What are you talking about? Either you are on some great drugs or you are in your own world.
What would you do?
- Thread starter TheMarsMan
- Start date
What are you talking about? Either you are on some great drugs or you are in your own world.
If it was touching the rail, it was frozen. Calling it or not doesn't change reality.
No. I believe in honesty and ethics. And if my opponent cheats and the situation comes up again, I still don't shoot it.
I don't believe in situational ethics.
A frozen ball is a ball called frozen by the player not shooting and assented to by the player shooting. Those are the rules of the game. The purpose of the rule is to prevent angle shooters from calling balls frozen after the fact when the prior position of the ball can no longer be observed. It's to put a stop to angle shooting.
So now this OP is griping that he should be able to ignore the rule requiring him to call a ball frozen and that, after the fact, it's "ethical" to demand his opponent call the ball frozen for him and if he didn't, guess what, "I should get ball in hand, na, na ,na, na ,na ,na".
It's funny to see how some people fall for a lame argument like that.
You're busted. That's all.
Last edited:
And if you didn't think the ball was frozen and shot and the other player then called it frozen and demanded ball in hand you would cry like a baby.
"To be real honest, this type of play, especially in gambling is all too common."
No, not common but observable. There are angle shooters out there who want to call frozen balls AFTER the shot. That's why thoughtful people created the rule.
Your position, and that of some others here, that following the rules of the game is unethical is utterly ridiculous. And calling frozen balls for your opponent doesn't make you a paragon of ethics though you might like to think of yourself that way. You're really just someone who isn't insightful enough to understand why the rule is there. All you are doing is encouraging angle shooters which the OP gives the appearance of being by calling the ball frozen after the fact. Why did he choose to call the ball frozen after the shot rather than before? All he had to do was say, "It's frozen", and his opponent could either agree or dispute it. Instead he's calling it after the shot, probably got in an argument about it, and is looking for "moral" support here from self-enamored enablers who enjoy the opportunity to portray themselves as inhabiting a higher moral level when all they're really doing is undermining the game with their conceit.
No. I believe in honesty and ethics. And if my opponent cheats and the situation comes up again, I still don't shoot it.
I don't believe in situational ethics.
A perfect example of situational ethics is calling a ball frozen AFTER the opponent shoots. So, it would appear that you are a strong believer in situational ethics if you're lending support to the OP's argument. Not to mention that you would be undermining pool itself by encouraging others to ignore the rules.
Why call it yourself if you have some kind of need to save your opponent the overwhelming responsibility of calling it frozen himself as the rules of the game require? All you have to do is take a different shot. You don't have to call anything if that's what you're doing.
You have misunderstood the OP's example. He was not describing a situation where he purposely waits until after the stroke of his opponent to call a ball frozen and try to "guilt" him into giving him BIH. He was asking us, as players, what would we do if we were the shooter and thought the ball was frozen (before the stroke), but our opponent did not say anything. He and his pool buddy had a difference in opinion on this type of situation, and he wanted to see what a broader audience would think about this situation.
I was the first one in this thread to say I'd shoot it. As I think more about it, everyone in my area (Philly) plays it this way, and its the way I learned to play. In fact, we even play that calling the ball frozen only lasts one inning. So in a game of one pocket, if I call a ball frozen for my opponent, and he doesn't go near it, he has to then call it frozen for me on my inning, or its not frozen. Anything can happen, even if you don't go near it. The table can be bumped a hair and the ball can move, for example.
I think if this same question were asked in the onepocket.org forum, where frozen balls (to kick at for safeties) come up ALL the time, AND, those members gamble at one pocket all the time, the results of the answers would be much different than they are on this forum.
I understand that but I think it's evident he's polling here in an attempt to throw guilt on his opponent to salve his psychic wound over not getting the ball in hand he had hoped for because the rules of the game don't allow it.
I call fouls on myself, too, but in the situation described there was no foul.
Wrong...... The ball is either going to be frozen or it's not. And if I choose to take a shot on it, I'm going to take a legal shot. If it's frozen, my cue ball has got to hit a rail, if it's not, the object ball at least has to hit the rail. I would make the call, and say so upfront. Then my opponent can double check, which is their option.
I always tend to make decisions and think ahead, thinking things through that would not leave any room for arguements (unlike many others).
I usually never have any issues with who I play, unless my opponent was just being dishonest, lying, or drunk and does not know any better.
I have ran into many of those in pool. LOL!
You sir or maam, seem to be the type obviously that seems to have a moral and ethical problem. Not me......
Look at your username, it says it all "Risky Biz"
Last edited:
Play the game with the same integrity you expect from your opponent...
As was stated above this was a hypothetical question, it has never happened to me personally.
If I was playing and someone rolled up to a ball that I hadn't called frozen I would never consider calling a foul because I know the rule states that it is a legal shot if I didn't call it frozen.
I posted this question to see what percentage of people would intentionally try the shot knowing that it was frozen. I personally wouldn't, but I can see a relatively large percentage of people would.
Your thinking that I was angle shooting couldn't be farther from the truth and anyone who knows me would say the same thing. Personally I think it is you who has problems with their morals and would angle shoot anytime you had an opportunity.
no...
I can't imagine a situation like this where I wouldn't be able to thin the ball off the rail and still end up in almost the same exact position...
So I would instead attempt to make a legal hit. Now, if I hit it too soft and it didn't hit the rail, would I call the foul if the opponent didn't?? I probably would, but I wouldn't fault someone who didn't and I would definitely call it on the opponent if the roles were reversed.
Jaden
I can't imagine a situation like this where I wouldn't be able to thin the ball off the rail and still end up in almost the same exact position...
So I would instead attempt to make a legal hit. Now, if I hit it too soft and it didn't hit the rail, would I call the foul if the opponent didn't?? I probably would, but I wouldn't fault someone who didn't and I would definitely call it on the opponent if the roles were reversed.
Jaden
Bingo!!!
This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw this question. I would attempt to shoot at the ball, but thin enough to leave the cue ball down table.....or if I'm feeling a little froggy I would kick at it or try a multiple rail bank. That's just me. I'm not right in the head though, just because I live in Alabama.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw this question. I would attempt to shoot at the ball, but thin enough to leave the cue ball down table.....or if I'm feeling a little froggy I would kick at it or try a multiple rail bank. That's just me. I'm not right in the head though, just because I live in Alabama.
Its like anything else in life,most wrong things you do
in life you knew were wrong before you did them but chose to do them
anyways.Its only you that knows if you can accept your own actions when
the same man you just deceived is walking towards you with his hand
out to congratulate you on the great game you played(and won).