You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
should I feel bad?
- Thread starter torgy2
- Start date
Bob Jewett has mentioned a couple of times that there are obsolete rule sets on the web and I'm not sure it this is the most current rule set.Sir there is a large difference in informing your opponent that you committed a foul and informing them that they are about to commit one.
Would you point to the rules which state that the opponent must act as the referee in a match without a referee? I just browsed the WPA rules and cannot find such a stipulation in regards to fouls. Fouls are defined but nothing is addressed about who should notify whom when one is committed.
In fact it is somewhat of a conflict of interest to have the opponent responsible for calling fouls. That seems counter-intuitive as it invites a situation where the non-shooting player can claim that a foul was committed when no foul was committed.
The fact is that when a foul is committed and the player at the table knows that he has in fact committed it then at that moment the situation is that the in coming player is owed ball in hand. That is the the reality of the situation. Withholding that information allows the outgoing player to commit an error and not be penalized. That is a cheating way of playing the game. What is the difference of committing a foul on purpose with no intention to inform the opponent and committing a foul by accident and not informing the opponent?
Any sufficiently advanced player knows when they can easily manipulate the balls without anyone noticing. A good player knows that the difference between an easily runnable table and a difficult one can be a few centimeters difference in ball position.
So the default should be that the outgoing player acknowledges and calls fouls on himself to maintain the integrity of the game because the realistic outcome of not doing so is truly indistinguishable from when a player deliberately commits a foul that they know they will get away with.
FTR I believe the shooter should call a foul on himself.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#5
(Effective 1/1/08)
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.
Try reading the whole thread, the OP's situation, my responses, and then you will have it in context. Also, read up on league rules, not just WPA rules that few in the country even play by. One other thing, you don't get to decide what the rules SHOULD be, change existing rules because you don't like them, and then call others cheats because they don't happen to play by what YOU THINK the rules should be. That's just ludicrous.
When looking at the situation from a moral standpoint then I can very well use the label of cheater when I feel that a person has done something that violates the ethics of the game regardless of what the rules say.
Do you have any copies of the rules which say that the non-shooting player is responsible to call fouls?
I did read the entire thread. After having read it I feel that if a player commits a foul and knows that they committed a foul then the situation is that the player at the table should be penalized and if that person withholds the information that will result in a penalty then they are cheating.
This is a discussion about the state of the rules. You made a statement that most rules require the non-shooting opponent to act as referee. I asked if you would be so kind as to provide some links to those rules. You are entirely correct that I cannot change the rules. However if we have a nice discussion on the current state of them then perhaps those that do make the rules can change them to reflect what the majority of players would like to see.
To me not calling a foul on oneself is the exact same as moving a ball when no one can see it. Would you explain the difference to me please?
Bob Jewett has mentioned a couple of times that there are obsolete rule sets on the web and I'm not sure it this is the most current rule set.
FTR I believe the shooter should call a foul on himself.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#5
(Effective 1/1/08)
I have seen this rule. It sometimes conflicts with event specific rules that require the non-shooting player to remain seated when it is not their turn.
This situation is more of a moral one than anything because it revolves around the fact that the non-shooting player is not aware that a foul has occurred. This can be for any number of reasons to include inattention to the game, distraction, misdirection on the shooter's part, line of sight obstruction or some other reason.
So the situation is that a foul has occurred and a penalty is due but the only person who can enforce that penalty is the person who committed the foul.
Obviously this is an internal moral issue involving personal ethics.
Quite simply imposing a penalty on oneself is a disadvantage in a competitive situation. Withholding the opportunity to use the advantage a foul brings is a disadvantage to the opponent.
We frown upon unsportsmanlike conduct and treat it with varying degrees of rebuke. Anything which detracts from the fair play of the game is considered to be unsportsmanlike at it's mildest and cheating at it's worst. Clearly we would all agree that a player who deliberately commits a foul when he expects to not be caught is a cheater.
So what then is a player who commits a foul accidentally that only he knows he committed and does not admit to it?
Fortunate?
For an example, look no farther than the post above yours. Too many people today don't take pool serious. They want it handed to them on a silver platter. If you are playing someone, than you should be participating in the match at all times. Not just when it is your turn to shoot. You should be watching the game at all times. That is one of the ways you learn things. Such as, what are his weaknesses, did he play this the way I would have, ect., ect. Is this a shot I need to watch close to verify the hit is good? Not, oh wow!, look at the girl over there! If you are going to be in the game, take responsibility for being in the game. Don't try and shove your responsibility onto your opponent, and then call him a cheat when he is just doing his part and not yours too.
As for me, and the way I do it- I ALWAYS call a foul on myself if there is any question as to whether or not I may have committed one. If I am , oh, lets say kicking at a ball, and I obviously don't hit it, I am most likely going to go sit back in my chair. Sometimes, out of frustration, I might move the cb with my cue to a wide open area, or even pick up the cb and give it to my opponent. If my opponent ask me if I made a good hit, I ALWAYS tell him the truth. If they weren't watching, and don't ask, then that is on them for not paying attention to the game. I will not take any part of the blame for them not doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Now, let's say the waitress came up and I know my opponent is making an order while I am shooting, and odds are he couldn't see the shot. Then, I will inform him of a bad hit. But, under normal conditions, if he doesn't WANT to watch the game, then it's on him. I understand some players don't like to watch their opponent shoot. Fine, and I understand that, but then they should get someone else to watch it for them.
So, you see, my morals are in the right place. I don't cheat, and many times I have given a known good hit by me to a foul call by my opponent just to avoid confrontation. (although I explain WHY it was good, and how to tell the difference). But, I'm not going to do his job for him. At times I might, but don't count on me to do his job ALL the time. Any questionable hits, I call myself. Any obvious bad hits, I may or may not tell you unless you ask.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. I take a more principled approach to this that removes the need to decide whether or not to inform the opponent. I simply inform them regardless of whether they were paying attention or not. For myself this removes all ambiguity and allows the game to flow with no lingering guilty thoughts on my part.
I do think however that taking pool seriously begins by being a serious example. I prefer to emulate George Breedlove and call fouls on myself and inform the incoming player. To me that is a serious commitment to playing this game correctly and treating it as a proper sport.
Your two statements that I colored... The first one, there is no question that that person is cheating. The second one, the way you worded it, yes, that person is a cheater also. However, I don't believe you worded the second one fairly. Now you get into the gray area. Why is he the only one that knows he committed a foul?
Who knows why? I listed several reasons why the non-shooting player would not be aware that a foul was committed. The point is that both situations are exactly the same. No one but the player who committed the foul knows that a foul was committed. The only person who can enforce the penalty is the person who committed the foul. No ambiguity and no grey area.
I very much doubt that most people would tolerate their opponent hovering over them when they are shooting. This is what you are advocating when you put all of the onus on the non-shooting player to really watch the game.
If it is due to the type of foul, where it is not likely someone watching would even know he committed it, then yes, he should state it. If, at the other end of the spectrum, he accidentally moves the cb 6" during a warmup stroke, and no one saw it because they just weren't caring enough to pay attention, then the shooter should not shoot again because it would be cheating, but just leave the table. If the opponent doesn't say anything, then he is stuck shooting from where the cb is now.
A foul is a foul. You are making moral distinctions and deciding when and if you will punish the incoming player by withholding the actual state of the game or not from them. The action which should be the default is to inform the incoming player that they have ball in hand and allow the game to proceed from there. Thus there is no room for argument, bad feelings, bad karma, or discussion of what is proper behavior for either player.
Here's an example of that- many years ago, in a pro tournament... don't remember if it was the finals, or just very close to the finals. I believe it was Rempe. His opponent scratched, the ref retrieved the cb, and set it on the table. Rempe gets up, has a ton on himself in the calcutta, is now totally brain dead from the pressure of the match, and proceeds to shoot from where the ref placed the cb! (to top it off, he was hooked where the ref placed it!) No one said a word to him. Do you consider his opponent, the ref, and all the fans there as cheaters for not telling him he had BIH? Same difference in my opinion. You snooze, you lose! At some point, you have to take responsibility that you are also in the game when you are not shooting!
The referee was derelict in his duties. The proper way to handle this is for the referee to say "foul" and then "Mr. Rempe has ball in hand", at which point the referee hands Mr. Rempe the cue ball. In this situation the referee cost Jim Rempe the match. The referee did not cheat clearly but he mishandled the situation.
For an example, look no farther than the post above yours. Too many people today don't take pool serious. They want it handed to them on a silver platter. If you are playing someone, than you should be participating in the match at all times. Not just when it is your turn to shoot. You should be watching the game at all times. That is one of the ways you learn things. Such as, what are his weaknesses, did he play this the way I would have, ect., ect. Is this a shot I need to watch close to verify the hit is good? Not, oh wow!, look at the girl over there! If you are going to be in the game, take responsibility for being in the game. Don't try and shove your responsibility onto your opponent, and then call him a cheat when he is just doing his part and not yours too.
As for me, and the way I do it- I ALWAYS call a foul on myself if there is any question as to whether or not I may have committed one. If I am , oh, lets say kicking at a ball, and I obviously don't hit it, I am most likely going to go sit back in my chair. Sometimes, out of frustration, I might move the cb with my cue to a wide open area, or even pick up the cb and give it to my opponent. If my opponent ask me if I made a good hit, I ALWAYS tell him the truth. If they weren't watching, and don't ask, then that is on them for not paying attention to the game. I will not take any part of the blame for them not doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Now, let's say the waitress came up and I know my opponent is making an order while I am shooting, and odds are he couldn't see the shot. Then, I will inform him of a bad hit. But, under normal conditions, if he doesn't WANT to watch the game, then it's on him. I understand some players don't like to watch their opponent shoot. Fine, and I understand that, but then they should get someone else to watch it for them.
So, you see, my morals are in the right place. I don't cheat, and many times I have given a known good hit by me to a foul call by my opponent just to avoid confrontation. (although I explain WHY it was good, and how to tell the difference). But, I'm not going to do his job for him. At times I might, but don't count on me to do his job ALL the time. Any questionable hits, I call myself. Any obvious bad hits, I may or may not tell you unless you ask.
Neil, in all the years I have known you I have never had the impression that you are cheater or ever heard comments from others accusing you of cheating.
You may not be doing intentionally but you are sending dual messages to your opponents. By choosing when you will call a foul on yourself you are giving the impression to your opponent that you do call fouls on yourself and perhaps putting them at ease to not feel the need to constantly watch your every shot. In effect you are setting them up, to not paying 100% attention, for the time you decide not to call the foul.
IMO it would be better, for you were to choose, to call or not to call. One or the other but not both.
Once again, I'll say that I have always called fouls on myself.