Proposal: Implement a "call fouls on yourself" rule in pool

[railbird99]

lol yes you could get around the rules, just like right now you could simply deny that an obvious foul has occurred and force the decision to the shooter. I think you overestimate how enforceable any pool rules are currently. There are no pool police or pool juries or pool prisons, but making a rule change like this could change otherwise honest people's attitudes about this situation, which I believe would improve sportsmanship.

I'm not under the impression that rules make cheaters go away, in the same way that laws don't make criminals go away. They're just a way for a group to explicitly declare how people are supposed to act.

If anyone is overestimating how enforceable the rules are, it's definitely you. You say this rule would make it so honest people would call fouls on themselves. In your example with the rule in place, the shooter committed a foul, and didn't call it on himself. He just sat down. That means that he isn't one of the honest people affected by the rule, because he ignored it. Therefore, in that scenario, the rule is still not enforceable, and doesn't make a difference.

 

[philly]

I agree.

Besides, i consider most of the people that play around me to be my friends. I wouldn't allow them to be cheated because some twit was fast enough to pull one over on them.

I would also tell people if a restaurant's food sucked or if a car was a lemon. Guess im just a knocker that way.

If you're more likely to get in a fight because you point out cheating than you are for cheating someone, it's a bad place and not worth my time or money.

Banks. Your watching a match and you see a bad hit. The shooter makes a bad hit. None of the players say a thing. You, watching the match, would call him on it out loud?

 

[BRussell]

By definition laws serve only to create criminals.

Right, no one thinks you pass a law and then that ends that problem. How'd that work with alcohol?

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

Right, no one thinks you pass a law and then that ends that problem. How'd that work with alcohol?

Try to keep up, this isn't a hard concept.

Well, let's see...

...before prohibition there were millions of people who drank a legal beverage, therefore none of them were engaged in criminal activity simply by consuming alcohol.

During prohibition there were millions of people who did the exact same thing they did before prohibition, but were engaging in criminal behavior.

Therefore these people ONLY became criminals because of the law.

Because they became criminals they could be punished for their behavior.

 

[BRussell]

If anyone is overestimating how enforceable the rules are, it's definitely you. You say this rule would make it so honest people would call fouls on themselves. In your example with the rule in place, the shooter committed a foul, and didn't call it on himself. He just sat down. That means that he isn't one of the honest people affected by the rule, because he ignored it. Therefore, in that scenario, the rule is still not enforceable, and doesn't make a difference.

It wouldn't make a difference to the cheater intent on cheating, but no rule makes a difference to them. It does make a difference to someone who didn't yet know the rule, or to the cheater who is embarrassed into changing.

 

[BRussell]

Try to keep up, this isn't a hard concept.

Well, let's see...

...before prohibition there were millions of people who drank a legal beverage, therefore none of them were engaged in criminal activity simply by consuming alcohol.

During prohibition there were millions of people who did the exact same thing they did before prohibition, but were engaging in criminal behavior.

Therefore these people ONLY became criminals because of the law.

Because they became criminals they could be punished for their behavior.

lol no not hard and in fact about as trivial as they come which is why I was 100% agreeing with you in that post, and in fact made the point prior to you.

 

[ElCorazonFrio]

lol no not hard and in fact about as trivial as they come which is why I was 100% agreeing with you in that post, and in fact made the point prior to you.

Sorry, misread your post. Glad we agree.

 

[railbird99]

lol yes you could get around the rules, just like right now you could simply deny that an obvious foul has occurred and force the decision to the shooter.

You realize there is no rule that prevents a shooter from denying an obvious foul. The rules state that it goes to the shooter if there is a disagreement. So that doesn't do anything to prove your statement that all rules aren't enforceable, because that isn't a rule in the first place. It also illustrates my point. The reason the rule doesn't exist, and the reason it wouldn't make a difference is because it isn't enforceable.

 

[railbird99]

It wouldn't make a difference to the cheater intent on cheating, but no rule makes a difference to them. It does make a difference to someone who didn't yet know the rule, or to the cheater who is embarrassed into changing.

Again, my opinion was that when a person learns of this rule, it won't change their actions because they will still do what they deem to be right/wrong, since the rule is not enforceable. Your example does nothing to prove otherwise. You are just offering an alternative way the player learns about the rule.

 

[AtLarge]

It seems to me that if you could implement a rule that requires a player to call a foul on themselves, there would never be a way to enforce it without a referee seeing it.

If a player commits a foul and the opponent sees it they simply call the foul but if a shooter commits a foul and the opponent doesn't see it, who's going to know?
If the shooter says nothing, then no penalty. And what would be the motivation for something that has no penalty.

Making it a rule that you have to call a foul on yourself is unenforceable.

Since the shooter holds the high ground on disputed shots, even if someone else claims it was a foul, the opponent never saw it so the shooter can simply claim it wasn't a foul. " He said , she said" isn't grounds to enforce the foul.

All in all, this puts us right back where we are now with the rules omitting the language that requires a player to call a foul on themselves.

Personally, I think the specific language requiring a player to call a foul on themselves was omitted because of the reasons cited above.

To put it in the rules would open up a can of worms requiring much more clarity than could ever be managed.
If the fouling party denies it was a foul, would we require two outside observers to see the foul to enforce it?
Would they have to be people who were not associates of the player to avoid a conflict of interest? It just gets too convoluted to make it a viable rule.

I wonder how this would work if we required all sports to implement a rule that held competitors to inform their opponent they did something contrary to the rules?

As the rules stand right now, he who is not shooting is accountable to catch all fouls and I think, in this area, the rules are best served as they are.

The topic of whether a player has an obligation to call fouls on himself has been debated many times on AzB. [I can provide a partial list of prior threads if anyone is interested.] You and I have been part of that debate more than once. Some people (including you) feel the answer is "no," because they can't find any explicit statement to that effect in the rules. Others (myself included) feel differently. I feel the current WPA (world-standardized) rules, though lacking explicit language requiring self-reporting, still require it in order for the given rules to operate properly.

But adding explicit language to that effect may be helpful. "Enforceability" is not the issue. Cheaters will be cheaters. But some players who do not currently self-report their fouls may begin to do so, as BRussell has already said. That's a good thing.

Last year, a section was added to the rules for American Rotation to explicitly require a player to call fouls on himself. I am not aware of any problems this has caused.

 

[BRussell]

You realize there is no rule that prevents a shooter from denying an obvious foul. The rules state that it goes to the shooter if there is a disagreement. So that doesn't do anything to prove your statement that all rules aren't enforceable, because that isn't a rule in the first place. It also illustrates my point. The reason the rule doesn't exist, and the reason it wouldn't make a difference is because it isn't enforceable.

Again, my opinion was that when a person learns of this rule, it won't change their actions because they will still do what they deem to be right/wrong, since the rule is not enforceable. Your example does nothing to prove otherwise. You are just offering an alternative way the player learns about the rule.

Look I understand your argument and I think you understand mine, so at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves. So let me ask you this: How would you feel about something like this being in an etiquette section, or maybe a preamble that states players are expected to call fouls on themselves when their opponent isn't aware of the foul. It's not a rule, no penalty is provided, it's just a statement of etiquette.

 

[Banks]

Your watching a match and you see a bad hit. The shooter makes a bad hit. None of the players say a thing. You, watching the match, would call him on it out loud?

If both players see it and don't consider it a bad hit, then it's none of mine and i wouldn't want to have to explain to them why if neither understood.

 

[Banks]

Look I understand your argument and I think you understand mine, so at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves. So let me ask you this: How would you feel about something like this being in an etiquette section, or maybe a preamble that states players are expected to call fouls on themselves when their opponent isn't aware of the foul. It's not a rule, no penalty is provided, it's just a statement of etiquette.

That's where leagues and player groups come into play. Without some kind of consequences for deplorable conduct, it's just a hope. Until then, business as usual.

 

[hang-the-9]

Only rule in pool that I would like to change is making it so that no one can put
their chalk on the rail while they're playing.

I know it sounds funny and weird but I have seen too many players who put
their chalks in a spot on the rail that they need to shoot at in order to get around
a ball or when they do combination shots and even for bank shots.

It's pointless to point it out to them because there is simply no rule against doing this.
It's annoying as hell and really you're hands are tied.

Best way to avoid the whole thing is to make a rule:
No chalk (or any other device) on the rail at any time during the entire game.

There is a rule about marking the table for a shot, if you feel they are using the chalk to mark the shot you can have them move it.

 

[hang-the-9]

I get around this issue by just avoiding having to play people and in places where a player will try to hide or ignore a foul unless called out on it.

In the pool room I mainly play in, you could walk away from the table, the shooter would foul, and you will be safe to come back 5 minutes later with him sitting there waiting for you with the ball on the rail. In league if I felt the best player to judge a close hit was on the opposing team, I'd feel fine with having them watch my hit without finding a neutral player. I've seen cases where the opposing team captain agreed with a ruling even if his own player though otherwise.

One must choose his battles wisely as the saying goes, same goes for pool rooms :smile:

 

[rrick33]

The topic of whether a player has an obligation to call fouls on himself has been debated many times on AzB. [I can provide a partial list of prior threads if anyone is interested.] You and I have been part of that debate more than once. Some people (including you) feel the answer is "no," because they can't find any explicit statement to that effect in the rules. Others (myself included) feel differently. I feel the current WPA (world-standardized) rules, though lacking explicit language requiring self-reporting, still require it in order for the given rules to operate properly.

But adding explicit language to that effect may be helpful. "Enforceability" is not the issue. Cheaters will be cheaters. But some players who do not currently self-report their fouls may begin to do so, as BRussell has already said. That's a good thing.

Last year, a section was added to the rules for American Rotation to explicitly require a player to call fouls on himself. I am not aware of any problems this has caused.

It seems we are still at odds and probably because you apply a personal judgment or moral viewpoint to the rules that may not be applicable.

To say that "Cheaters will be cheaters" would suggest that you believe not calling a foul on yourself is cheating.

This has been the true dispute for many all along and has been debated ad nauseum in previous threads as well.

Even many of those who fought stringently to defend your viewpoint in previous debates admitted that they would not call a foul on themselves if there was enough money on the line.
It would seem that many who infuse "morality" into the rules are willing to modify their position if the personal gain outweighs the moral consequence.

Even our judicial system, which is designed to protect the interests of all, doesn't require a person to incriminate themselves. If you murder someone, the law requires the police to advise you of your rights not to incriminate yourself.

You're not even required to testify to your accuser.

If we don't require it for murder then how silly does it seem to require it for tapping the wrong pool ball?

What do you think the average person would think if we made a law that said you have to confess every time you break the law.

They would say that's ludicrous and perhaps exactly the reason we don't have such a law.

Can you imagine all those speed demons on the road lined up at the local police station to get their speeding tickets. I imagine just about everyone on AZ billiards would be standing in that line.

If there's anyone viewing this thread who broke the speed limit and then turned themselves in, please chime in.

 

[BRussell]

That's where leagues and player groups come into play. Without some kind of consequences for deplorable conduct, it's just a hope. Until then, business as usual.

You mean to informally pass the word?

But yeah I agree that there should be an unsportsmanlike conduct foul available. I'm just wondering if railbird99 is against the whole principle of calling fouls on yourself, or just making rules about it.

 

[AtLarge]

It seems we are still at odds and probably because you apply a personal judgment or moral viewpoint to the rules that may not be applicable.

As I have told you more than once in the past, my argument for self-reporting is based on the rules, not on morals, ethics. etc. Plenty of other people have covered the latter aspects of it. I simply argued that the rules (the existing WPA rules) require it, even without explicit wording to that effect.

To say that "Cheaters will be cheaters" would suggest that you believe not calling a foul on yourself is cheating.

My statement that you quoted is in the context of having rules with explicit wording added to require self reporting. With that wording, someone who does not report a foul that he knows he committed, and the foul is not called by the opponent or a referee, would be a cheater.

As for the rest of your post, I view citing things about the judicial system, self incrimination, murder, speeders, etc. as quite irrelevant. The same goes for what happens in big-time sports, as people often bring that up, too. What I'm talking about is just the rules for pool and what is required for them to operate properly.

I know what I say here will not change your mind; that is clear from multiple threads in the past. Let's not do another back-and-forth.

 

[railbird99]

You mean to informally pass the word?

But yeah I agree that there should be an unsportsmanlike conduct foul available. I'm just wondering if railbird99 is against the whole principle of calling fouls on yourself, or just making rules about it.

I definitely believe everyone should call fouls on themselves. However, if someone is honest, but believes they aren't responsible for calling a foul, then so be it. Anytime this could be an issue, such as when you don't see your opponent's shot, or it's a close call, just ask them if it was a foul. Then any honest player will admit to it.

I'm not against there being a rule stating that you must call fouls on yourself. I'm just saying I don't think adding the rule will accomplish anything, because it's not enforceable, and players will still justify their decision to call fouls or not based on their personal beliefs, not a rule.

It's much easier to create rules that say you can't do something, then when you do it, it's clear it's wrong. But creating a rule that says being silent (not doing anything) and sitting down is against the rules in a certain situation is very easy to dismiss and not follow.

 

[rrick33]

As I have told you more than once in the past, my argument for self-reporting is based on the rules, not on morals, ethics. etc. Plenty of other people have covered the latter aspects of it. I simply argued that the rules (the existing WPA rules) require it, even without explicit wording to that effect.



How do you figure it's required if not stated in the rules?
This point escapes me. You cannot enforce "implied" rules.



My statement that you quoted is in the context of having rules with explicit wording added to require self reporting. With that wording, someone who does not report a foul that he knows he committed, and the foul is not called by the opponent or a referee, would be a cheater.



In that isolated situation they would; however the vast majority of leagues do not include that rule. Are you now confirming that if the rule is not in the book then failing to call a foul on yourself is not cheating? If you're not willing to admit that, then how can you deny that there is a moral judgment involved?

As for the rest of your post, I view citing things about the judicial system, self incrimination, murder, speeders, etc. as quite irrelevant. The same goes for what happens in big-time sports, as people often bring that up, too. What I'm talking about is just the rules for pool and what is required for them to operate properly.

Do you really believe that pool has been operating improperly because this statement hasn't been included in the rules?

I know what I say here will not change your mind; that is clear from multiple threads in the past. Let's not do another back-and-forth.

I agree that our opinions will not change on this issue.