Interesting...
the op, bigkahuna, was pondering questions of character and integrity back in 2011.
best,
brian kc
Obvious foul......
- Thread starter Bigkahuna
- Start date
Interesting...
the op, bigkahuna, was pondering questions of character and integrity back in 2011.
best,
brian kc
This thread was started a couple years ago, and has now been resurrected. But there have been at least a couple other long threads on this same subject in the past year. One of them was just about 3 months ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=326682
rrick33, you and I debated this subject at length in the cited thread. Since you have restated your views in this thread, I'll stick mine in as well. Note that my argument has nothing to do with morals, ethics, or integrity -- it is based on the rules. I have no interest in going around and around again on this, I'm just stating my view to balance yours.
True, the rules (WPA world-standardized) 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.
In a refereed match, 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.
AtLarge, I recall having this debate and Like you, there's no need to resurrect here; however, I still fail to see the logic in your argument that contends that the nature of the rules require you to call a foul on yourself.
You say that the rules identify what a foul is and how those fouls are addressed and based on that you suggest it infers that a player must self call a foul. If there was a correlation to be had, it would have to address the penalty should the player attempt to conceal a foul and that simply isn't addressed. instead, the rules actually protect a player who conceals a foul or doesn't call it upon himself.
" if no foul is called , then it is as if no foul occurred at all."
This would certainly contradict any possible conclusion that the rules require you to call a foul on yourself since they address the fact that there are situations where no foul is called and they protect players who don't call the foul on themselves.
If the authors of the rules didn't intend for these situations to occur, then there would be no rule specifically addressing the situation and if they intended for all fouls to be called, then they would have imposed a penalty for not calling a foul on yourself.
If anything can be inferred from the rules then:
It seems to me that the rules actually have provisions to protect those players who choose not to self incriminate themselves when their opponent fails to call a foul.
This rule is so specific that it actually prevents a player from seeking restitution after the act by stating that if no foul is called then no foul occurred at all.
For those who like the moral perspective: Your sins are washed away...if indeed they were sins at all.
They actually change the conditions of the event so that if it isn't called then it never happened. In reality it says that if you don't get called then there was no violation at all.
This actually implies that not calling a foul on yourself is a viable aspect of the game....not a violation that needs to be addressed.
You say that the rules identify what a foul is and how those fouls are addressed and based on that you suggest it infers that a player must self call a foul. If there was a correlation to be had, it would have to address the penalty should the player attempt to conceal a foul and that simply isn't addressed. instead, the rules actually protect a player who conceals a foul or doesn't call it upon himself.
" if no foul is called , then it is as if no foul occurred at all."
This would certainly contradict any possible conclusion that the rules require you to call a foul on yourself since they address the fact that there are situations where no foul is called and they protect players who don't call the foul on themselves.
If the authors of the rules didn't intend for these situations to occur, then there would be no rule specifically addressing the situation and if they intended for all fouls to be called, then they would have imposed a penalty for not calling a foul on yourself.
If anything can be inferred from the rules then:
It seems to me that the rules actually have provisions to protect those players who choose not to self incriminate themselves when their opponent fails to call a foul.
This rule is so specific that it actually prevents a player from seeking restitution after the act by stating that if no foul is called then no foul occurred at all.
For those who like the moral perspective: Your sins are washed away...if indeed they were sins at all.
They actually change the conditions of the event so that if it isn't called then it never happened. In reality it says that if you don't get called then there was no violation at all.
This actually implies that not calling a foul on yourself is a viable aspect of the game....not a violation that needs to be addressed.
Last edited:
I wonder what people who don't call fouls on themselves think about other sports
When a basketball player flops when he wasn't even touched
when I batter pretends he got hit buy a pitch
when football players pretends to be injured for an injury timeout
None of these are part of the rules. They are each trying to cheat their sport. For those who don't call fouls on yourself even though it's a rule.
Why do you do it?
Don't like to lose?
Don't think/know it's a rule?
If it were a rule, would you then call fouls on yourself if your opponent wasn't watching?
Since in most league rules the call goes to the shooter? Would you lie and say you didn't foul knowing full well you did?
In league I have no choice but to keep playing against cheaters. Playing for money. If I know someone is trying to cheat I will quit and I don't care if they are up. I will never play them again.
When a basketball player flops when he wasn't even touched
when I batter pretends he got hit buy a pitch
when football players pretends to be injured for an injury timeout
None of these are part of the rules. They are each trying to cheat their sport. For those who don't call fouls on yourself even though it's a rule.
Why do you do it?
Don't like to lose?
Don't think/know it's a rule?
If it were a rule, would you then call fouls on yourself if your opponent wasn't watching?
Since in most league rules the call goes to the shooter? Would you lie and say you didn't foul knowing full well you did?
In league I have no choice but to keep playing against cheaters. Playing for money. If I know someone is trying to cheat I will quit and I don't care if they are up. I will never play them again.
Interesting...
the op, bigkahuna, was pondering questions of character and integrity back in 2011.
best,
brian kc
Unbelievable you guys don't see the Irony here.
If we're going by WPA rules and regulations, here are the bits that I think would apply:
It may be that a tournament is being played with “area” referees who are each responsible for several tables and there is no referee constantly at each table. In this case, the players are still expected to observe all the rules of the game.
-From Regulation 5. Playing with an “Area” Referee
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.
-From Fouls 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
All of the rules of the game that pertain to fouls are described in terms of what constitutes a foul and the prescribed consequence, not what happens if a foul is "called". Intentionally ignoring those consequences is a violation of the rules, whether the foul is called or not.
As for the "If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened" bit, "assuming" that the foul did not happen for the purpose of continuing play is not the same thing as saying that it did not happen. By continuing to shoot after intentionally ignoring a foul, the shooter is repeatedly guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct.
The reason that there is not a specific penalty for intentionally not calling a foul on yourself is that it would be redundant and subjective. Redundant in that you have already committed a foul anyways, and subjective in that there's no way to determine intent in such a situation. If it was a foul to not call a foul on yourself, who would call the second foul?
It may be that a tournament is being played with “area” referees who are each responsible for several tables and there is no referee constantly at each table. In this case, the players are still expected to observe all the rules of the game.
-From Regulation 5. Playing with an “Area” Referee
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.
-From Fouls 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
All of the rules of the game that pertain to fouls are described in terms of what constitutes a foul and the prescribed consequence, not what happens if a foul is "called". Intentionally ignoring those consequences is a violation of the rules, whether the foul is called or not.
As for the "If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened" bit, "assuming" that the foul did not happen for the purpose of continuing play is not the same thing as saying that it did not happen. By continuing to shoot after intentionally ignoring a foul, the shooter is repeatedly guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct.
The reason that there is not a specific penalty for intentionally not calling a foul on yourself is that it would be redundant and subjective. Redundant in that you have already committed a foul anyways, and subjective in that there's no way to determine intent in such a situation. If it was a foul to not call a foul on yourself, who would call the second foul?
Here's a example.
Few years ago I was in a weekend long tourney. We were in the chair and playing on Sunday.
Im up,,first game of the final match. Guy breaks and scratches!! The table is spread out like no other,,,,lol,,,a monkey could run it out!!!
I walk up ,,a little cocky,,,with some strut in my step.lmao
Pick up the cue,,,it's in my hand ,,just above the table and I'm kinda shaking it as I look over the table.
Well,,,,,, it slipped out of my hand and rolls very slow. Before I can grab it,,it hits another ball,,,,barely!!!! I picked it up about the same time.
I look around,,,,and no one seen this happen. And I mean nobody. Not my team or anyone on the other team. Unbelievable!!!!
After a second of thought,,,,,and I am standing there. People are starting to wonder why I am not shooting now.
I take the cue,,,and drop it on the table and walk away and sit down.
No one knows what is going on.
Opponent comes over and asks,,,whats going on. And I tell him he has BIH,,choice!!! LMAO
He was in shock!! I explained what happened.
He ran the table out!!!
I have seen this guy many many times since at different tourneys. He buys me a drink and reminds me of that moment every time.
Few years ago I was in a weekend long tourney. We were in the chair and playing on Sunday.
Im up,,first game of the final match. Guy breaks and scratches!! The table is spread out like no other,,,,lol,,,a monkey could run it out!!!
I walk up ,,a little cocky,,,with some strut in my step.lmao
Pick up the cue,,,it's in my hand ,,just above the table and I'm kinda shaking it as I look over the table.
Well,,,,,, it slipped out of my hand and rolls very slow. Before I can grab it,,it hits another ball,,,,barely!!!! I picked it up about the same time.
I look around,,,,and no one seen this happen. And I mean nobody. Not my team or anyone on the other team. Unbelievable!!!!
After a second of thought,,,,,and I am standing there. People are starting to wonder why I am not shooting now.
I take the cue,,,and drop it on the table and walk away and sit down.
No one knows what is going on.
Opponent comes over and asks,,,whats going on. And I tell him he has BIH,,choice!!! LMAO
He was in shock!! I explained what happened.
He ran the table out!!!
I have seen this guy many many times since at different tourneys. He buys me a drink and reminds me of that moment every time.
I think it's always up to you to police yourself. Personally, it's important that I maintain my integrity, however, just as it takes two to play that game, it takes two to maintain the integrity of the game. There have been situations that became so ridiculous where I had to make the decision to put my cue away or begin to play the same game my opponent was playing. There are times that maintaining my own integrity means stop putting up with crap and there are times that I firmly believe that the best way to beat a snake is to get right down in the gutter with them so you see them eye to eye. I'll never be the one to begin the questionable play, but there are times that I've been the one to finish it. If I can beat you at your own game, next time you'll have to play my game, I make sure they know that much.
Age-old thing will never die, but what the hell. It's fun to debate apparently.
• "I'll never lie if they ask me, but if they don't ask me, that's on them".
This is what's called "Lying by omission" and it's still a form of lying.
• "The rules don't explicitly state whose job it is to call fouls."
No but the rules DO state "It is the player's responsibility to be aware of all rules, regulations and schedules"
It logically follows that if it is the player's own responsibility to KNOW the rules,
they are also responsible to FOLLOW the rules. Just as the ref isn't expected to babysit you
and make sure you know when your next match is, or whether jump cues are allowed...
the ref shouldn't be expected to babysit you and make sure your fouls get called.
See also Matt's paste from the "Area ref" rules.
"the players are still expected to observe all the rules of the game."
They wouldn't explicitly say this, if the author's intent is "if only the shooter saw it, it never happened".
• "The rules say that if a foul passes without anyone calling it, it's considered to have never happened.
This is 'proof' that they're ok with the shooter not calling fouls."
No, this rule was added to prevent 'retroactive' foul calling.
Retroactive calls need to be avoided because they have huge potential for abuse and hassle.
For example, the opponent fouls on the 2 ball, you let him run the whole rack and wait until
he's straight in on the 10 before saying "foul!" and collecting ball in hand.
Without this stipulation, players would endlessly bicker about long-past events.
This boils down to "Please ddress fouls in a timely fashion" not "if you can sneak fouls under the radar
successfully, you get a pass for them."
Something like the rule is part of all major sports and only proves a desire to keep the game moving.
• "The rules say all questionable calls go to the shooter, this 'proves' they don't expect
the shooter to call fouls on himself.
This is another necessary evil to save time. If it's too close to call, shots must be resolved in some way.
The game cannot just stop forever while players bicker. So this gives a hard-and-fast rule to resolve these
disputes that doesn't rely on spectators, character witness, swearing on a bible, or flipping a coin.
No part of this rule implies it's ok to keep quiet about your own foul.
Finally, Matt makes a good point about the sportsmanship rule.
You can argue that it SHOULDN'T be considered bad sportsmanship to not admit fouls.
But it IS. Take a poll. The majority will say it's bad sportsmanship. Therefore, fair or not,
it brings disrepute to the game of pool when you hide your own fouls.
Doing this also affects the outcome of the match, it
"disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly".
• "I'll never lie if they ask me, but if they don't ask me, that's on them".
This is what's called "Lying by omission" and it's still a form of lying.
• "The rules don't explicitly state whose job it is to call fouls."
No but the rules DO state "It is the player's responsibility to be aware of all rules, regulations and schedules"
It logically follows that if it is the player's own responsibility to KNOW the rules,
they are also responsible to FOLLOW the rules. Just as the ref isn't expected to babysit you
and make sure you know when your next match is, or whether jump cues are allowed...
the ref shouldn't be expected to babysit you and make sure your fouls get called.
See also Matt's paste from the "Area ref" rules.
"the players are still expected to observe all the rules of the game."
They wouldn't explicitly say this, if the author's intent is "if only the shooter saw it, it never happened".
• "The rules say that if a foul passes without anyone calling it, it's considered to have never happened.
This is 'proof' that they're ok with the shooter not calling fouls."
No, this rule was added to prevent 'retroactive' foul calling.
Retroactive calls need to be avoided because they have huge potential for abuse and hassle.
For example, the opponent fouls on the 2 ball, you let him run the whole rack and wait until
he's straight in on the 10 before saying "foul!" and collecting ball in hand.
Without this stipulation, players would endlessly bicker about long-past events.
This boils down to "Please ddress fouls in a timely fashion" not "if you can sneak fouls under the radar
successfully, you get a pass for them."
Something like the rule is part of all major sports and only proves a desire to keep the game moving.
• "The rules say all questionable calls go to the shooter, this 'proves' they don't expect
the shooter to call fouls on himself.
This is another necessary evil to save time. If it's too close to call, shots must be resolved in some way.
The game cannot just stop forever while players bicker. So this gives a hard-and-fast rule to resolve these
disputes that doesn't rely on spectators, character witness, swearing on a bible, or flipping a coin.
No part of this rule implies it's ok to keep quiet about your own foul.
Finally, Matt makes a good point about the sportsmanship rule.
You can argue that it SHOULDN'T be considered bad sportsmanship to not admit fouls.
But it IS. Take a poll. The majority will say it's bad sportsmanship. Therefore, fair or not,
it brings disrepute to the game of pool when you hide your own fouls.
Doing this also affects the outcome of the match, it
"disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly".
:smile:
I would of said "whoops" and kept shooting. It's not a foul unless someone calls it.:thumbup:
Neither can I, but there are a lot of times where you don't get to choose your opponent. These sort of problems seem to be the norm in tournaments and leagues, almost as frequent as handicap disputes. Double hits, nudging the CB during a practice stroke, and determining a good hit on near simultaneous hits are some of the common culprits. To add to the confusion, there are often beginner players that really don't know that they or their opponent have fouled. It's the players that clearly know better that bother me.
We have addressed this before in months past. It is apparent there will be no "meeting of the minds" on this topic but we can approach the situation as it relates to what is the most Fair when playing pool.
If we rely on both players to call fouls, we can never be sure if our opponent adhered to the agreement so this is not a viable option. This is what everyone is arguing about now.
If we rely only on the shooter to call fouls....again, the non shooter can never be sure his opponent lived up to the agreement.
BUT:
If we rely on the non-shooter to call all fouls, we can be sure that our opponent lived up to the agreement since the shooter has no obligation to assist his opponent.
This is the most fair approach to applying fouls since both parties play by the same rule and both parties know that their opponent is adhering to the rules.
There, it's settled!
Have all non-shooters be accountable for calling fouls and all is well with the world.
Now wasn't that easy......
If we rely on both players to call fouls, we can never be sure if our opponent adhered to the agreement so this is not a viable option. This is what everyone is arguing about now.
If we rely only on the shooter to call fouls....again, the non shooter can never be sure his opponent lived up to the agreement.
BUT:
If we rely on the non-shooter to call all fouls, we can be sure that our opponent lived up to the agreement since the shooter has no obligation to assist his opponent.
This is the most fair approach to applying fouls since both parties play by the same rule and both parties know that their opponent is adhering to the rules.
There, it's settled!
Have all non-shooters be accountable for calling fouls and all is well with the world.
Now wasn't that easy......
Last edited:
Are you kidding me???? This is one of the dumbest responses I have heard in awhile. And is the reason I hardly ever post on this forum.
All that happened in a manner of seconds!!!! Not a big production out of anything. Your WAY off on your opinion!!! LMAO
And he didn't leave,,,he was standing right there ,,along with everyone else. I'll slow down a bit for you ,,,,,no body seen this happen !!!!!!!!! Except for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Probally because the cue ,, barley hit the other balll,,,,. Lmao!!!!
And BTW,,,I was not mad about it,,,it wasnt meant to be a bad thing. I did the honest move and walked away in a very important game.
Last edited:
Bob, if there was no drama....if morality didn't influence every decision, if the rules were so clear that there was no interpretation, then this website would have no reason to exist.
There's always one group looking to label someone else as the "bad" guy. Someone who stole a game by doing something contrary to their perspective.
They label them as cheaters and liars or they proclaim that they lack character or perhaps they have no integrity.
Having a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the rules does not make you any of these labels....any more than thinking your opinion to be the correct one would make you virtuous, honest or righteous.
I fear that if people saw the light in this they would realize that the forces of evil are not conspiring to ruin their pool/billiard experience and this website might fail to exist.
There's always one group looking to label someone else as the "bad" guy. Someone who stole a game by doing something contrary to their perspective.
They label them as cheaters and liars or they proclaim that they lack character or perhaps they have no integrity.
Having a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the rules does not make you any of these labels....any more than thinking your opinion to be the correct one would make you virtuous, honest or righteous.
I fear that if people saw the light in this they would realize that the forces of evil are not conspiring to ruin their pool/billiard experience and this website might fail to exist.
Last edited:
lol. If I get a academy award for the show I put on,,,,,then you should credit for rewriting the constitution from you words about this.
Don't you think it is just a natural reaction,,, after fouling in this manner to look around at others,,,if for nothing else to see there reaction from it. Except in my case ,,,nobody had a reaction because they didnt see it happen.
No matter what I did at that point,,,I would need to explain what happened ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,at the risk of getting another award.
Is there anything else you like to discuss about what happened???LMAO
I'm willing to bet you would have just kept shooting,,right?? Did I mention,,this was a very important game. You would have kept shooting.
