What would you do?

[acousticsguru]

The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks.

The fact that one's opponent doesn't notice doesn't make it a legal shot. A foul is a foul. And to answer your question (would you shot it?), my take on this is that it depends on the character of the shooter, and the person's fear of bad karma catching up with him or her.

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

 

[Masayoshi]

It is like an NFL Coach throwing his red flag to have a play reviewed where he doesn't think his reciever made the reception.
Is the Coach unethical and or does he have bad morals?

I think you misread the post. Nobody is asking whether or not it is right to call a foul after the fact. The OP was asking whether or not you would shoot a shot that you know is a foul, but nobody else does.

The situation in question is more like a golfer moving his ball out of a sand trap when no one is looking.

 

[risky biz]

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.

Post #13:
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

So even if you weren't the other player, someone else was, which you didn't state in the OP, what was your disagreement about if he (correctly) knows that it isn't a foul? You could only logically be claiming that he fouled which is absolutely incorrect. But now you also say that you would never consider calling a foul because you know the rules. And you said I was on drugs or in a different world?:rotflmao1:

 

[Hungarian]

You're a clown. Mars is well respected around here. You lose.

Post #13:
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

So even if you weren't the other player, someone else was, which you didn't state in the OP, what was your disagreement about if he (correctly) knows that it isn't a foul? You could only logically be claiming that he fouled which is absolutely incorrect. But now you also say that you would never consider calling a foul because you know the rules. And you said I was on drugs or in a different world?:rotflmao1:

 

[risky biz]

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).

Maybe you should ask those who formulate rules in pool to rewrite them to your liking because they're deceptive. Maybe they'll change the rule and then every angle shooter in the pool room can claim, after the shot, that the ball was frozen.

But I think it would be a better idea to get off your self-congratulatory soapbox and ask someone to explain to you why the rule exists because you have difficulty understanding some things.

 

[risky biz]

You're a clown. Mars is well respected around here. You lose.

No, actually, you're a clown because all you're capable of is calling names like an overgrown baby. If you're "Mars" supporting cast he has even more than major inconsistency problems.

 

[Masayoshi]

Maybe you should ask those who formulate rules in pool to rewrite them to your liking because they're deceptive. Maybe they'll change the rule and then every angle shooter in the pool room can claim, after the shot, that the ball was frozen.

But I think it would be a better idea to get off your self-congratulatory soapbox and ask someone to explain to you why the rule exists because you have difficulty understanding some things.

The rule exists to protect the shooter from being called on fouls when there is no way to know whether or not a foul was comitted. It was not intended to serve as a way for a dishonest shooter to get away with making a bad hit, which is the situation in this thread.

 

[Bill Yerd]

If you drank 4 beers in a couple hours and drove home should you call the police and tell them what you just did?

 

[Masayoshi]

If you drank 4 beers in a couple hours and drove home should you call the police and tell them what you just did?

You shouldn't drive home in the first place.

 

[risky biz]

The rule exists to protect the shooter from being called on fouls when there is no way to know whether or not a foul was comitted. It was not intended to serve as a way for a dishonest shooter to get away with making a bad hit, which is the situation in this thread.

It's exceedingly simple to prevent a shooter from making a bad hit. All you have to do is say, "It's frozen", BEFORE the hit. Therefore most of the conversation in this thread is silly. Anyone can be highly ethical by calling the ball frozen BEFORE the hit. Sitting there like a bump on a log before the hit and then saying AFTER the hit, "It was frozen", is silly beyond belief.

Whether or not you or I decide to call a ball frozen for the other player is irrelevant. All that the faux "moral" blah, blah here does is create cover for angle shooters to claim balls were frozen AFTER the shot.

 

[risky biz]

If you drank 4 beers in a couple hours and drove home should you call the police and tell them what you just did?

In that case, drinking four beers in a couple of hours and driving home IS a foul.

 

[Masayoshi]

It's exceedingly simple to prevent a shooter from making a bad hit. All you have to do is say, "It's frozen", BEFORE the hit. Therefore most of the conversation in this thread is silly. Anyone can be highly ethical by calling the ball frozen BEFORE the hit. Sitting there like a bump on a log before the hit and then saying AFTER the hit, "It was frozen", is silly beyond belief.

Whether or not you or I decide to call a ball frozen for the other player is irrelevant. All that the faux "moral" blah, blah here does is create cover for angle shooters to claim balls were frozen AFTER the shot.

You are still attacking the same strawman that you have been attacking for the last 5 pages. Nobody is saying they would call a foul after the hit, which is a completely different situation than what this thread is about.

If you thought it was a foul after the fact, its too bad, you were too late/inattentive and have lost the right to call a foul, but that doesn't make it ethical for a player to commit a foul as long as nobody else notices. Sure they CAN do it without repercussion, but that does not mean they are right.

 

[TheMarsMan]

It's exceedingly simple to prevent a shooter from making a bad hit. All you have to do is say, "It's frozen", BEFORE the hit. Therefore most of the conversation in this thread is silly. Anyone can be highly ethical by calling the ball frozen BEFORE the hit. Sitting there like a bump on a log before the hit and then saying AFTER the hit, "It was frozen", is silly beyond belief.

Whether or not you or I decide to call a ball frozen for the other player is irrelevant. All that the faux "moral" blah, blah here does is create cover for angle shooters to claim balls were frozen AFTER the shot.

Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are not intelligent enough to respond to a simple question.

It has nothing to do with calling the ball froze after the shot or "Angle Shooting".

The only question was if you knew a ball was froze but your opponent didn't call it froze would you still roll up to the ball. It is a simple question, you have stated that you would and I have stated that I wouldn't.

There are posters in this thread that I respect that say they would still shoot the shot, and that is what I was interested in finding out.

From your previous posts on other threads, I don't respect your opinion and wouldn't care either way with what you think.

Have a good day!

 

[smoooothstroke]

I cannot imagine your scenario ever coming up the way you state it.If I am playing a shot and intend to make a good hit but it turns out that the only rail contacted was one that my ball was apparently frozen to....Then I would not assume the ball was frozen nor would I assume it was not touching the rail (no1 checked closely).I would not call a foul on myself nor would I agree a fouls was committed since neither player called the ball frozen.This happens from time to time with me shooting and with my opponent shooting and is not a big problem to me either way.

If I am about to play a soft safe I might check if a ball is frozen.For me to check if a ball is frozen I look very close and shade my hand over the ball on the rail.If I check to see if a ball is frozen then I will announce either way my opinion on whether or not it is frozen.After calling it frozen or not frozen I go ahead and play my shot but I give my opponent time to approach and check for themselves.I wouldn't make a big production out of it either way.If 2 players cannot agree that a ball is frozen or not then a ref can decide.

 

[risky biz]

You are still attacking the same strawman that you have been attacking for the last 5 pages. Nobody is saying they would call a foul after the hit, which is a completely different situation than what this thread is about.

If you thought it was a foul after the fact, its too bad, you were too late/inattentive and have lost the right to call a foul, but that doesn't make it ethical for a player to commit a foul as long as nobody else notices. Sure they CAN do it without repercussion, but that does not mean they are right.

You can cure that by changing your options to 40 posts per page. Then there will only be 2 1/2 pages. Your post was #92 and I didn't post at all until #58, by the way.

How can a player commit a foul if there was no foul? There is no foul if the ball isn't called frozen BEFORE the shot. Why do you keep saying there was a foul? There was no foul.

"The cue ball is assumed not to be touching any ball unless it is declared touching by the referee or opponent. It is the shooter’s responsibility to get the declaration before the shot."
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=121&pagetype=rules#6.7

 

[risky biz]

Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are not intelligent enough to respond to a simple question.

It has nothing to do with calling the ball froze after the shot or "Angle Shooting".

The only question was if you knew a ball was froze but your opponent didn't call it froze would you still roll up to the ball. It is a simple question, you have stated that you would and I have stated that I wouldn't.

There are posters in this thread that I respect that say they would still shoot the shot, and that is what I was interested in finding out.

From your previous posts on other threads, I don't respect your opinion and wouldn't care either way with what you think.

Have a good day!

I DID NOT state that I would roll up on a ball frozen to the rail. Fabricrating statements and claiming they're mine is highly unethical and another perfect example of angle shooting. Just another reason why I don't care whether you care what I think.

 

[Masayoshi]

You can cure that by changing your options to 40 posts per page. Then there will only be 2 1/2 pages. Your post was #92 and I didn't post at all until #58, by the way.

So what? You have still been attacking a strawman for the majority of this thread.

How can a player commit a foul if there was no foul? There is no foul if the ball isn't called frozen BEFORE the shot. Why do you keep saying there was a foul? There was no foul.

"The cue ball is assumed not to be touching any ball unless it is declared touching by the referee or opponent. It is the shooter’s responsibility to get the declaration before the shot."
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=121&pagetype=rules#6.7

Its assumed to be not frozen. That doesn't mean that it wasn't frozen. By that wording it is indeed a foul, the only problem is that the only person that can call it is the shooter because everyone else has to assume it wasn't touching.

 

[risky biz]

I cannot imagine your scenario ever coming up the way you state it.If I am playing a shot and intend to make a good hit but it turns out that the only rail contacted was one that my ball was apparently frozen to....Then I would not assume the ball was frozen nor would I assume it was not touching the rail (no1 checked closely).I would not call a foul on myself nor would I agree a fouls was committed since neither player called the ball frozen.This happens from time to time with me shooting and with my opponent shooting and is not a big problem to me either way.

If I am about to play a soft safe I might check if a ball is frozen.For me to check if a ball is frozen I look very close and shade my hand over the ball on the rail.If I check to see if a ball is frozen then I will announce either way my opinion on whether or not it is frozen.After calling it frozen or not frozen I go ahead and play my shot but I give my opponent time to approach and check for themselves.I wouldn't make a big production out of it either way.If 2 players cannot agree that a ball is frozen or not then a ref can decide.

This is exactly how most of the pool players in the world play. If someone rolled up on a ball I THOUGHT was frozen I can't imagine myself then disputing it if it hadn't been called. That's completely ridiculous.

The illogic and hazy thinking of Mars and others starts right here:
#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

He later convolutes this error that it is a foul by saying it isn't a foul and that he wouldn't call it a foul. He makes opposite statements then starts the name calling and disparagement. Well, actually he started the name calling before the contradictory statement. He then goes completely overboard by pretending I said something I didn't and then dispenses more of what he seems to have a talent for- disparagement of someone disagreeing with him.

The other completely off-kilter aspect in this thread are the ones haughtily accusing a player who follows the rules of the game of being unethical. As I pointed out previously their faux moralizing just creates a hazy confusion that provides cover for someone who actually is a real, living, breathing angle shooter who will pretend a ball was frozen after the shot. Repudiating that nonsense is important because it undermines pool.

 

[risky biz]

So what? You have still been attacking a strawman for the majority of this thread.

Its assumed to be not frozen. That doesn't mean that it wasn't frozen. By that wording it is indeed a foul, the only problem is that the only person that can call it is the shooter because everyone else has to assume it wasn't touching.

How is it a problem if all you have to do is say, "it's frozen"? No one has to assume anything if they call it frozen BEFORE the shot.

I don't get the part where you say that I'm attacking a strawman. It seems like the reverse to me. Are you finally admitting that it isn't a foul if the ball wasn't called frozen BEFORE the shot?

 

[Masayoshi]

This is exactly how most of the pool players in the world play. If someone rolled up on a ball I THOUGHT was frozen I can't imagine myself then disputing it if it hadn't been called. That's completely ridiculous.

The illogic and hazy thinking of Mars and others starts right here:
#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

He later convolutes this error that it is a foul by saying it isn't a foul and that he wouldn't call it a foul. He makes opposite statements then starts the name calling and disparagement. Well, actually he started the name calling before the contradictory statement. He then goes completely overboard by pretending I said something I didn't and then dispenses more of what he seems to have a talent for- disparagement of someone disagreeing with him.

The other completely off-kilter aspect in this thread are the ones haughtily accusing a player who follows the rules of the game of being unethical. As I pointed out previously their faux moralizing just creates a hazy confusion that provides cover for someone who actually is a real, living, breathing angle shooter who will pretend a ball was frozen after the shot. Repudiating that nonsense is important because it undermines pool.

No, the player in question is not following the rules, just getting away with breaking them. As you pointed out, the cue ball can only be assumed to be not frozen after the fact. Assumption is not the same thing as reality. If the ball was frozen, a foul was commited according to the rule

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.

This rule has no bearing on what is assumed to be true, only what actually happened. Now whether or not there was anybody to call the foul is another issue entirely.