What would you do?

[risky biz]

Hunngarian and Risky BIz both good people

Itsfroze asks for truce

Not to mention this feud could

take up valuable arguing space :grin-angelic:

I don't have any hard feelings against him. I think he secretly admires me, actually, at least in spirit.

Anyway- I'm losing interest in this. Maybe it's time to leave it to the "I posted last, I win" crowd.

 

[acousticsguru]

There is no spirit or letter. There is simply the rule. You are attempting to inject this concept to enable the introduction of your ghostly personal rules which clash with the real rules.

I hope you realize that repetition doesn't make statements more or less true? You may mention as often as you like that your interpretation is an interpretation of the real rules, and that everyone else isn't interpreting, but relying on what you claim is an imaginary rule set - when the fact is, we're all talking about the same rule. You're just venting warm words, as we'd say in my native language. The read is there for us all to see and read, no use calling your interpretation the "real rules".

Now, if you got into the habit of reading rather than just merrily typing away, and refrained from quoting snippets in order to distort other people's argumentation you're otherwise unable to even attempt to prove wrong, you'd realize that I said what I mean by the spirit of the rule there, and it's something you may try to deny but can't: all the rules in the corpus are based on the minimum requirement for a pool shot to be legal. Of course there's more to the minimum requirement, such as that one has to contact the cue ball with the tip of one cue etc., so you may feel free to add to this, but you can't detract from it, or you are definitely setting out to write your own rule set.

Again with the "corpus" which you are pretending cancels the individual rule which flies in the face of your "spirits".

This may be the single most illogical thing you've said in this whole thread: When I'm say the spirit of the matter is that a rule has to be read in accordance with the corpus, it is the same as saying that one cannot read an individual rule one so it cancels out the complete set of rules, nor vice versa. In rhetorical terms: A is true, B is true, B is based on A. The truth content of A cannot be used to disprove the truth content of B by virtue of B being based on A.

If the player plays by the rules of pool he is fulfilling the requirement for a shot to be legal which is exactly what the shooter does in the shot described.

Who says it's "illegal"? I don't. It doesn't appear to follow from your argumentation that you do either. Makes me wonder: have you read post #1 in this thread? It's not about whether or not what one would choose to do is illegal, on the contrary, the question and thus this whole thread is founded on the assumption that it is.

You can't diminish the rule by repeatedly calling it a "minimum requirement" and replacing it with your personal rules which do not posess the superiority you're implying. Your personal rules are, in fact, inferior because they undermine and contradict the real rules of pool.

What do you mean "replace"? What "personal rules" are you talking about? I for one can only refer to and quote rules from the official rule set (= the corpus). Or do you mean to tell us that the set of pool rules as is is inherently inconsistent, and that each individual rule is meant to be read with that in mind? Seriously?!

Once again your bogus "corpus" concept in an attempt to cancel the rule concerning a frozen ball.

Again, who's trying to "cancel" a rule here? Are you? Do you think that is what the OP had in mind? It's the other way round: what the OP does, in contrast to you, is recognize that the player has a choice, and ask us all what we would do? He is not asking about the rule to be changed, but our interpretation of the rule, and personal attitude as to the options it offers the player. Then you come and try to claim that whoever debates the choice isn't playing by what you call the "real rules of pool". But in contrast to your "real rules of pool", the official rule set confronts the player with a choice. The rule doesn't say one has to wait for someone else to do or say something. Nope! It's the player's choice to act upon the option's he or she is presented with. And since there is choice, it's worth asking the question, as well as discuss and listen to people's reasoning.

As an incoming shooter you don't know anything until a declaration is made […]

You're a cunning fellow, I'll acknowledge that. See in the above sentence you behave as if the declaration and the knowledge of what is were independent, when you know full well what I was talking about would lead to a sentence like "by yourself"? You treat the rule as if it didn't offer that option, but it does. The shooter may make said declaration him- or herself. Does not have to, of course, we all know this because it's what this threat is based on - the thread is based on the question what you'd do since you do have that choice. You merrily continue as if there were none.

Makes me wonder: if you think that, why are you participating in this thread? Do us all a favour, please, and go back to post #1 and read it, if you've missed it thus far. Thank you!

Then, when you're done with that, could you provide us all with a link to your "real rules of pool", please? Until then, the rest of us will have to continue referring to and quoting from the official WPA/EPBF rule set.

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

 

[acousticsguru]

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?

Never directly replied to this question, although the answer follows from my contributions to this thread.

In major events, if it is frozen, the referee is going to call the ball frozen.

In the absence of a referee, either my opponent calls the ball frozen or I will.

In other words, since I can see no factual difference in the lay of the balls, this is an "all else being equal" type of situation to me.

I'll treat a frozen ball as a frozen ball. I'm grown-up and do not need any assistance or help. And if I do, I go get my reading spectacles.

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