When did it become wrong to be sportsmanlike? And people wonder why there is no money in pool.
What would you do?
- Thread starter TheMarsMan
- Start date
I would wait until he called it frozen then shoot the shot anyway and argue vehemently afterwards that it wasn't frozen. Unless it was a tournament match in which case I would argue vehemently that it wasn't frozen before I shot. If he called a ref over at that point I would shoot the shot before the ref got there then tell the ref that my opponent said the ball wasn't frozen and that we didn't need a ref.
Is that unsportsmanlike of me?
Is that unsportsmanlike of me?
all these things come down to rules and practical application
The rules says the opponent should call many fouls. The rules also say that if there is no ref and the shooter and the opponent disagree the call goes to the shooter. So technically according to the rules of the game the shooter can commit blatant fouls and his is the overriding voice. He isn't cheating, this is what the rules say and the rules are the final word.
We favor an opponent sitting in his chair too. However when my opponent forces me to be the referee I will position myself exactly as a referee would. Sharking in his opinion? Tough sh!t, he is the one forcing me to be the referee.
Ultimately pool is a gentleman's, and ladies, game. If you insist on playing exactly according to the rule book nobody is going to enjoy the game. I call fouls on myself until I see that the other player doesn't. I'm a when in Rome kind of guy and I've pulled every cheating move anyone can imagine but I have never done it to someone who didn't cheat me first. I've also ignored fouls when the other player was. It wasn't a fun way to play but if I was gambling or playing in a tourney I let the other player make the rules but then we both played by them.
Situational morality describes it to a "T". I don't spot anything to anyone I don't agree to spot them. Letting them play to one set of rules, written or unwritten, and you playing to a stricter set is giving them a spot. Cheat me at your peril, I have been cheated and been cheating since before most of you were born. The same is true about playing games with fouls. You wanna play? I'll show you moves you have never seen before, . . . if you watch closely enough!
I much prefer to play games with gentlemen and ladies though.
Hu
The rules says the opponent should call many fouls. The rules also say that if there is no ref and the shooter and the opponent disagree the call goes to the shooter. So technically according to the rules of the game the shooter can commit blatant fouls and his is the overriding voice. He isn't cheating, this is what the rules say and the rules are the final word.
We favor an opponent sitting in his chair too. However when my opponent forces me to be the referee I will position myself exactly as a referee would. Sharking in his opinion? Tough sh!t, he is the one forcing me to be the referee.
Ultimately pool is a gentleman's, and ladies, game. If you insist on playing exactly according to the rule book nobody is going to enjoy the game. I call fouls on myself until I see that the other player doesn't. I'm a when in Rome kind of guy and I've pulled every cheating move anyone can imagine but I have never done it to someone who didn't cheat me first. I've also ignored fouls when the other player was. It wasn't a fun way to play but if I was gambling or playing in a tourney I let the other player make the rules but then we both played by them.
Situational morality describes it to a "T". I don't spot anything to anyone I don't agree to spot them. Letting them play to one set of rules, written or unwritten, and you playing to a stricter set is giving them a spot. Cheat me at your peril, I have been cheated and been cheating since before most of you were born. The same is true about playing games with fouls. You wanna play? I'll show you moves you have never seen before, . . . if you watch closely enough!
I much prefer to play games with gentlemen and ladies though.
Hu
Actually the rule book has rules against unsportsman-like conduct, which fouling intentionally and not calling yourself on it would most likely fall under. It would be nearly impossible to catch someone in the act though as that type of person will most often simply not say anything. Of course, in the OP's case, his opponent flat out told him that he cheated, therefore under the rules should be subject to a penalty according to an official's discresion which can include loss of the match or ejection from the tournament.
Even if it weren't against the rules, you should always call fouls on yourself because manning up to your mistakes is the right thing to do. Being the kind of guy who likes to weasle behind the rules is cowardly and shows poor character.
As to your question about calling 3 fouls on myself, YES I would and have done so on a few occasions (although it is quite rare as very few people will forget to call 2 fouls in the odd case it comes up and usually I just tell my opponent myself that I am on 2).
Winning doesn't mean nearly as much to me as does playing fairly and honorably.
Your law analogy is quite humorous considering lawyers follow the law to the word and end up getting ridiculous sums of money for people stupid enough to spill hot coffee on their laps while driving or get murderers of the hook. They are following the law to the word, does that make it right? Of course not. It just means that the law is inadequate in some circumstances.
Last edited:
What would you like your opponent to do in the same situation?
Do that.
pj <- Mom said so
chgo
Do that.
pj <- Mom said so
chgo
I usually say I " I would call every foul I make" but I noticed when I'm in a match I don't call every foul I make. I don't know why sometime I do sometime I don't. It's true calling a foul on yourself is sportmanship but is also true your opponent or referee should watch if you are making fouls.
probably you are right, but I think this is a little hypocritical. I believe in you ( not you, "you" generic)calling a foul on yourself in a friendly match or in a small tournament but not in a major tournament or a big money match. Sometime it happens but in fact people are surprised.
Even Efren Reyes didn't call foul on himself when he touched a ball in the color of money match.
Simpy in theory is very easy to say "I call every foul" but in pratice is a very different story.
It's not a foul if the opponent doesnt call it frozen... The shot is legal and it's not cheating...
I would like my opponent to just shoot the cueball straight into the pocket to give me ball in hand...
I'm not going to do that.
I would EXPECT my opponent to play the safety if I was stupid enough not to call it frozen. That rule is in place for a reason.
................
Last edited:
It is my understanding that a ball is not frozen unless it is called as such, either by a tournament official or the principals of the match if the former is not in attendance. To me, that means that, as it applies to one particular player in a match, a ball cannot be "frozen", but can only appear to be frozen. For it to actually be frozen, it must be scrutinized by both players (or a tournament official) and the official determination and call must be made. Many times I have seen disagreements over whether a ball was frozen, and eventually a flashlight or something would have to be used. It is for this reason that one participant in a match can't unilaterally determine if a ball is frozen - therefore the ball is not frozen until it is called as such.
So to rephrase the original question: if a ball appears to be frozen, but has not been called as such, should a player play a shot as if the ball is not frozen. My answer is that, since the ball is not frozen until it is called as such, the player can do whatever the hell he wants. What I would personally do is simply ask my opponent or a tournament official if that ball is frozen. It may appear to be frozen to me, but they may say it's not. I think that's the best way to handle it, but I don't see any rule or ethics violation if the player just goes ahead and shoots his shot. There are certain things you have to do to protect yourself at the table - one of them is recognizing situations like this and sometimes being the one to stand up and say "Hold on a second. Is that ball frozen?"
Aaron
So to rephrase the original question: if a ball appears to be frozen, but has not been called as such, should a player play a shot as if the ball is not frozen. My answer is that, since the ball is not frozen until it is called as such, the player can do whatever the hell he wants. What I would personally do is simply ask my opponent or a tournament official if that ball is frozen. It may appear to be frozen to me, but they may say it's not. I think that's the best way to handle it, but I don't see any rule or ethics violation if the player just goes ahead and shoots his shot. There are certain things you have to do to protect yourself at the table - one of them is recognizing situations like this and sometimes being the one to stand up and say "Hold on a second. Is that ball frozen?"
Aaron
Obviously, either player can call it frozen under any rules. When the rules say the opponent must call it frozen, that means if you don't; it doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't, and it doesn't absolve you of the simple moral obligation to do so.
"Gaming the rules" in a pool game doesn't make you a bad person - but I'd respect you (and your game) less.
pj
chgo
You seem to be saying that a player can't call a foul on himself. I don't believe this is ever true. And I don't believe it's ever the wrong thing to do.
You ask what the player should do but answer with what he can do. We can always find ways to do what we shouldn't.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
If your question is "should I admit that I 3 fouled and give the game to my opponent", then my answer is...
Yes!
Last edited:
Maybe so but the APA has a rule that says you must mark your pocket on the 8 ball, even on obvious shots. If my opponent makes a clean shot on the 8 ball and forgets to mark the pocket, I don't call the foul. Nitpicking the rules doesn't make you a winner.
But technically, you're correct.
Good reply, pj. I don't want to win on a technicality. I want to win on skill. It's hard to argue with honesty and integrity.
Too many possible extenuating circumstances to answer this question as a blanket; there are times when I wouldn’t and times that I would in most cases I would say NO I wouldn’t shoot it.