job.
3. It's both player's jobs.

So you're asking why shouldn't it be #2?

• There's no logical reason to think #2 is a more sound choice than the others.
Especially if you factor in concepts like "spirit of the rules".
• Generally the shooter is in the BEST position to know whether he fouled or not.
So excluding the shooter from ref duties makes no sense and increases the odds of a missed call.
• By choosing #2 you passively encourage cheating (in the sense that a shooter will be tempted to hide fouls by e.g. standing in a way that blocks the other player's view. Then he can rationalize that because the seated player failed to see it, he technically did nothing wrong.)

Let's use one of eddie's petty criminal analogies

Absent any specific rule that says I must turn myself in for shoplifting, and absent a cop to play ref, why can't I take the view that it's solely the shopkeeper's job to watch for theft, and if I manage to leave without paying, that's his fault?

 

[Maniac]

I think that there are some posters in this debate that are misinterpreting the wording of "considered to have not occured".

The word "considered" in the wording of the rule does not mean that a foul steadfastly did NOT happen, just that for the sake of continuing play it was "swept under the rug" so to speak, as no one at that point had called it.

I gotta give JB's post #425 my thumbs-up for making the most sense to-date.

Maniac

 

[Noodle]

Is there anyone in this thread that is an actual trained tournament ref?

What is their interpretation of the rule.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[neilhin]

Should I call a foul on my very self?

This is a thread that can go on till infinity. I' m not sure whether the OP was actually aware that this would happen. The question is impossible to answer definitively because of the word "SHOULD". The word is difficult to define and typically leads to discussions of morality and ethics. I can't speak for all languages but I do know that several do not even have a literal translation for the word.

The question, more appropriately, should be "Should I call a foul on myself if __________?" Fill in the blank.

If I tap the cue ball with the tip of my cue prior to shooting and my opponent doesn't sèe it, I really don't think about whether or not I should pick up the ball and hand it to my opponent. I just do it. Should I?

If the target ball that is very close to the cue ball, I know how to shoot it without causing a double kiss. Yet, if there is some doubt in my mind that I may have hit the shot correctly, will I give ball in hand to my opponent? Of course not. Should I?

I'm sure I've been on the other side in each of these instances and it doesn't matter one bit. In the first example, I would never have known that my opponent cheated and in the second it wouldn't matter if I didn't call a referee to watch the shot. What SHOULD my opponent have done? It's not a question I would ever ask myself.

 

[rrick33]

Miniac stated: "The word "considered" in the wording of the rule does not mean that a foul steadfastly did NOT happen, just that for the sake of continuing play it was "swept under the rug" so to speak, as no one at that point had called it."

I get the general sense of your statement and I suppose most would agree that this has some relavance since it is believed that the intent of the rule is to mitigate the situation.

On the other hand, the intent of the rule may be actually to propogate the shooters position and advocate his contention that it is acceptable to keep shooting if the other player does not call a foul.


The actual definition of "considered" is as follows:

"To regard as or to deem to be"
"To think, believe or suppose"

With words like "think to be", believe" or "suppose"..we are not dealing with arbitrary perseptions of "should" have been applied or "could" have been applied or even had the "Option" to apply.

"It Is Deemed To Be" and technically, for all practical purposes........
The foul "Did not occur"

It could easily be argued under the rules that what may be a foul in one specific situation is not a foul under diferent circumstances.

Double hit the cue ball and it is considered a foul but if not called and the shooter hits again, the double tap does not constitute a foul and therefore no foul occured.

The circumstances dictate the end result..so in reality the foul actually never occured because the circumstances modified the interpretation of the initial event.

A foul only remains a foul if called....if not called, it is not a foul.

I'd like to point out that the rules were not thrown together in some arbitrary manner over the course of a few days. These rules have evolved over a long period of time. Considerable forethought has been taken to ensure the most efficient language has been incorporated into the book to address the interpretation of the rules.

It is not a coincidence that the authors of the rule book chose to label a foul under these circumstances as having "never occured"

They could have more easily stated that it didn't apply or that it was optional or they could have even imposed a penalty to provide specific guidelines regarding the actions required if a foul occured.

THEY INTENTIONALLY CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS!

It seems to me that in the spirit of the rule, it is upon the non-shooter to call any fouls and in the event that does not occur, the shooter may continue to play without penalty.

The wording is so specific that should the non-shooter attempt to hold the shooter accountable for a previous foul, it is now deemed that the foul "never occured". It didn't happen...the circumstances modified the event and what was a foul previously, is not a foul once the next shot has been taken.

This has nothing to do with "sweeping something under the rug" to mitigate the situation.

If the authors really wanted to mitigate a problem, they would simply write a rule to address it.

Quite simply, the ruling that a foul did not occur is a testimate that the shooter has the option and leisure to continue shooting after a foul if their opponent does not call it. And the shooter carries all the weight and authority of the rules to support their position if the non-shooter attempts to enforce the "foul" after the fact.

If this were not true then the rules would have provided recourse for the non-shooter. This is not the case.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The question is impossible to answer definitively because of the word "SHOULD". The word is difficult to define and typically leads to discussions of morality and ethics.

Two questions are being discussed:

1. Do the rules say or imply that you must voluntarily admit you've fouled?

2. Do (your) ethics/morals say that you should voluntarily admit you've fouled?

I don't take seriously the suggestion that it's not really a foul if you get away with it.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'd like to clarify one of my earlier statements. When I said that if no rule was broken then one is not cheating, I meant technically, by the rules. I did not state that I believe no rule is broken. If one knowingly breaks a rule and takes advantage, then one is cheating.

I agree with almost all that John Barton has stated. I think the conversation should be turned to the sportmanship rule & whether that rule is violated when the person committing the file chooses to take advantage of the looop hole and 'erase' it by not calling it & continuing to shoot, etc.

Regards,

 

[krupa]

Miniac stated: "The word "considered" in the wording of the rule does not mean that a foul steadfastly did NOT happen, just that for the sake of continuing play it was "swept under the rug" so to speak, as no one at that point had called it."

I get the general sense of your statement and I suppose most would agree that this has some relavance since it is believed that the intent of the rule is to mitigate the situation.

On the other hand, the intent of the rule may be actually to propogate the shooters position and advocate his contention that it is acceptable to keep shooting if the other player does not call a foul.


The actual definition of "considered" is as follows:

"To regard as or to deem to be"
"To think, believe or suppose"

With words like "think to be", believe" or "suppose"..we are not dealing with arbitrary perseptions of "should" have been applied or "could" have been applied or even had the "Option" to apply.

"It Is Deemed To Be" and technically, for all practical purposes........
The foul "Did not occur"

It could easily be argued under the rules that what may be a foul in one specific situation is not a foul under diferent circumstances.

Double hit the cue ball and it is considered a foul but if not called and the shooter hits again, the double tap does not constitute a foul and therefore no foul occured.

The sircumstance dictates the end result..so in reality the foul actually never occured because the sircumstances modified the interpretation of the initial event.

A foul only remains a foul if called....if not called, it is not a foul.

This is an interesting, almost philosophical, argument. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, do you believe it makes a sound?

I'd like to point out that the rules were not thrown together in some arbitrary manner over the course of a few days. These rules have evolved over a long period of time. Considerable forethought has been taken to ensure the most efficient language has been incorporated into the book to address the interpretation of the rules.

It is not a coincidence that the authors of the rule book chose to label a foul under these circumstances as having "never occured"

They could have more easily stated that it didn't apply or that it was optional or they could have even imposed a penalty to provide specific guidelines regarding the actions required if a foul occured.

THEY INTENTIONALLY CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS!

It seems to me that in the spirit of the rule, it is upon the non-shooter to call any fouls and in the event that does not occur, the shooter may continue to play without penalty.

The wording is so specific that should the non-shooter attempt to hold the shooter accountable for a previous foul, it is now deemed that the foul "never occured". It didn't happen...the circumstances modified the event and what was a foul previously, is not a foul once the next shot has been taken.

This has nothing to do with "sweeping something under the rug" to mitigate the situation.

If the authors really wanted to mitigate a problem, they would simply write a rule to address it.

Quite simply, the ruling that a foul did not occur is a testimate that the shooter has the option and leisure to continue shooting after a foul if their opponent does not call it. And the shooter carries all the weight and authority of the rules to support their position if the non-shooter attempts to enforce the "foul" after the fact.

If this were not true then the rules would have provided recourse for the non-shooter. This is not the case.

By stating that a foul must be called when it occurs, they have prevented someone from watching his opponent foul, let him continue shooting until he has won, then nullifying the win because of the previously committed foul.

The next step in your logic is to have the foul-committing player shoot again so fast that the opponent doesn't have the chance to say anything. This could happen if the opponent simply didn't feel the need to say "foul" out loud and silently stands up.

This actually happened once when I was playing scotch-doubles in APA. My opponent double-hit the cue ball but I wasn't paying attention to her shot, I was just thinking about where the cue ball was going to go and what I was going to shoot. I was the only one who didn't know a foul occurred and I stepped up and shot so fast no one had a chance to stop me. I will repeat that: Everyone knew the foul occurred except me and so no one said anything. The other team unhappily conceded that the foul was not called in time and so we got to continue shooting. My partner, -- quite rightly, in my opinion -- picked up the cue ball and handed it to the other team.

Your logic says that the other team should have jumped up screaming "FOUL" and since they didn't, it's not only their fault that we kept shooting but we were wrong for not continuing our inning.

Sorry, I just don't accept that that is the appropriate interpretation of the rules in particular or good sportsmanship in general.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Krupa,

Your partner did do the right thing.

Best Regards,

 

[rrick33]

Krupa stated: "Your logic says that the other team should have jumped up screaming "FOUL" and since they didn't, it's not only their fault that we kept shooting but we were wrong for not continuing our inning."


You're half right.

Depending on which rules you follow, only the player or team captain may call the foul. If they don't call the foul...there is no foul. This is a clear interpretation of the rules.

On the other point...it is not the fault of the non-shooter that the shooter continues to play the inning. It is still the shooters choice to play the inning or they can by rule, call a foul on themselves but if they choose to continue playing, then upon their next shot, they have modified the circumstances and what was previously a foul is no longer.


In simple terms you can penalize yourself and self call the foul or if your opponent does not call the foul, you can continue and then there actually was no foul.

If by rule, there was no foul...how can you be cheating?

If you remove all the variable "Moral" interpretations from the equation, then you have to ask yourself:
"Why should I give my opponent an advantage by calling a foul on myself when his faiure to call the foul means it did not occur?"

This is a rhetorical question but it shows how specific the rules are and how people infuse their moral code to reinterpret their application.

 

[justadub]

All this just sounds like coming up with reasons to justify breaking the rules.

"They didn't catch me (call it) so it really isn't a foul."

Wow. Just wow.