Second notice on three-foul rule

P

PaulAlex7000

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you're playing in a tourney where you are on 2 of an attempted 3-foul move, and the opponent does not state to you -- either thru verbal or gesture -- that you are on 2 and he three-fouls you, would you accept loss of game or make an issue of it where he didn't notify you of 2.

If it matters at all, that almost happened to me, I got out of it. But opponent was shooting much better than me, so even if I won that game on a technicality, chances were very good that he would end up winning the match.
 
PaulAlex7000 said:
If you're playing in a tourney where you are on 2 of an attempted 3-foul move, and the opponent does not state to you -- either thru verbal or gesture -- that you are on 2 and he three-fouls you, would you accept loss of game or make an issue of it where he didn't notify you of 2.

If it matters at all, that almost happened to me, I got out of it. But opponent was shooting much better than me, so even if I won that game on a technicality, chances were very good that he would end up winning the match.
Click to expand...
It is usually made pretty clear that it is the NON-shooter's responsibility to mention that the shooter is on 2. So, as the shooter, I would not give him the game if I were to commit the 3rd foul.

I do not think this is an ethics question (like calling a foul on yourself if your opponent didn't see it). There are many "gray" areas in pool. I was in a 9-ball tournament 3 weeks ago ($80 entry fee) and stopped my opponent before he shot because he was lining up on the 4-ball when the 3 was still on the table. I know a lot of players who wouldn't have done this, but that's the way I play the game. Karma and all that.
 
there is a rule requiring a referee or a non-shooting player to make a warning just after the second foul occurs and in the next opponent's visit prior to possible third foul. If there is no warning, it is violation of that part of the rule. Penalty is described there later (third foul is considered to be only second). No ethics invoved really. Unless there is a notification, you are clean.
 
It's a necissary rule and was put there for a reason. It's the same as calling a frozen ball. It's part of the game and if you or your opp. don't stay ontop of things like that is as bad as not knowing how to make a ball.

That being said, it is a rule I can find myself bending if I don't feel that there was anything sneaky going on (i.e; I will take the loss)


But I think the more important thing is learning how to kick, no body should get 3 fouled!
 
Along the same lines, I think if your opponent fails to tell you you are on 2, and you miss the hit....it's his shot with ball in hand and you are still on 2....correct me if I'm wrong?
 
Gerry said:
Along the same lines, I think if your opponent fails to tell you you are on 2, and you miss the hit....it's his shot with ball in hand and you are still on 2....correct me if I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are still on 2, but he has to warn you.
 
because it's a rule i tend to adhere to it. but i don't completely agree with it. i mean, if my opponent is not watching the game does he deserve to get his ass saved by my warning? And vice verca. Because it's a rule i would complain, but inside me i would just be angry at myself for not paying attention.
 
dream on...

But I think the more important thing is learning how to kick, no body should get 3 fouled![/QUOTE]:rolleyes:

While it is somewhat rare... I don't know of anyone that cannot be caught with the 3 foul rule... even with the use of jump cues. Most of the time the player will go for the run-out with ball in hand after the first or second foul, but if you give me ball in hand after 2 fouls and there is a very good hook presenting itself, or there are balls tied up... get ready to lose the game on a 3 foul ruling.

Additionally, many people get upset when they lose a game due to the 3 foul rule. Because of this I will sometimes pick this route just to unsettle my opponent.

Myself, I'm thrilled if my opponent tries to 3 foul me... at least I'm getting back to the table. Its very difficult to win a game if you're not at the table.
 
Shortside K said:
But I think the more important thing is learning how to kick, no body should get 3 fouled!
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

While it is somewhat rare... I don't know of anyone that cannot be caught with the 3 foul rule... even with the use of jump cues. Most of the time the player will go for the run-out with ball in hand after the first or second foul, but if you give me ball in hand after 2 fouls and there is a very good hook presenting itself, or there are balls tied up... get ready to lose the game on a 3 foul ruling.

Additionally, many people get upset when they lose a game due to the 3 foul rule. Because of this I will sometimes pick this route just to unsettle my opponent.

Myself, I'm thrilled if my opponent tries to 3 foul me... at least I'm getting back to the table. Its very difficult to win a game if you're not at the table.[/QUOTE]

it depends on the spread of the table. sometimes if the table is a bit clustered and you have ball in hand it's very easy to glue the cue ball to another ball. then no matter how good your kicking is, you don't have to escape that.
 
This is a rule that simply cannot be taken casually. You have to get up there and state firmly, "You're on two fouls" and make sure your opponent acknowledges your statement. I'm not going to get into the ethics of it - whether or not it's right to win this way. That's not my call. Those are the rules and if you choose to not play this way, you will only be victim to it and never reap its rewards.

Don't be the guy who says to a referee, "Well, I told him but I don't think he heard me." This isn't good enough. You want eye-contact. You want an acknowledgement (a simple "yes" or a nod will do). You want there to be a clear understanding that the situation is special and if he fails to meet certain requirements, the game is over.

On the otherhand, I've also been the guy who didn't realize I was on two fouls only to be told after. It changes my kicking strategy. Instead of going for a particular side of a ball, I'm going to try to hit the ball full in the face. I know the rule and I rely on it. I'm under the impression that ANY foul is probably going to result in a loss ANYWAY so I'm always trying to make contact but the 3-foul scenario will make me concede certain objectives when kicking.
 
rule

Jude Rosenstock said:
This is a rule that simply cannot be taken casually. You have to get up there and state firmly, "You're on two fouls" and make sure your opponent acknowledges your statement. I'm not going to get into the ethics of it - whether or not it's right to win this way. That's not my call. Those are the rules and if you choose to not play this way, you will only be victim to it and never reap its rewards.

Don't be the guy who says to a referee, "Well, I told him but I don't think he heard me." This isn't good enough. You want eye-contact. You want an acknowledgement (a simple "yes" or a nod will do). You want there to be a clear understanding that the situation is special and if he fails to meet certain requirements, the game is over.

On the otherhand, I've also been the guy who didn't realize I was on two fouls only to be told after. It changes my kicking strategy. Instead of going for a particular side of a ball, I'm going to try to hit the ball full in the face. I know the rule and I rely on it. I'm under the impression that ANY foul is probably going to result in a loss ANYWAY so I'm always trying to make contact but the 3-foul scenario will make me concede certain objectives when kicking.
Click to expand...
some times you have to HOLLER IT OUT LOUD " 2 fouls" JUST KIDDING :D :D :D
 
I know that this is pretty much an accepted rule, but where and how did it come about? Like the rule that says if you break your cue down you lose, I remember it pretty much came out of thin air.
 
Pushout said:
I know that this is pretty much an accepted rule, but where and how did it come about? Like the rule that says if you break your cue down you lose, I remember it pretty much came out of thin air.
Click to expand...


It's there to prevent stalemates. That's all I know. As for when it originated and by whom, I have no idea.
 
A bit overkill sometimes

Rules should be used to flow with the general design of the game. When a rule breaks that flow then alternatives should be considered to see if that would enhance the game.

Sometimes the 3 foul rule is a bit overkill...

Now, as has been stated, the rule was created to prevent stalemates which is valid of course...

1st of all it's a big let down when someone is on 2 fouls and thus their opponent comes to the table knowing that it's much easier to play certain lock up safeties than it would be for them to play it out. In those instances it can be quite a cheesy way to win.

When rules are utilized for the general public then there should be some consideration for the varying levels of play. For example, at the higher level they can kick and 2 rail kick and squeeze the cue ball into some tight positions in order to prevent fouls.
But at medium and lower level play they are often not nearly as good at preventing a foul. Thus 3 fouls can be much much too easy to occur. Cheesy win.

If instead of 3 foul rule, it was a 4 or 5 foul rule then that would also prevent stalemates. And it would have the benefit of allowing play on the table a better chance to play out to a natural conclusion.

That would actually give the opponent more of a chance to break open the cluster and potentially gain a strategic position with smart play. Instead of being backed up against such a big wall that your only hope is to break it open sloppily and wildly just to prevent the ensuing 3 foul and loss of game.

There may be some rare instances where that may not be true but overall that's the way it generally happens.

In conclusion, that 1 or 2 extra chances could create opportunities for more strategic play. And at the same time, if you 4 or 5 foul someone to win then it would be more of an accomplishment and less cheesy. Both would feel like the win was more earned.

Just $.02 from the gallery...
 
It's a rotten rule b/c sometimes some vet players wouldn't look you in the eye and then claim you didn't warn them.
Really when you get ball in hand for the second time, it should be enough to tell him that's my second ball in hand.
Also, I don't think scratches after the break should count as the first foul.
WTF? YOu break and scratch, guy hides the ball in the pack twice , you lose.
 
In my particular case, after the guy 2-fouled me, I escaped the third foul by successfully kicking, so luckily no issue arose. I guess I didn't want to appear to be a nit about it, if he had successfully 3-fouled me....
 
you can't be serious...

JoeyInCali said:
It's a rotten rule b/c sometimes some vet players wouldn't look you in the eye and then claim you didn't warn them.
Really when you get ball in hand for the second time, it should be enough to tell him that's my second ball in hand.
Also, I don't think scratches after the break should count as the first foul.
WTF? YOu break and scratch, guy hides the ball in the pack twice , you lose.
Click to expand...

If you are losing more than maybe one or 2 games a year to the 3 foul rule I think you better work on your kicking.

Also, I have NEVER had anyone deny that I have warned them about being on 2 fouls. If they did, I would have learned some valuable information about that player. Pool players rely on their reputations to allow them to play. If word gets out that a player lacks integrity... they are pretty much done... no one will want to play them.
 
I think the three foul rule is stupid, and should be dropped. One of my buddies recently played in the weekly tournament at Master's. He was playing a well known one pocket player. Well, all this guy wanted to do was play safe, and never pocket balls. In one game he had BIH with 3 OPEN balls on the table....HE PLAYED SAFE!! Since my buddy is a VERY SOLID player he did win the match. Afterwards, they had a conversation that went like this:

Buddy--"you should take up 3 cushion"
Opponent--"why do you say that?"
Buddy--"because there are no pockets on the table. So you will never be in danger of making a ball:eek: "
 
Fleece3 said:
I think the three foul rule is stupid
Click to expand...
I think if you allow yourself to get hooked 3 times in a row you deserve to lose the game. I also think if someone is good enough at their safety game to stick me on 3, they deserve full credit! This game is a lot more than just sinking balls.
 
I have come to a conclusion that if the opponent put you on one and then hides you again a second time and even better than the first time, his intentions are clear before you take that second shot, so it is better to make sure your second shot opens up the mess that he is using so he can't put you on #3. You chance him running out, but you have to weigh the odds of him three fouling you and see which is a worse outcome before you take that second shot. I hate being 3 fouled, but sometimes, the opponent sees a very good opportunity to mess you up and is an excellent defensive player. I prefer to take my chances and use the second foul to wax some other balls together myself to hopefully stop the run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top