What would you do?

[itsfroze]

Quote from: PGHteacher
Again this is the way you see it and you are the minority, I see it as a foul has occurred, however; the criteria to confirm that a foul has occurred and a penalty assessed has not been met therefore it is exactly the same result as if “it was not a foul”
----------------------Why because it wasn't A FOUL!--------------------------

--------------Otherwise a penalty would have been assessed--------------

----------------------------It's that simple!------------------------------------



-----You're using a poll written in a way to only have one out come--------

-------------As a way to proudly say you are in the majority-----------------

--------------------------Well isn't that special!--------------------------------

 

[PGHteacher]

There are no fouls in pool if a referee is not present unless the shooter consents to the foul. If a referee is not present then the decision goes in favor of the shooter. Therefore by the rules the shooter is always right. Since the shooter is always right as long as he claims that he didn't foul no foul occurred!

How many of you want to play me?

Hu

This is a great statement and probably the most humorous and instructive as well (unless he’s serious, and I highly doubt that) my answer :rotflmao1: I don’t

----------------------Why because it wasn't A FOUL!--------------------------

--------------Otherwise a penalty would have been assessed--------------

----------------------------It's that simple!------------------------------------

This implies (or actually to me states pretty clearly) that whenever a foul occurs a penalty is assessed, we all know that’s absurd.

Let me say this 1 more time, maybe you are having trouble with my word order.

A foul has occurred, however; the criteria to confirm that a foul has in fact occurred has not been fulfilled therefore a penalty can not be assessed; therefore it is exactly the same result as if “it was not a foul”. But those are 2 different things.

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

I don’t really have another way of explaining it; maybe an analogy. There is an old law in PA that says a cop can’t give you a citation if the officer’s vehicle is not legally drivable so in other words he can’t give you a ticket for having your brake lights out if his car is not inspected or vice versa. So it isn’t that your brake lights aren’t out it is just that you at the moment can’t be sighted for it at least not by him right then. There is a physical reality and that is that your brake lights are in fact out it is just that you can’t be penalized for it right then.

That is why a penalty can not be assessed. Read the OP

You have an easy safety in eight ball to just roll up on a ball and leave your opponent nothing. The ball is froze to a rail, but your opponent didn't call it froze. Would you shoot this shot?

As I also said I don’t know how you gain this knowledge without your opponent having it to. There are 100 times I wouldn’t and about 2 that I would. You may “strongly suspect” it’s frozen but how do you gain this knowledge while not letting your opponent have it to? possible?; sure but how often could this possibly happen? I have seen 2 people disagree and a 3rd been brought in to determine if it is or isn’t frozen.

You can’t just surreptitiously look down and see if it’s frozen. So unless you are talking about people that don’t know the rules or don’t know what they are doing how can it happen in the 1st place? That’s all for me :wave2: if you can’t wrap your head around the simple fact that a pronouncement can not change a physical reality then I can’t really discuss this with you. You can just keep repeating “the rules are the rules” if you want but to me that’s not a very intelligent dialog.
uttahere:uttahere:uttahere:uttahere:

 

[stumpie71]

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to see or hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[itsfroze]

There is no foul committed according to the rules.

If this bothers you so much, get up off your lazy ass

and call a ball frozen if it is as the rule specifies you can,

don't expect your opponent to pay attention to the

game for you when you're not.

You want to be lazy and then have the nerve to call

your opponent immoral and unethical if they don't

pick up your slack, what a laugh.

That's immoral!!!

 

[acousticsguru]

There are no fouls in pool if a referee is not present unless the shooter consents to the foul. If a referee is not present then the decision goes in favor of the shooter. Therefore by the rules the shooter is always right. Since the shooter is always right as long as he claims that he didn't foul no foul occurred!

How many of you want to play me?

Hu

Good one! Sounds more cynical than it is - there's more truth to this than some people appear to realize.

Ironically, this whole thread is based on something that in the presence of a table referee couldn't happen to begin with (because they're instructed to inspect and call a ball frozen before a player's addressing the shot - at National and European events, the shooter has to move over and wait for the call to be made).

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

 

[Celtic]

You still can't grasp that if I did shoot it it wouldn't be a foul.

Actually you cannot grasp that the rule about one of the 3 people acknowlegding that the ball is frozen is in place so that it is assured that the shooter is aware of the frozen ball and does not in fact shoot a shot that UNINTENTIONALLY results in a foul.

What you are doing when you KNOW the ball is frozen is choosing to shoot a shot that you are AWARE is frozen, which negates why the rule about the frozen ball being acknowledged even exists.

The rule was in place to protect the shooter and make sure they are shooting from a position of awareness. And you choose to twist the intent of the rule and use it to shoot a shot that does not in fact meet the minimum requirements of a ball hitting a rail after contact. This despite the fact that you as the shooter know full well the ball is frozen.

The rule that the ball must be called frozen was to protect the shooter and make sure they are aware, in the example of the original post in this thread you ARE aware of the frozen ball, and you are twsiting the rule to your benefit and ignoring the fact that you as the shooter ALSO have the ability to call the ball as frozen and thus from a position of honesty and being up front about these things.

 

[itsfroze]

With no ref and the previous shooter apparently to lazy to call
a ball in question frozen, you're trying to lay blame on the shooter
for not calling the ball in question frozen or not.

The rules say may, let me repeat, the shooter may call the ball
frozen. It doesn't say he should, or that it's suggested, or it's
it's considered unsportsmenlike conduct.

Do any of you really think that if your opponent is to lazy to
get up out of their chair and check if a ball is frozen or not
the you as the other shooter should do this for them. LOL

That's beyond pathetic!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you're trying to lay blame on the shooter for not calling the ball in question frozen or not.

Duh.

It only took you 347 posts to get that.

pj
chgo

 

[scsuxci]

This thread has went to lala land and I'm part of itIts quite simple,
forget about rules and refs.The question was not about rules or
regulations but more to do with personal judgement.The high percentage
of people seem to not take the shot,due to they feel its unethical.
There's shouldn't even be a debate about this.If your opponent doesn't
know its frozen but you do its your choice if you would shoot it or not.Nothing about rules,all about being a sportsman!If you can't see that
your either to f--kin stupid or your just trying to play Devils advocate.

 

[Celtic]

The rules say may, let me repeat, the shooter may call the ball
frozen. It doesn't say he should

Yep, you "may" play it fair or you "may" decide to ignore the fact it is frozen, not mention it, and play it as if it is not. That is totally up to you. What we are telling you is that your choice to not actually call it frozen yourself and play a shot that you now know is in fact not going to contact a rail says something about your character. Sorry if that makes you want to cry in 48 posts on AZB about it, but it is what it is.

 

[itsfroze]

Duh.

It only took you 347 posts to get that.

pj
chgo

It's always so rewarding when I get to read your enlightened responses.
And you that many to realize you it's not a foul. LOL

You can go back to staring at the wall now.

 

[itsfroze]

This thread has went to lala land and I'm part of itIts quite simple,
forget about rules and refs.The question was not about rules or
regulations but more to do with personal judgement.The high percentage
of people seem to not take the shot,due to they feel its unethical.
There's shouldn't even be a debate about this.If your opponent doesn't
know its frozen but you do its your choice if you would shoot it or not.Nothing about rules,all about being a sportsman!If you can't see that
your either to f--kin stupid or your just trying to play Devils advocate.

There shouldn't be a debate you're right, just follow the rules,
because only a BOZO would say that's unsportsmanlike.

 

[scsuxci]

There shouldn't be a debate you're right, just follow the rules,
because only a BOZO would say that's unsportsmanlike.

Only a retard would say IT IS sportsmanlike.Its one or the other,so obviously
we know which one your choosing to be.

 

[itsfroze]

--------------------

 

[itsfroze]

Only a retard would say IT IS sportsmanlike.Its one or the other,so obviously
we know which one your choosing to be.

A few days ago you were posting like a human being what happened.
Was it something I said? LOL

 

[Celtic]

Just hold it a minute, I don't play it as if it's not frozen. You see I don't
have to. I play it as if it is frozen but there's no foul involved because you
my friend were to lazy to call it frozen.

I play by the rules, it's your character that is in question if you see fault in that.

Actually you cannot grasp that the rule about one of the 3 people acknowlegding that the ball is frozen is in place so that it is assured that the shooter is aware of the frozen ball and does not in fact shoot a shot that UNINTENTIONALLY results in a foul.

What you are doing when you KNOW the ball is frozen is choosing to shoot a shot that you are AWARE is frozen, which negates why the rule about the frozen ball being acknowledged even exists.

There is really nothing more to say. It is still what it is.

 

[scsuxci]

A few days ago you were posting like a human being what happened.
Was it something I said? LOL

I still am,but You know as well
as I do,it may be all within the rules but were talking about the person
not the rules.

 

[itsfroze]

---------------------

 

[itsfroze]

Quote from: Celtic
Yep, you "may" play it fair or you "may" decide to ignore the fact it is frozen, not mention it, and play it as if it is not. That is totally up to you. What we are telling you is that your choice to not actually call it frozen yourself and play a shot that you now know is in fact not going to contact a rail says something about your character. Sorry if that makes you want to cry in 48 posts on AZB about it, but it is what it is.
----------------------------------


Just hold it a minute, I don't play it as if it's not frozen. You see I don't
have to. I play it as if it is frozen but there's no foul involved because you
my friend were to lazy to call it frozen.

I play by the rules, it's your character that is in question if you see fault in that.
You should wish that if two people attacked you in the street that I just happened to be walking by, then you wouldn't question my character.
Only a fool questions someones character that they don't even know.
If the shoe fits wear it!
And that's not because I'm a tough guy it's because I've got a lot of character and don't like to see shit like that go down, and can think of four times that I've done that for people right off the top of my head, three of them I didn't even know and none of them ended up getting
hurt. So much for your questioning my character.

 

[scsuxci]

Just hold it a minute, I don't play it as if it's not frozen. You see I don't
have to. I play it as if it is frozen but there's no foul involved because you
my friend were to lazy to call it frozen.

I play by the rules, it's your character that is in question if you see fault in that.
You should wish that if two people attacked you in the street that I just happened to be walking by, then you wouldn't question my character.
Only a fool questions someones character that they don't even know.
If the shoe fits wear it!
And that's not because I'm a tough guy it's because I've got a lot of character and don't like to see shit like that go down, and can think of four times that I've done that for people right off the top of my head, three of them I didn't even know and none of them ended up getting
hurt. So much for your questioning my character.

True enough,but if that same person see's a person being attacked and just
walks on by,that may not be against the law but says something about that persons character.Thats how I feel about taking that shot.Not much more I can say.Goodluck