Unethical Win at Swanee 2014
- Thread starter fast&loose designs
- Start date
I will say something regarding what you said...
Your comparison is completely invalid. If someone touches the cueball with their stick it is a foul and I would expect them to step up and admit as much whether the opponent saw or not.
In fact, your comparison shows the exact OPPOSITE of what you are thinking it does.
If you touch the cueball before you stroke and then you stroke and make the ball anyways and try to claim the victory, your opponent doesn't see it, but someone in the crowd does and tells your opponent. Your opponent then says that was a foul, but since I didn't see it, we should play that rack over I think that's only fair.
Then you say, well you have to call the foul for it to be a foul, "I WIN!!!"
NO you DIDN'T win.
It's the same here. His opponent won the requisite number of games. It was brought to their attention and Chris said, "I WIN!!!!".
In the aforementioned it is quite likely that if the tournament director was brought in, he would side with the player, because the unwritten rule is pretty much if there's a question about a foul and there wasn't a ref watching the decision goes to the shooter. It still is NOT moral, ethical, or right to accept the win though.
THAT is a valid comparison, not the farce of a comparison you attempted.
Jaden
Your comparison is completely invalid. If someone touches the cueball with their stick it is a foul and I would expect them to step up and admit as much whether the opponent saw or not.
In fact, your comparison shows the exact OPPOSITE of what you are thinking it does.
If you touch the cueball before you stroke and then you stroke and make the ball anyways and try to claim the victory, your opponent doesn't see it, but someone in the crowd does and tells your opponent. Your opponent then says that was a foul, but since I didn't see it, we should play that rack over I think that's only fair.
Then you say, well you have to call the foul for it to be a foul, "I WIN!!!"
NO you DIDN'T win.
It's the same here. His opponent won the requisite number of games. It was brought to their attention and Chris said, "I WIN!!!!".
In the aforementioned it is quite likely that if the tournament director was brought in, he would side with the player, because the unwritten rule is pretty much if there's a question about a foul and there wasn't a ref watching the decision goes to the shooter. It still is NOT moral, ethical, or right to accept the win though.
THAT is a valid comparison, not the farce of a comparison you attempted.
Jaden
Again, I'm not saying Chris knew or didn't know at any specific time, I'm saying that after the match was over, when BOTH PARTIES KNEW, Chris should have conceded. Why? Not because the rules SAY TO, but because IN REALITY, Greg won. Just because he admits fault doesn't mean he didn't actually win SEVEN GAMES FIRST.
I'm going to recall a situation in which I don't feel proud of myself. This was about 3 years ago or so. I can honestly say it was the first and last time I ever did something unsportsmanlike at the table, and it relates here:
I was playing a guy who plays frequently at Hard Times (no names). We were playing even race to 7 (9ball) for some cash. I was losing bad, and was desperate to win. He has me at about 5-1. I'm on the 8, shoot, make the 8, and the cueball heads directly towards the side pocket. It was going in for sure, so being the pissed off loser that I was at the time, I helped it drop in by hitting it into the pocket with my cue. My opponent walks over to the table, picks up the 9 ball, and starts racking the next rack for himself. "Hey - what are you doing?" I asked him, and he stopped for a second. "You didn't shoot the 9 man, that's a loss. I get that game. My rack." He argued for a few minutes with me, and eventually I gave him that rack. I didn't want to, I was pissed, but I realized it didn't make a difference anyways.
That was technically a win for me, since he grabbed the balls and started racking without ACTUALLY shooting the 9 in, but in reality, I was just being a jerk. To this day it bothers the hell out of me that I did that, and he and I aren't even on speaking terms anymore.
This was just a small, probably $20 set on a regular night - not a real tournament match with hundreds watching and considerably more money on the line. What we are talking about here is ETHICS - not MORALS - trumping rules. Just because a rule states that something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.
By not marking his own win, and then continuing to play past when he "actually" won the match, Greg conceded the earlier win.
Concede is something you do willingly; the tournament director didn't allow him to recover that game he forgot to mark to which I agree with). That doesn't change the fact that Chris STILL could have conceded.
However, we should all be inspired by his complete and total respect for motherhood. Thank god for moms - you never know when you might need one.
Greg is a nice guy and not made for Pool.
That may be the worst post in the Thread. Pool would be in a much better state if it had more individuals like Greg.
Did the U.S. Olympic hockey team act unethically?
Just watched the replay of the U.S. vs Russia Olympic hockey game. The Russians appeared to have scored a goal. Then it was negated because the net was dislodged from it's mooring. Well the net was not completely dislodged, more accurate would be dislocated. One corner looked like the mooring was bent and dislocated about one inch. By all other hockey rules in the world both moorings have to be dislodged to negate the goal. Still under Olympic rules the officials negated the goal. Should the U.S. team have just given them an open net to score a goal to make up for the one that was UNJUSTLY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE OFFICIALS?
What kind of example are they setting?????
Just watched the replay of the U.S. vs Russia Olympic hockey game. The Russians appeared to have scored a goal. Then it was negated because the net was dislodged from it's mooring. Well the net was not completely dislodged, more accurate would be dislocated. One corner looked like the mooring was bent and dislocated about one inch. By all other hockey rules in the world both moorings have to be dislodged to negate the goal. Still under Olympic rules the officials negated the goal. Should the U.S. team have just given them an open net to score a goal to make up for the one that was UNJUSTLY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE OFFICIALS?
What kind of example are they setting?????
An ethical dilemma is a complex situation that often involves an apparent mental conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another.
You're comparing apples and oranges. That was a different situation in which a call was made by an official, for a TEAM. I don't think I've seen in any professional team sport a match being conceded. However, matches are conceded/forfeitted all the time in individual sports, especially pool. Your situation also involves an equipment based ruling that deals directly with the playing surface; the situation here deals with a scoreboard.
part of playing pool and playing a tournament is keeping score. If you miss a game it is your fault and you cant come back 6 games alter ay hill hill and say oh i forgot.
If I was Chris would I of conceded the match yes I would have. But, I also probably would of noticed Greg didn`t mark his game and told him about it at the time.
Also, earlier in the tournament Greg was told by another player he didn`t mark his game, if that didn`t wake him up, it`s his bad.
If I was Chris would I of conceded the match yes I would have. But, I also probably would of noticed Greg didn`t mark his game and told him about it at the time.
Also, earlier in the tournament Greg was told by another player he didn`t mark his game, if that didn`t wake him up, it`s his bad.
You have to respect the officials.
Conceding in team sports is sometimes expected. The U.S. women's Olympic Curling team took some flak this year for not conceding a match in a timely fashion. It was considered "disrespectful" to their opponents.
My point was both cases deal with what some would perceive to be unjust rulings by an official. When Greg took his case to the Tournament Director during the time out, he took the decision out of Chris's hands. He asked for a ruling and got it. Had he asked Chris for a concession before pleading his case to the TD, you might have a leg to stand on. Once the TD made the call Chris would be out of line to try and over rule him.
Conceding in team sports is sometimes expected. The U.S. women's Olympic Curling team took some flak this year for not conceding a match in a timely fashion. It was considered "disrespectful" to their opponents.
Total BS, The kid didn't do anything wrong. When Greg knew he might not have scored a game it was up to him to go to the tourney director. Once the 13th rack was broken, the issue was over. Anyone who feels that the kid did something wrong is just an idiot.....Case closed
Conceding is out of line? That makes zero sense. There is no way it is ever out of line to concede/forfeit. If a ref tells me "you win", and I say "no, I forfeit," how is that out of line?
I agree with that 100% once they ask for and got a ruling from the TD it was out of their hands and to do anything else would be wrong. imo