When is a Foul a Foul?

[JC]

I was cheated on an obvious foul at 4-4 and physically and verbally sharked at hill-hill in my last singles match up there Bob. You can't call a ref every time a foul might occur, which of course is virtually every shot. So if players want to win like that then so be it. They have to live with themselves. Pity them and move on.

JC

 

[theluckfactor]

Close hits are not the only fouls. And you may not be thinking about a bad hit or not, but you will know it if you did after you shot.

I'm not going to call a guy over because I think you may miscue or hit a ball with your cue or whiff on a ball totally if you try for a thin hit.

Of course you’re not going to call someone over if you think you may miss the object ball on a really thin hit. And yes, I would call a foul on myself, without hesitation. I also agreed with your earlier statement that it’s up to both players to pay attention and call the shot. Those are obvious scenarios if I miscue my concentration is lost and I am watching the cue ball.

So, if you are in a match and the cue ball is an eighth of inch or less from the object ball your opponent is shooting at, you're going to rely on your opponent to be honest and call a push shot? You’re not going to ask someone to watch the hit?

 

[theluckfactor]

This past US Open, I thought Dennis Orcollo committed a blatant foul and did not call it on himself. Shane and the referee missed it.

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

I always call a Foul on myself.

I sit when it's my turn to sit. Yet, if my opponent is in front of me and blocking my view his shot, I will always move so I can see the shot. No rule against doing that.

Not saying that your Buddy is wrong. Just that it is his option to see the shot from a better vantage point if he can and is necessary.

 

[NINEBALLART]

According to the BCA rule book, if a player shoots the wrong ball, you have to tell him right then..Before he takes a second shot...If you don't call it until after the second shot then he now has those balls and keeps shooting..This rule stops someone from letting you run to the 8 then telling you your shooting the wrong balls.

As far as calling fouls, only the player can call a foul on his opponent...No one else...If the player suspect's a foul was committed he can ask the player and then ask if someone saw it.. But no one else can ask but the player...
Best to stop your opponent, ask one from your team and one from his team to watch the hit...Then ask the two watching if the hit was good or not..He's out of the picture now because since you ask 2 people to ref it's up to them, not the shooter to make the call..

 

[dabarbr]

Call me crazy but I think a singles match is different than a team one.

In singles, if I foul I can't think of a scenario where I wouldn't call it on myself (although honestly it's possible there may be one).

Teams is a different animal and I learned that lesson the hard way. I was playing in my first team event and I played a nice safety. The opposing player came to the table and attempted a 3 rail kick shot which he hit but he didn't get a rail. I was so full of nerves and so surprised he even hit the ball that I missed the fact that he didn't get a rail. My teammates could say nothing.

I ended up losing the rack and I was pretty ticked off about it after hearing all the details from my teammates but later I realized it was my own fault for not paying attention. Had I simply asked the guy if it was ball in hand -- which is a standard requirement before taking one, he would have acknowledged the foul. It was my mistake not his.

Now it would be great if we all called all fouls on ourselves, but that's not the reality. So when playing in a team event I think it's important to understand you aren't just calling a foul on yourself but you are calling a foul on your team. There are now times when I'm playing in a team event where if my opponent chooses to NOT pay attention I will not call fouls on my team that he chooses to ignore.

I sort of disagree with the idea that the player in the chair is not the quasi referee. Every team event I've played in this is the understanding. I've never once had my view of the table obstructed by anything. If something crazy on the table happens (like a miscue) all you have to do is ask the player if it was a good hit. If you choose to stay disengaged from the action on the table you are just asking for trouble.

I don't think playing like this is perfect but I also choose not to oppose my own moral code on my teammates in order to look like some sort of purist.

I hope this makes sense to some of you without making me look like a murderer.

A very good post regarding a team event. The only thing I would add is that if I was paying attention and I knew that a foul was committed I would call foul instead of asking them if they fouled. That way you don't give them an out to cheat.

By asking them if they fouled you are giving them the impression that you're not sure if they fouled or not. Let them know that you know they fouled.

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

According to rule 1-21 #2. of the BCAPL rules, if you foul, your inning ends. So, if he knew he fouled, and kept shooting anyways, you could apply a shooting out of turn foul, or an unsportsmanship foul on him.

I couldn't find (doesn't mean there isn't one) a rule explicitly stating that a person has to call a foul on themselves.

However with rule 1-23 #1, it is up to the players only to call fouls. If none was called, then it is erased after the next legal shot.

So, you are somewhat in an ambiguous area here.

Thank you very much for the clarification!

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

Yes, the situation Prad mentioned involved a shooter who fouled, admits the foul, and chose to shoot again. That's not OK and is not in fact different from scratching and then pulling the cueball out of the pocket and shooting again.

I was the TD for Prad's situation (his teamate's situation actually).

Here is the deal at Fargo Billiards

In unrefereed matches, the opponent IS NOT the referee.

Let's look at some of the consequences of thinking otherwise. If the opponent IS the referee, then the opponent should never be sitting in a chair; he should be moving around the table to get in the best position to see each shot. He should stop the shooter from shooting on occasion to look at the shot from the shooter's perspective before getting into position. He should stop the shooter from shooting if a server or patron walks between him and the shooter. And he should stop the shooter from shooting while a server asks him whether he needs ketchup with his fries. Clearly it would be obnoxious for an opponent truly to act like a referee.

So what then is the role of the opponent? The opponent, unlike a non-playing teammate or railbird, has a general obligation to pay attention, has the right to question whether a hit was legal, and has a right before the shot to request an agreed-upon third party be an ad hoc referee.

The main obligation is on the shooter. The shooter is the referee. He has an obligation to call a foul when a foul occurs. If the opponent questions a shot after the fact, the shooter has the obligation to listen, consider, make an honest assessment, and ultimately make the call. The shooter also has a general obligation on a shot that might be close to alert his opponent, who might want to request an ad hoc referee.

This is what I do when its close to avoid any problems.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The main obligation is on the shooter. The shooter is the referee. He has an obligation to call a foul when a foul occurs. If the opponent questions a shot after the fact, the shooter has the obligation to listen, consider, make an honest assessment, and ultimately make the call. The shooter also has a general obligation on a shot that might be close to alert his opponent, who might want to request an ad hoc referee.

That seems like a good way to do it if everyone agrees. Do you ever have problems with players who do not accept and follow through on that obligation?

 

[FranCrimi]

Originally Posted by mikepage View Post
... The main obligation is on the shooter. The shooter is the referee. He has an obligation to call a foul when a foul occurs. If the opponent questions a shot after the fact, the shooter has the obligation to listen, consider, make an honest assessment, and ultimately make the call. The shooter also has a general obligation on a shot that might be close to alert his opponent, who might want to request an ad hoc referee.

That seems like a good way to do it if everyone agrees. Do you ever have problems with players who do not accept and follow through on that obligation?

I don't agree. The shooter can certainly offer a courtesy to his opponent and ask him if he would like to call a referee to watch a hit. However, the purpose is to avoid possible conflict after the fact. It is not an obligation of the shooter.

Even though in the end, the decision goes to the shooter in the absence of a referee, the opponent in the chair is the one who ultimately should ask for a ref to watch a hit, not the shooter.

The opponent will have to become more educated on when it is appropriate to get out of the chair to take a better look at a potential problem or to challenge a hit after the fact.

 

[Don Owen]

American Rotation

Take a look at the rules for American Rotation.
americanbilliardclub.com
Don

 

[Djtnak]

When is it a foul?

I was one of the referees at that wbca event. The shooter is correct, in that they are not obligated to tell your team mate that they fouled unless asked. When the player is asked, they are obligated (within the ruleset) to tell the truth. All your team mate had to do was ask. If he knows it was a foul, and the shooter does not admit it, now you have a problem that could have been rectified by simply calling a referee for any tricky shot.

Even when the shooter does not tell the truth, I have ways of finding out what happened and making a ruling after the fact.

 

[FranCrimi]

I was one of the referees at that wbca event. The shooter is correct, in that they are not obligated to tell your team mate that they fouled unless asked. When the player is asked, they are obligated (within the ruleset) to tell the truth. All your team mate had to do was ask. If he knows it was a foul, and the shooter does not admit it, now you have a problem that could have been rectified by simply calling a referee for any tricky shot.

Even when the shooter does not tell the truth, I have ways of finding out what happened and making a ruling after the fact.

As a ref, making a ruling after the fact is wrong. You have to see the hit to rule on it. If you didn't see the hit, the decision goes to the shooter regardless of whatever information you managed to collect afterward.

 

[BasementDweller]

As a ref, making a ruling after the fact is wrong. You have to see the hit to rule on it. If you didn't see the hit, the decision goes to the shooter regardless of whatever information you managed to collect afterward.

I disagree.

Many times referees are dealing with players that are ignorant of the actual rules or just simply don't understand how the balls interact with each other. When it comes to situations of ignorance a couple of simple questions and answers could clearly show that the player committed a foul or that he didn't.

Now if it's a case where the ref can't come to a clear decision than the call goes to the shooter.

***Edit to add**

If that's not how the rules are written -- it's how they should be.

 

[alstl]

In league play I call it on myself. Gambling is a different story.

 

[Djtnak]

Basement dweller is correct.

He made a very good point above.

 

[hang-the-9]

I was one of the referees at that wbca event. The shooter is correct, in that they are not obligated to tell your team mate that they fouled unless asked. When the player is asked, they are obligated (within the ruleset) to tell the truth. All your team mate had to do was ask. If he knows it was a foul, and the shooter does not admit it, now you have a problem that could have been rectified by simply calling a referee for any tricky shot.

Even when the shooter does not tell the truth, I have ways of finding out what happened and making a ruling after the fact.

So the other player is OK to walk around and watch the shots then? You don't have to foul on a "tricky shot", the guy could have miscued,or just did a accidental masse into the wrong ball or any one of other 20 things that can cause a foul when it's not a possibility. Saying it's OK for a shooter to hide a foul is just wrong. The only way for an opponent to watch for fouls is to be in line to see the shots, which means walking around the table to get to the right angle to see it properly. Unless you allow that, there is no way you can say that the shooter does not have to say when they fouled. What if the guy is in his chair, and the other player is blocking the shot with his body, whch happens a lot. Now we'll have a player walking around to watch the shot instead of sitting still and not distracting the shooter.

I would never knowingly play in a tournament that said "you don't have to say you fouled unless someone sees you" as an official rule. You may as well say "Hi, here is your table to play on, cheat em if you can".

 

[Masayoshi]

I disagree.

Many times referees are dealing with players that are ignorant of the actual rules or just simply don't understand how the balls interact with each other. When it comes to situations of ignorance a couple of simple questions and answers could clearly show that the player committed a foul or that he didn't.

Now if it's a case where the ref can't come to a clear decision than the call goes to the shooter.

***Edit to add**

If that's not how the rules are written -- it's how they should be.

I think it is okay for a ref to make a judgement after the fact if it is an inquiry about the rules and what actually happened is unambiguous (8 ball goes down on break, touching an object ball in cue ball fouls only, player forgot to call a non-obvious shot, etc.), but I don't think refs should make judgements on a close hit after the fact as players that don't know how balls normally react will also have trouble exactly reproducing the situation in question and if they do know how the balls are supposed to react, it will just come down to he-said-she-said anyways.

 

[Djtnak]

What did I miss?

So the other player is OK to walk around and watch the shots then? You don't have to foul on a "tricky shot", the guy could have miscued,or just did a accidental masse into the wrong ball or any one of other 20 things that can cause a foul when it's not a possibility. Saying it's OK for a shooter to hide a foul is just wrong. The only way for an opponent to watch for fouls is to be in line to see the shots, which means walking around the table to get to the right angle to see it properly. Unless you allow that, there is no way you can say that the shooter does not have to say when they fouled. What if the guy is in his chair, and the other player is blocking the shot with his body, whch happens a lot. Now we'll have a player walking around to watch the shot instead of sitting still and not distracting the shooter.

I would never knowingly play in a tournament that said "you don't have to say you fouled unless someone sees you" as an official rule. You may as well say "Hi, here is your table to play on, cheat em if you can".

Where did I say it is ok for a player to "hide" a foul? I reread my post 4 times to be sure...

 

[BasementDweller]

I think it is okay for a ref to make a judgement after the fact if it is an inquiry about the rules and what actually happened is unambiguous (8 ball goes down on break, touching an object ball in cue ball fouls only, player forgot to call a non-obvious shot, etc.), but I don't think refs should make judgements on a close hit after the fact as players that don't know how balls normally react will also have trouble exactly reproducing the situation in question and if they do know how the balls are supposed to react, it will just come down to he-said-she-said anyways.

It may become a he-said-she-said but I would at least want to give the ref a chance to sort it out and head off any sort of heated argument.

If they can't make a clear decision than that's that. Some fouls I've seen are so clearly fouls that just having the shooter try and talk their way through it can be fun to watch.