What would you do?

Would you shoot the shot?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 21.8%

  • No

    Votes: 111 78.2%
  • Total voters
    142
itsfroze:
A ball isn't frozen until called frozen, so there is no foul here.
Click to expand...
If that was the case, then if I don't call the ball frozen before shooting I'm not allowed to call the foul on myself after shooting (because the rule says there was no foul). But we both know that I can call the foul on myself.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
If that was the case, then if I don't call the ball frozen before shooting I'm not allowed to call the foul on myself after shooting (because the rule says there was no foul). But we both know that I can call the foul on myself.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You persist in implying that a ball not called frozen can be a foul. It cannot be a foul so the point you're trying to make (by employing hammer and tongs) is irrelevant.

As the shooter you may call a ball frozen. [side note: may does not mean obligated] There is no provision in the rule for "calling a foul on yourself" and there would be no use for one because in the situation being discussed THERE IS NO FOUL.

Getting around the rules of pool requires whipping up a lot of souffles and there are a lot of airy posts in this thread that take up your entire computer screen to ultimately say something that's irrelevant and totally in opposition to the rules of pool.
 
The question "Would you shoot the shot?" is extraordinarily irrelevant to the rules of pool.

If you've been playing pool with the same person for years and you both expect the other to call balls frozen for you, that's fine. But you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that you aren't playing by the rules of pool. You're playing by your own rules that you created separate from the rules of pool.

If you play with someone for the first time it's extremely silly to expect that they will play by the rules you created with your regular partner and expect that they not play by the real rules of pool (unless they've agreed to before play starts).

Where some of the posters here go really overboard, way beyond silly, is to call someone who plays by the real rules of pool "immoral" or "unethical". That isn't silly, that's stupid and even worse.
 
only way I'm going to know its froze if I stop and look at it, so if I know its froze then I'm not going to cheat myself, my opponent, or the game and shoot a illegal shot.

I've always thought of pool like golf, you play by the rules even when you are playing alone.
 
When Mars posted this I thought, well, this is kind of a simple question and really didn't think much about it. But it's turned out to stir a fairly lively debate and it's made me think hard about what's right and wrong.

Individuals answers to this one simple question can help show you exactly where your moral compass is.

People who say yes it's ok to roll up on the the ball have an X strength moral compass. People who say not it's not ok have a Y strength moral compass.

Example:
Some guy walks up to you and has a trunk load of brand new expensive merchandise still in the box; laptop computers, flat screens, etc. And he's willing to sell it to you at half price competitive retail price. You know and I know and he knows this merch is stolen. Does your moral compass allow you to buy it?

Where does this question fall on your moral compass? Higher or lower than the OP question?

Just thinking about it and caring about right and wrong makes your moral compass stronger.
 
Last edited:
Hungarian said:
... kind of a simple question ... turned out to stir a fairly lively debate ... made me think hard about what's right and wrong.
Click to expand...
It's also about what rules are for - should they be followed literally without judgment or should we try to understand the intent ("spirit") of the rules and act accordingly because the rules can't cover every contingency?

Is it ever sportsmanlike to take advantage of the fact that the rules can't cover every contingency?

I called fouls on myself a few times yesterday. One of those times I had to insist a foul had occurred over the objections of my opponent who was watching but didn't know how to interpret the evidence (double hits). Would it have been sportsmanlike to take advantage of his ignorance? Would I be a winner? I don't need rules to tell me the answer to that.

pj
chgo
 
risky biz said:
The question "Would you shoot the shot?" is extraordinarily irrelevant to the rules of pool.
Click to expand...
It's relevant to the kind of pool player you are.

... overboard, way beyond silly, is to call someone who plays by the real rules of pool "immoral" or "unethical".
Click to expand...
I assume you put those words in quotes because you're not sure what they mean...?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So if I don't call the ball frozen before shooting I can't call a foul on myself? Try answering directly without all the tapdancing.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Are you implying that if the shooter calls a foul on themself it is automatically a foul? what if I just want you to clear a few balls out knowing you CANNOT run out the layout? I believe it is easier to stick with the rules vs feelings and perceptions.
 
thepavlos said:
Are you implying that if the shooter calls a foul on themself it is automatically a foul?
what if I just want you to clear a few balls out knowing you CANNOT run out the layout?
Click to expand...
You're claiming it can be advantageous to call a false foul on yourself? Please do that against me whenever you like.

I believe it is easier to stick with the rules vs feelings and perceptions.
Click to expand...
If all you have are "feelings and perceptions", then you should definitely stick with the letter of the rules. This is about knowing the shot would be a foul except for a loophole in the rules.

pj
chgo
 
Hungarian said:
When Mars posted this I thought, well, this is kind of a simple question and really didn't think much about it. But it's turned out to stir a fairly lively debate and it's made me think hard about what's right and wrong.

Individuals answers to this one simple question can help show you exactly where your moral compass is.

People who say yes it's ok to roll up on the the ball have an X strength moral compass. People who say not it's not ok have a Y strength moral compass.

Example:
Some guy walks up to you and has a trunk load of brand new expensive merchandise still in the box; laptop computers, flat screens, etc. And he's willing to sell it to you at half price competitive retail price. You know and I know and he knows this merch is stolen. Does your moral compass allow you to buy it?

Where does this question fall on your moral compass? Higher or lower than the OP question?

Just thinking about it and caring about right and wrong makes your moral compass stronger.
Click to expand...

Hi Nut,

I don't think that this has anything to do with someones moral compass
As far as your example goes you would be buying stolen merchandise
which is breaking the law. There are no rules or laws being broken here, in fact just the opposite a person who rolls up on ball that is to be assumed playable by the rules unless someone calls the ball frozen has done nothing wrong.

In fact anyone who calls a person who is playing by the rules imoral it would seem is the one who needs to check their moral compass.

Yes 26 21.31%
No 96 78.69
In fact I've been shooting pool for close to 50 years now and if you want to check peoples moral compasses then check the 78.69% that said they wouldn't shoot this shot. Because this figure is wildly out of line from what actually transpires in pool rooms.

Here are the rules, like them or not:

The rules:

6.3 No Rail after Contact
If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.as...type=rules#6.7


8.4 Driven to a Rail
A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.as...type=rules#8.4


27. Calling Frozen Balls
The referee should be careful to inspect and announce the status of any object ball that might be frozen to a cushion and the cue ball when it might be frozen to a ball. The seated player may remind the referee that such a call is necessary. The shooter must allow time for such a determination to be asked for and made, and may ask for the call himself.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.as...tic_content#27
Thanks to Risky Biz----For the rules---people don't like! LOL

This is why people don't seem to be able to get along, because even when the rules of a game are as plainly stated as above, people who don't like them try to rework them in some fantasy land and if you don't want to play their game. They want to question your morals, isn't that nice.
I am in no way saying that is what you're doing NUT I want to make that
clear. Have a Happy 4TH, Itsfroze.

If we could just get major corporations to follow the rules this country on the 4th of July would be much better off.
 
itsfroze said:
Easily you speak and say that balls frozen! You can even point at the ball as you say it!!! WOW
Click to expand...

But according to you, you'd be wrong.

What you should say isn't that a ball isn't frozen until called frozen (of course it can be frozen before called frozen, since the fact that it is frozen would be the reason for calling it frozen in the first place), but rather, that for the purposes of enforcing the rule about balls that are frozen a ball isn't considered frozen until called frozen. They're not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
itsfroze:
A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent.
Click to expand...
What do you think is the purpose of this rule? Is its purpose relevant?

pj
chgo
 
PoolBum said:
But according to you, you'd be wrong.

What you should say isn't that a ball isn't frozen until called frozen (of course it can be frozen before called frozen, since the fact that it is frozen would be the reason for calling it frozen in the first place), but rather, that for the purposes of enforcing the rule about balls that are frozen a ball isn't considered frozen until called frozen. They're not the same thing.
Click to expand...
You're right I understood that way back when you first brought it up.
You are certainly welcome to keep making you're point over and over though if it pleases you. Have a Happy 4th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top