Yep, I've been around this game long enough to know that it's best to just be a spectator and stay out of games that I'm not involved with.
Proposal: Implement a "call fouls on yourself" rule in pool
- Thread starter BRussell
- Start date
A famous quote by a 114 year old woman, who was the oldest person alive at the time was this. She was asked the boiler plate question as to what she attributed to having such a long life..... She was born in the late 1900's
Tend to your own business
Because back then....if you didn't ya got shot, and they went on with their day....law of the land. That mindset will Always hold true no matter what century your living in.
Please, I have explained this to you multiple times. Go back and read it again if you want to.
My view is that the rules require it. So for me to fail to call a foul I committed (if the opponent or ref did not call it) would, to me, be cheating. But not everyone reads the rules the way I do. Some players honestly believe they are not required to call fouls on themselves. So in their minds they would not be cheating. This difference of opinion on whether it is cheating could easily be eliminated by adding explicit language.
Given my view of the rules, I believe pool operates improperly whenever someone knows he fouls but allows the game to continue as if he did not foul. An explicit statement about self-reporting fouls could help.
.
I realize that you and I will never change each other's mind on this issue but I will say one more thing on the topic.
The rules are designed to establish guidelines in order to mitigate confusion and conflict.
If it was the intention of those who wrote the rules to require someone to call a foul on themselves then it would be near the top of the list on things to be regulated.
It would be foolish to believe they omitted the specific language on this matter out of neglect or incompetence.
It was clearly the intent of those setting the rules "Not to require a person to call a foul on themselves" nor to prevent them from doing so either.
If the rules do not address this issue specifically, then clearly it is upon each individual to decide if they choose to self call the foul and in that regard....failure to self call a foul cannot be cheating except to those who choose to infuse their own moral perspective and label it as such.
Keep in mind that the rules must apply equally to everyone. To have an implied rule that allows some to be deemed cheaters and others not, for doing the same thing, is to concede that the implied rule does not apply equally and therefore is not a rule at all.
I think that when we impose " implied rules", we create unnecessary controversy and act contrary to the purpose of the actual rules....which is to remove confusion and ambiguity from the game.
Just out of curiosity.....how would you perceive the situation if they included a rule that said the shooter is not required to self call a foul?
Would you still consider it cheating?
If you're able to answer "No" to that question because it's in the rules, then surely you can consider those who choose not to self call fouls as also being right by virtue of the fact that there currently is no rule requiring it.
If the rules do not provide language one way or the other, then who are we to judge?
Last edited:
In the WPA rules that were referred to by the OP, section 6 on fouls:
"If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened."
So the existence of a foul is dependent upon whether or not it's called. Also, this seems to imply that calling a foul before the next shot is optional.
So if neither player is required to call a foul when it happens, then it's up to the non-shooting player to make sure fouls are called.
I don't agree with the rule, but if you set your morals and ethics aside, it seems like the rules allow for not only being silent when you commit a foul, but to also continue shooting as if a foul never occurred, if the opponent or referee does not call it.
EDIT:
In addition, if you look at 6.16: Unsportsmanlike Conduct:
"d) continuing to play after a foul has been called"
Notice how it doesn't say it's unsportsmanlike conduct if you continue to play after you commit a foul. It specifically says it only applies when a foul is called.
"If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened."
So the existence of a foul is dependent upon whether or not it's called. Also, this seems to imply that calling a foul before the next shot is optional.
So if neither player is required to call a foul when it happens, then it's up to the non-shooting player to make sure fouls are called.
I don't agree with the rule, but if you set your morals and ethics aside, it seems like the rules allow for not only being silent when you commit a foul, but to also continue shooting as if a foul never occurred, if the opponent or referee does not call it.
EDIT:
In addition, if you look at 6.16: Unsportsmanlike Conduct:
"d) continuing to play after a foul has been called"
Notice how it doesn't say it's unsportsmanlike conduct if you continue to play after you commit a foul. It specifically says it only applies when a foul is called.
Last edited:
Well said!
I suspect there are many out there who will not want to accept the reality of your findings and will continue to deny what is right before their eyes.
I don't even see anywhere in the WPA rules that states if a referee isn't present and the players disagree on whether a foul happened or not, that it's the shooter's call.
EDIT: Nevermind, I found it: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#5
"5. Playing with an “Area” Referee
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. The recommended way to conduct play in this situation is as follows.
The non-shooting player will perform all of the duties of the referee. If, prior to a particular shot, the shooting player feels that his opponent will not be able to properly judge the shot, he should ask the area referee to watch the shot. The non-shooting player may also ask for such attention if he feels that he is unable or is unwilling to rule on the shot. Either player has the power to suspend play until he is satisfied with the way the match is being refereed.
If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred."
EDIT: Nevermind, I found it: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#5
"5. Playing with an “Area” Referee
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. The recommended way to conduct play in this situation is as follows.
The non-shooting player will perform all of the duties of the referee. If, prior to a particular shot, the shooting player feels that his opponent will not be able to properly judge the shot, he should ask the area referee to watch the shot. The non-shooting player may also ask for such attention if he feels that he is unable or is unwilling to rule on the shot. Either player has the power to suspend play until he is satisfied with the way the match is being refereed.
If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred."
Last edited:
Wait a second. AtLarge has said it's not in the rules, and he thinks it should be. I believe his argument is that the current rules would work better if an explicit change was made to include a shooter calls rule. But he's not saying that such a rule is currently explicitly there.
I'm saying the issue is explicitly covered in the rules, and according to the rules, the shooting player is not responsible for calling the foul. The rules even go so far as to say that when a referee isn't present, the non-shooting player acts as referee. See my edit to the post above.
So, that would mean the OP is actually proposing a change to the rules, not an addition.
Last edited:
He acknowledges that the verbiage is not there; however, his contention is that "the rules require it" as cited from a previous post in this thread. I get the feeling he sees it as an implied rule but not 100% sure. Maybe he can provide additional clarity.
I'm not clear if he's admitting it's not in the rules or if he's saying it is in the rules but simply implied somewhere. In either event, he considers it breaking a rule if you don't self call a foul.
What makes it "sticky" is that now a player who breaks the "unwritten rule" can be labeled a cheater and that's not good for the sport.
Last edited:
I don't think we are communicating effectively. Let me try again.
This thread started out with the assumption that the rules the OP was referencing (WPA) do not contain anything that explicitly states whether or not players are responsible for calling fouls on themselves when they happen.
The OP wanted to remove any ambiguity that allowed players to morally justify not calling a foul on themselves. To do this, he simply wanted to add a rule that explicitly stated something that was previously not addressed in the rules.
However, after I recently looked at the rules, it does seem as if the rules explicitly state that it's not the shooting player's responsibility to call fouls, and that fouls don't actually occur until they are called. It also states that the non-shooting player acts as referee as far as calling fouls in the case that there is no referee present. So it's solely the non-shooters responsibility to call the foul.
So, "the big deal" is that it's one thing to add a new rule that provides clarification for something previously not addressed, but adding a rule that directly conflicts with the current rules is entirely different.
I am the original poster, and I personally don’t care whether it’s just a few lines being added or a few have to be deleted too. Rules like this are changed all the time. The simpler the change, the easier it is, of course, but looking at everything I don’t believe more than a few sections would need changes.
I think the current rules are more ambiguous on this than you suggest, and I don’t really agree with your conclusion that the WPA rules currently say “it's solely the non-shooters responsibility to call the foul.” Nowhere does it say only non-shooters can call fouls, nor does it say shooters aren’t supposed to call their own fouls. Even in the 'area referee' section that you cite, it says the shooter can override the non-shooter and ask the ref to come over to make the call.
And furthermore, it also says this:
If the non-shooting player is sitting in a chair, that’s not really conducive to calling fouls on the shooter. If they want the non-shooting player calling all fouls, that needs to be changed.
All of this suggests to me that it’s ambiguous, with maybe slightly more evidence pointing to the responsibility of non-shooters to call fouls. But look, I see that as part of the problem. It’s where the “I don’t have to call my own fouls” attitude comes from, and I think it should be changed. Address it directly, don't dance around it like the current rules. Don't leave room for this debate.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on the rule being easy to add/change. That has nothing to do with it. It would be easy for them to change any rule they want theoretically. The point is that the implications of the change are far greater if it clearly contradicts the current rules. At first, it was just a clarification of something left out of the rules. Now I believe it's completely changing a rule that already exists.
Obviously shooters can call fouls on themselves, the question is if they are required to do so by the rules. The rules clearly don't say they are responsible for calling their own fouls.
"If a foul is not called before the next shot begins, the foul is assumed not to have happened."
This clearly states that the result of not calling a foul is that the foul never happened. It's not against the rules to not call a foul. You can argue all you want that what they are saying isn't explicit enough, in order to suit your argument, but I see no ambiguity here.
Then, the fact that the rules actually say that the non-shooter is to act as referee, when there is no actual referee, makes it abundantly clear that it's the responsibility of the non-shooter to watch and call fouls, not the shooter.
Yes, and what's your point? Obviously the non-shooting player doesn't get to make the final decision on whether or not a foul actually happened. They act as referee as far as watching and calling fouls when they believe one has happened. Clearly if the shooting player disagrees, then the call goes to the shooter. This is about who's responsibility it is to call the foul, not who's responsibility it is to determine if the call was correct or not.
All you are saying here is that you disagree with the rules, which is understandable. It doesn't support your conclusion that the rules are ambiguous however.
I understand that you don't agree with the rules. I don't either. I'm simply saying that it's more feasible and less opinionated when you want to add a rule that only clarifies what was already the supported belief. When your proposed change clearly contradicts the existing rules, however, getting it added/changed requires changing people's minds about the current rule, and proving your rule is the best alternative.
Last edited:
Railbird, you are one of the few people who actually sees the logic in the rules as I do.
I have debated with many here for years and actually cited many of the specific rules that you referenced to support what is clearly a non-ambiguous rule and yet, there are many in denial. They simply can't accept that their perceptions are so far off base.
I think the core of the problem is that many people expect the rules to establish a "fair" and "equitable" standard. Fortunately, the rules here do provide just that; however, when individuals seek to impose their own perceptions of "fair" contrary to the established rules, we encounter problems.
This is why there are many who are quick to judge those who don't self call fouls. They simply think it's a breach of fairness. In fact, this couldn't be further from the truth and the rules provide ample clarity to support the shooters decision.
Perhaps if people actually took the time to read the rules, they would come to the same conclusion.