Well good then, I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
What would you do?
- Thread starter TheMarsMan
- Start date
Well good then, I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
You didn't say what its purpose is. I don't mean the general purpose of all rules, or the purpose of the frozen ball rule in general - I mean what is the purpose of this particular part of the frozen ball rule? What does it prevent?
pj
chgo
I'm glad for you!
It prevents nothing.
Maybe you should read the rules. The rule says that a ball is assumed to not be frozen if not called as frozen. It doesn't say that a ball is not frozen if not called as frozen. This distinction is important because the rules say that a foul occurs based on what has happened rather than what is assumed to have happened which can often be two very different events.
You Sir are wrong on all counts but I still like you.
It is a moral compass issue. Just depends on how convicted your moral compass is. There are written rules verbatim and then there is the spirit of the rule. I've always been one to try my best to go by the spirit of the rule.
And regarding the merchandise, I believe it to be stolen but I don't know it for a fact to be stolen. I would be in my legal right to buy the merchandise. And to be even more clear, I have bought merchandise like this only one time in the past but always felt funny about it. And everytime I use that portable generator I get a bad chill down my spine.
It is a moral compass issue. Just depends on how convicted your moral compass is. There are written rules verbatim and then there is the spirit of the rule. I've always been one to try my best to go by the spirit of the rule.
And regarding the merchandise, I believe it to be stolen but I don't know it for a fact to be stolen. I would be in my legal right to buy the merchandise. And to be even more clear, I have bought merchandise like this only one time in the past but always felt funny about it. And everytime I use that portable generator I get a bad chill down my spine.
Guys, whoever came up with the idea that someone/anyone contributing to this thread doesn't like the rule(s)? The rules are not the problem, people are.
It's not like the rules forced anyone to use them in unsportsmanlike manner. That is a deliberate choice the player makes. This thread is based solely on the question what choice that would be: will you knowingly roll the cue ball up to an object ball that you know (= that's all it's about) is frozen to a cushion, thus knowingly shoot a shot where no ball is being driven to a rail, when you know it's not the lay of the balls that allow you to do so, but merely the fact that you figure you can't get caught (because you yourself are making sure you can't get caught by not admitting a frozen ball is frozen).
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
It's not like the rules forced anyone to use them in unsportsmanlike manner. That is a deliberate choice the player makes. This thread is based solely on the question what choice that would be: will you knowingly roll the cue ball up to an object ball that you know (= that's all it's about) is frozen to a cushion, thus knowingly shoot a shot where no ball is being driven to a rail, when you know it's not the lay of the balls that allow you to do so, but merely the fact that you figure you can't get caught (because you yourself are making sure you can't get caught by not admitting a frozen ball is frozen).
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Here we are talking about “letter” and “spirit” and the difference. This goes on in courtrooms all day everyday. The “assumed playable” is the stickler; what is being discussed is “you know it’s really not playable” it is just a technicality that it is now playable, what do you do? Like it or not to most people won’t play the shot as if it were not frozen if in fact they have the knowledge that it is, BTW I think this is hard knowledge to come by without your opponent having it also.
I am not saying that you are a “bad person” but this is the ancient cry of the less than honorable “everyone is less than honorable” same with racists, liars, thieves etc.. etc.. they don’t know they are the minority but they are.
We know the rules but most of us would still not feel right about playing the shot and wouldn’t, for me this would be “most of the time” that’s why I didn’t answer the poll.
There are circumstances where I would. If I am against some petty, nitpicking, “absolute letter of the rules”, try to manipulate by “letter of the law” player who is known to be a poor sportsman I am actually going to go ahead and play this shot, there you go an admission of “less than 100% honorable” but if I am playing an honest, humble, good sport (like me) there is no WAY I am going to play this shot as not frozen if I KNOW it is; and as I said that knowledge is really hard to come by without the other person having it to.
This is where your whole argument falls apart.
Quote from: PGHteacher,
"“you know it’s really not playable” -------------> What?
The rules don't say that.
I am not saying you're a bad person because you don't understand
this. Have a Happy 4th.
PS.
I imagine that you don't buy anything from or use the services of
any of the major corporations because they never play by the rules, and yet you're so quick to question someones morality who plays pool by the rules, you're joking right?
Quote from: PGHteacher,
"“you know it’s really not playable” -------------> What?
The rules don't say that.
I am not saying you're a bad person because you don't understand
this. Have a Happy 4th.
PS.
I imagine that you don't buy anything from or use the services of
any of the major corporations because they never play by the rules, and yet you're so quick to question someones morality who plays pool by the rules, you're joking right?
Last edited:
What this question REALLY boils down to, if you as the shooter looked yourself at the ball and know it is frozen, is this
"do you shoot a shot that you know is going to be a foul if by the technical rules of the game you know you will get away with it?"
This question at it's heart is NO different then asking someone
"In 8-ball where you are shooting stripes and to make your last ball in a called pocket you must contact a solid first, do you shoot the shot knowing it will be a foul as long as the opponent does not call a ref?"
If your opponent does not call a ref then you can simply state "it was a good hit". They did not call a ref, the rules state that it goes to the shooter. As the shooter you know full well it was a bad hit and in fact you knew it would be bad before you shot it, but your opponent did not call a ref so you also knew you could win the game this way.
It is the same thing if you saw the ball was frozen. You KNEW you were shooting a ball that was going to result in a foul but you shot it anyways because you knew you would get away with it.
The rules DO state the shooter themselves can call a ball frozen, so right there you are choosing to omit that information from the game and act as if the ball is not frozen, while you know full well it is. This is no different then shooting a shot you KNOW will be a foul, but planning on arguing the foul call and using the "no ref was present so I get to keep shooting" clause.
All you guys arguing, it is ok, we know you exist and that is why we call refs and watch you shoot like a hawk to make sure you don't get away with the crap you try to get away with. We understand that it is not really a gentleman's game and that alot of you are simply out there to weasel out a win any way possible. It is OK, we get it.
But seriously what are you arguing about? Trying to sit here and argue that you are not in fact a cheap player who lacks honor while at the same time saying you would in fact shoot the foul and pretend it was a good hit? What a joke. You are what you are, we accept that fact, you should too.
"do you shoot a shot that you know is going to be a foul if by the technical rules of the game you know you will get away with it?"
This question at it's heart is NO different then asking someone
"In 8-ball where you are shooting stripes and to make your last ball in a called pocket you must contact a solid first, do you shoot the shot knowing it will be a foul as long as the opponent does not call a ref?"
If your opponent does not call a ref then you can simply state "it was a good hit". They did not call a ref, the rules state that it goes to the shooter. As the shooter you know full well it was a bad hit and in fact you knew it would be bad before you shot it, but your opponent did not call a ref so you also knew you could win the game this way.
It is the same thing if you saw the ball was frozen. You KNEW you were shooting a ball that was going to result in a foul but you shot it anyways because you knew you would get away with it.
The rules DO state the shooter themselves can call a ball frozen, so right there you are choosing to omit that information from the game and act as if the ball is not frozen, while you know full well it is. This is no different then shooting a shot you KNOW will be a foul, but planning on arguing the foul call and using the "no ref was present so I get to keep shooting" clause.
All you guys arguing, it is ok, we know you exist and that is why we call refs and watch you shoot like a hawk to make sure you don't get away with the crap you try to get away with. We understand that it is not really a gentleman's game and that alot of you are simply out there to weasel out a win any way possible. It is OK, we get it.
But seriously what are you arguing about? Trying to sit here and argue that you are not in fact a cheap player who lacks honor while at the same time saying you would in fact shoot the foul and pretend it was a good hit? What a joke. You are what you are, we accept that fact, you should too.
Maybe a different scenario would help. You're playing APA 8 ball and your opponent is about to shoot the 8 ball which is hanging on the edge of the pocket. They forget to mark the pocket. Do you:
a. Remind them to mark the pocket.
b. Let them shoot and call a foul.
c. Assume the obvious and give them the win.
I vote a or c.
However, I suspect some of the posters on this thread would vote b. Sort of an "any port in a storm" strategy.
a. Remind them to mark the pocket.
b. Let them shoot and call a foul.
c. Assume the obvious and give them the win.
I vote a or c.
However, I suspect some of the posters on this thread would vote b. Sort of an "any port in a storm" strategy.
Not the same thing at all how, ridiculous.
Only a man who's full of himself, questions the character of a man he knows nothing about. Better you than I.
It is the exact same. In both cases you are shooting a foul, you KNOW you are shooting a foul, and you plan on pretending it is a good hit.
Care to actually, I don't know, EXPLAIN how you think they are not similar rather then just making a statement with zero support to back it up?
How are they that different if you already checked and saw the ball was in fact frozen and then went and shot it as if it was not?
And what do you do two weeks later in the play offs when you forget to mark the pocket on the 8 ball and they let you shoot it and call a foul on you. That was the final game of the final match and because you forgot to mark your pocket your team isn't going to Vegas? CRY, then say they
cheated your team. LOL
Last edited:
In contrast to Snooker, pool is a game in which the requirement for a shot to be legal is to make the cue ball contact and object ball, and either pocket an object ball or drive any ball to a rail. Every pool player knows this is what makes a pool shot a pool shot in contrast to some other game or sport. Now forget about the rule set for a second: rolling up to a frozen ball that no one including yourself called frozen although you know it is, do you feel you're fulfilling that minimum requirement for a shot to be legal, or rather that you're getting away with something? Again, you'll notice this may look like, but is not a rule question.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Last edited:
Sure I'll bite. One your example is cheating. In the other instance you absolutely are not shooting a foul because the ball was not called frozen.
That's what you like to try and ignore to prove your point and that is where your whole point falls to pieces. It is a good hit the shot is playable unless the ball is deemed frozen, this is where you loose track of the rules. There I've explained, so now you can come back with another
empty theory.
But this isn't about "rules". Sure the rule makes it possible to you to conceal the fact you're rolling the cue ball up to a ball, although the rule clearly allows you to be honest, for example because you have an innate sense of sportsmanship. But do you consider that a pool shot, knowingly contacting an object ball with the cue ball but no rail? You may say now you did nothing wrong because someone forgot to say something, but in doing so are effectively making a mockery of the rule set, because you know no ball was driven to a rail.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
And even though you know it's frozen, and even though the rule says you can call it frozen, you feel not calling it and taking the shot anyway, just because you can get away with it, is an honorable thing to do?
Wow.
pj
chgo
No, that is where the disconnect lies. You KNOW the ball IS frozen so you in fact ARE shooting a foul and playing it off as good. It is not just the ref or the opponent who can judge a ball as frozen, the shooter can as well.
In Mr. Mars' example you looked at the ball, you saw it was frozen, and you played it as if it was not anyhow. So you KNEW that the shot could not be made legally, the rules also state you need to hit a rail after contact, and this shot does not do that and you KNOW it does not and you are purposely shooting it anyhow.
In both cases you are purposely shooting a shot that you KNOW does not meet the guidelines of a non-foul and playing it off as a good hit. And in both cases you are using a technicality in the rules to your benefit to get away with it. There is nothing legal about shooting a ball that you KNOW is frozen without catching a rail and then calling that shot legal.
Shooting a frozen ball and not catching a rail after contact is a foul. If you KNOW that ball is frozen and you shoot it anyhow and pretend it was off the rail it was cheating because the shooter themselves are one of the 3 people in a match that are SUPPOSED to be calling that stuff in a legit fashion, and to not do so IS cheating period.