What would you do?

[Masayoshi]

Are you wondering why they didn't use your wording? I mean- you actually seem very convinced of and passionate about this so I assume you've given this a lot of thought. You must think they were actually very inept to not include in the rule an explanation of the difference between the ball being assumed to actually not be frozen and being assumed to not be frozen when it's actually frozen. Do think there is a major failure in their explanatory powers here?

No, I don't wonder why they didn't use my changed wording. If they did use that changed wording, it would support your argument. I only included it because you seem to fail to understand that fouls occur not on what is assumed to have happened, but what has happened. Fouls are called on what is assumed to have happened. Because the original wording is used my interpretation is the correct one.

Actually, I think you're assuming that they never thought of the distinction and simply assumed that there was no distinction in actuality. But actually there is and maybe they should include them in the rules, assuming that they're willing to actually consider your suggestions. Maybe I can track down an e-mail address for you. Assuming you actually want to pursue this discussion any further with someone who can really make the rules better. Really.

Umm...I like the rules the way they are. It is you who is trying to stretch the rules of when a foul occurs to assumption. Maybe you should be the one making emails to get the rules changed.

 

[Masayoshi]

But only in a mind as confused as yours seems to be.

You are the one who can't comprehend the difference between assumption and reality, or are you admitting that your mother is so fat that she can get stuck in the sky?

It isn't a foul if it's a legal shot. And, it is a legal shot. It is not a foul. You're pretending it's a foul and getting upset because I won't pretend with you.

Um..No. A foul is a foul whether it was judged legal or not. Just like a crime is a crime whether the criminal was convicted or not. Lack of judgement does not negate the event, only the penalty.

Hopefully there are not, wherever you live, very many innocent people dragged before and tried by a lynch mob ranting that they're guilty no matter how legal their behavior is, endlessly fulminating that no matter how carefully they obeyed the law they are still guilty of a crime because in the mob's opinion there is some kind of real crime committed by them even though all the laws of the land state that there was no crime. Hopefully, mob instigators like that would be removed from public venues and bound over for psychiatric observation.

That's why I stated that the legal system prioritizes protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty. Just like the rules in 9 ball give judgement calls to the shooter and not the opponent. Neither of those points negate the fact that a crime or foul has occurred, respectively.

 

[onepocketron]

To me this is not a cut and dry situation.

If you are playing a friendly game, then yes, call the foul on yourself, I do it all the time. I got no problem with being honest.

If it's in a competition, and I've payed my money to play, then things are different. If the players all know the rules, and the rules state that the ball must be declared frozen, it's not my job to tell my opponent to get off the phone, stop texting, and pay attention. I mean come on, you don't see a first baseman on the phone when a guy is at bat do you? If he want's to play, he needs to keep his head in the game.

I look at it just like the 3 foul rule. If my opponent gets on 2, I'm going to warn him "your on 2". I am certainly not going to let him just continue to play and maybe get lucky after the 4th try. The frozen ball is no different than the 3 foul rule.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm going to give him plenty of time to come look at the ball. If he is putting one thumb up his butt, and one in his mouth, switching to see which tastes the best while texting or talking, it's not my job to tell him the taste is never going to change. He paid his money just like I did. He needs to keep his head in the game.

 

[scsuxci]

Originally Posted by risky biz
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.



Well, if you want to be a huffy/puffy internet bully and call names rather than expend what you must think is the tremendous effort required to understand why the rule exists then go ahead and do whatever floats your personal boat.

I wasn't being a bully at all,just stating the fact by the way your wording things sound insulting.Look when it comes down to the Question that the OP asked,I think it comes down to the moral compass of that person.I remember a match about a year or so ago
in World team doubles(can't recall the name of the event)where the only person that knew there was a foul committed was the shooter.The crowd,ref,and the other team never seen it but he called a foul on himself
and they ended up losing the match.Some people thought he was stupid
and others thought he was a true sportsman.Whatever rules that are in
place at the time is irrelevant when it comes to doing whats right.
Cheating on your girlfriend isn't illegal,but is sure isn't ethical!

 

[risky biz]

. . you seem to fail to understand that fouls occur not on what is assumed to have happened, but what has happened.

You're saying that if someone rolls a ball up against a cushion and thinks it's frozen but decides to not say anything and the referee doesn't call it frozen then the opposing player rolls up against the ball the referee should call a foul when the first shooter yells, "Foul! That ball was frozen!" You think this is how a high level, competitive sport should be conducted.

Don't you realize how silly that sounds? You're dead wrong in so many ways. The people who wrote the rules are pretty smart, really. Comparatively, I mean.

 

[risky biz]

To me this is not a cut and dry situation.

If you are playing a friendly game, then yes, call the foul on yourself, I do it all the time. I got no problem with being honest.

If it's in a competition, and I've payed my money to play, then things are different. If the players all know the rules, and the rules state that the ball must be declared frozen, it's not my job to tell my opponent to get off the phone, stop texting, and pay attention. I mean come on, you don't see a first baseman on the phone when a guy is at bat do you? If he want's to play, he needs to keep his head in the game.

I look at it just like the 3 foul rule. If my opponent gets on 2, I'm going to warn him "your on 2". I am certainly not going to let him just continue to play and maybe get lucky after the 4th try. The frozen ball is no different than the 3 foul rule.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm going to give him plenty of time to come look at the ball. If he is putting one thumb up his butt, and one in his mouth, switching to see which tastes the best while texting or talking, it's not my job to tell him the taste is never going to change. He paid his money just like I did. He needs to keep his head in the game.

That's exactly waht you should do for two very good reasons:

1) To penalize the drudges who turn pool into a joke with their jackanape behavior.

2) To let angle shooters know they aren't going to get anywhere with their, "It was frozen!" BS after the shot.

 

[risky biz]

I wasn't being a bully at all,just stating the fact by the way your wording things sound insulting.Look when it comes down to the Question that the OP asked,I think it comes down to the moral compass of that person.I remember a match about a year or so ago
in World team doubles(can't recall the name of the event)where the only person that knew there was a foul committed was the shooter.The crowd,ref,and the other team never seen it but he called a foul on himself
and they ended up losing the match.Some people thought he was stupid
and others thought he was a true sportsman.Whatever rules that are in
place at the time is irrelevant when it comes to doing whats right.
Cheating on your girlfriend isn't illegal,but is sure isn't ethical!

You're insulting yourself everytime you say that someone is unethical when they follow the rules of pool.

 

[OneIron]

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.

I would never call the ball frozen after the hit. That's just wrong. If I thought the ball was frozen when my opponent is shooting, I will ask before he shoots. When I'm shooting and it's frozen, I make sure the cue ball hits a rail after the hit. It's not necessary for my opponent to call it frozen for me to consider it frozen.

I know the rules don't require me to call it on myself but I just feel better if I do. If someone else doesn't, it has no affect on me one way or another.

 

[Celtic]

The first thing I do if I am shooting and a ball is close to the rail is check myself to see if it is frozen. If I see that it is indeed frozen I will look for the plan B shot that is not a foul.

A player that is paying attention and that sees me check the ball, if they are not checking themselves are assuming that I am being honest with the assessment I myself made on the ball and for me to pretend it is not frozen and go ahead and shoot it is a goofy way to treat a guy who is giving me the respect to trust me to make the honest and correct call in the first place.

The rules are the way they are because 17%+ of the players you will run into in any given tournament or money match are low enough to need the rules to baby step them through the whole bloody match because if they don't they will try to get away with anything they can manage.

I would love to assume I can trust my opponent to make the proper honest call on something like this themselves so I can stay seated and they can keep doing their thing at the table until it is my turn. Unfortunately as seen in this thread that is not an option so you get up and take a look yourself and everyone gets to treat each other with a lack of trust.

 

[Rod]

Well, I don't get it, if the ball is frozen it's still a legal shot if you hit the ball first then the C/B contacts the rail. If it hit the ball but no rail contact with the C/B then I'd call a foul unless the guy was an A hole -- LOL
In reality when gambling it's not the shooters responsibility.

Rod

 

[risky biz]

I would never call the ball frozen after the hit. That's just wrong. If I thought the ball was frozen when my opponent is shooting, I will ask before he shoots. When I'm shooting and it's frozen, I make sure the cue ball hits a rail after the hit. It's not necessary for my opponent to call it frozen for me to consider it frozen.

I know the rules don't require me to call it on myself but I just feel better if I do. If someone else doesn't, it has no affect on me one way or another.

I would guess that almost everyone plays just like this. But if I didn't call a ball frozen and the other shooter rolls up against it I assume it wasn't frozen just like the rules state. If the ball could have been called frozen then I am the one responsible for not having called it and the idea of accusing the other player of being unethical is plain stupid. No one has the right to expect the other player to make their calls for them.

 

[risky biz]

Well, I don't get it, if the ball is frozen it's still a legal shot if you hit the ball first then the C/B contacts the rail. If it hit the ball but no rail contact with the C/B then I'd call a foul unless the guy was an A hole -- LOL
In reality when gambling it's not the shooters responsibility.

Rod

I think the example is of an OB next to the rail and the CB being rolled up to it. If it was called frozen that would be a foul because no rail contact after hit. If it wasn't called frozen then rolling up against it would cause a rail contact if it's close enough to the cushion. And, if it wasn't called frozen it wasn't frozen. Plain and simple.

 

[Masayoshi]

You're saying that if someone rolls a ball up against a cushion and thinks it's frozen but decides to not say anything and the referee doesn't call it frozen then the opposing player rolls up against the ball the referee should call a foul when the first shooter yells, "Foul! That ball was frozen!" You think this is how a high level, competitive sport should be conducted.

I said nothing even resembling that, in fact I said just the opposite. If you can't understand that, you need to take some reading comprehension classes.

Don't you realize how silly that sounds? You're dead wrong in so many ways. The people who wrote the rules are pretty smart, really. Comparatively, I mean.

Irrelevant because that is not what I said.

 

[acousticsguru]

You're insulting yourself everytime you say that someone is unethical when they follow the rules of pool.

Strictly speaking, in the absence of a referee, the ethical way for the shooter himself would be to call the ball frozen before he or she shoots the shot, instead of using the situation to their advantage that their opponent is staying put and trusts him or her. Anyone who thinks they're outsmarting their competition like this, or in general thinks lowly of their opponent because the person won't even approach the table and seemingly doesn't care about the outcome, shouldn't ever hope for anyone handing them a drink when they're dying of thirst. After all, according to their own ethics, their concept of survival of the fitter justifies neglect.

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

 

[risky biz]

Strictly speaking, in the absence of a referee, the ethical way for the shooter himself would be to call the ball frozen before he or she shoots the shot, instead of using the situation to their advantage that their opponent is staying put and trusts him or her. Anyone who thinks they're outsmarting their competition like this, or in general thinks lowly of their opponent because the person won't even approach the table and seemingly doesn't care about the outcome, shouldn't ever hope for anyone handing them a drink when they're dying of thirst. After all, according to their own ethics, their concept of survival of the fitter justifies neglect.

You are saying that someone who plays pool by the rules of the game is someone who should be allowed to unnecessarily die of thirst. This tells me everything there is to know about your proudly displayed ethics. That, in reality, you are completely devoid of ethics and are conducting an elaborate deception, probably even against yourself. There's actually NOTHING THERE.

 

[risky biz]

I said nothing even resembling that, in fact I said just the opposite. If you can't understand that, you need to take some reading comprehension classes.

Irrelevant because that is not what I said.

Yeah, more of the same. It's a foul even though it isn't a foul and you didn't say it even though you keep repeatedly saying it.

Fini as far as I'm concerned. Bye.

 

[acousticsguru]

You are saying that someone who plays pool by the rules of the game is someone who should be allowed to unnecessarily die of thirst. This tells me everything there is to know about your proudly displayed ethics. That, in reality, you are completely devoid of ethics and are conducting an elaborate deception, probably even against yourself. There's actually NOTHING THERE.

No, I'm talking about said person's attitude to others - and believe you got that on the first try, and are now trying to talk your way out of it. Have a nice weekend!

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]

Yeah, more of the same. It's a foul even though it isn't a foul and you didn't say it even though you keep repeatedly saying it.

Fini as far as I'm concerned. Bye.

Thanks for the concession. I'm glad you finally realized that you are wrong

 

[scsuxci]

Being a true Sportsman has nothing to do with rules but having
the moral compass to know that your being as honest and fair
like the game was meant to be played like.

 

[scsuxci]

You're insulting yourself everytime you say that someone is unethical when they follow the rules of pool.

Go back and read the OP's original question.He asked if you would shoot a shot you knew would be wrong but since your opponent didn't notice,would you shoot it?Its very simple,it you know its bad and still shoot it,its UN-ethical.If your trying to say its legal cause your opponent
didn't realize its a foul is the same mentality as people saying,"a crime isn't a crime unless you get caught".