When is a Foul a Foul?

[ignomirello]

No Refferee

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.

And that my folks is the way the game should be played like gentlemen!!! Not like cheaters who must win at all costs.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... You can't allow a ref to make a call on a hit that he or she didn't see, regardless of how sure the ref may be about the call. It sets a bad precedent and isn't fair to the player the call goes against. The ref has to be there to witness it. If not, the call goes to the shooter. ...

I was watching a 14.1 video, and just after a break shot the player's only shot was straight into the side. Unfortunately the cue ball was about 1/8 inch from the object ball. The player quickly shot straight through, double-hitting the cue ball, making the shot and getting good position. He clearly understood that the shot was problematic and he obviously didn't want to give his opponent any chance to call over a referee.

I think it is possible to make a call in that situation after the fact, especially since there was a video. The alternative is to allow the cheating scum to get away with it. In case I'm the TD, that player is out of the tournament.

 

[FranCrimi]

I was watching a 14.1 video, and just after a break shot the player's only shot was straight into the side. Unfortunately the cue ball was about 1/8 inch from the object ball. The player quickly shot straight through, double-hitting the cue ball, making the shot and getting good position. He clearly understood that the shot was problematic and he obviously didn't want to give his opponent any chance to call over a referee.

I think it is possible to make a call in that situation after the fact, especially since there was a video. The alternative is to allow the cheating scum to get away with it. In case I'm the TD, that player is out of the tournament.

If his intent to avoid a call was clear, then it becomes a sportsmanship issue, and as the ref I would charge him with a sportsmanship foul of loss of game, and issue a warning that the next one would be loss of match.

 

[Bob Jewett]

If his intent to avoid a call was clear, then it becomes a sportsmanship issue, and as the ref I would charge him with a sportsmanship foul of loss of game, and issue a warning that the next one would be loss of match.

It was very, very clear that he rushed the shot to avoid a call. There was no ref. Would you make a call after the fact and not having seen the shot live?

 

[BRussell]

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.

Agree 100%. And another thing: on many types of fouls, the shooter is the only one who knows for sure whether there was a foul. For example, experienced players know when they double hit, even if it's hard for an observer to tell. If you're the shooter, you can feel the difference.

 

[FranCrimi]

It was very, very clear that he rushed the shot to avoid a call. There was no ref. Would you make a call after the fact and not having seen the shot live?

Probably yes, but it depends on the evidence. Sportsmanship issues are more subjective and give the ref some leeway. Reviewing the video would be a big help in that instance.

However ---- not with calling a hit.

 

[NINEBALLART]

This happened last Tuesday night at BCA league....An opponent on the other team that no one likes because he is a cheat, pretty good shooter, did 3 asinine things...

First thing was as his teammate was about to pull the trigger on the 8, He jumps out of his chair and yells, "Hey...Lets get people to watch this shot..Who's up next? O.K. you watch...How about the other team..O.K. you watch".
His teammate shoots and misses the 8 completely...His teammate gets pissed at his teammate and tells him don't ever get involved in my shot again...Actually his teammate cannot ask people to ref and watch shot..Only shooter and his oponnet can...

Second thing he did....He's at the table playing me...Can't decide on a shot...His teammate asks me a question and after I turn and look around the shooter is walking away from table..I don't know what just happened...So knowing him I yell out, "Hey..Ball in hand?" He don't answer..I repeat it..He still keeps walking and don't answer...So I go up and shoot...Come back and his own teammate said He fouled and you had ball in hand...

Third thing....During same game....He's on 8 ball...My ball is really close to 8...He can't make a clean shot ..So he calls safe....I look and his team Captain is right next to 8 he is shooting at...I ask his captain to watch shot..I also ask one of my players and another of his to watch....He slow rolls the cue ball, it lightly hits the 8 and neither ball hit a rail...I look at his captain and other 2 players and all 3 say, "No rail..Ball in hand"..
So I pick up cue ball...

He starts yelling..."What are you doing?" I said,..Ball in hand..He says, no way...I think it hit rail and bounced back"...So I asked 3 refs and they told him, no it didn't...So now he starts saying,"well..It's now ball in hand for me because you didn't ask me first"..."You have to ask me first..So I win.." I said bull crap and started to shoot and won game...He went on for 45 minutes trying to convince me, his teammates and my teammates that he should get the win because I didn't ask him first before the refs.......Even told me if I was a good sport I would give him win for that game...

Next game my Captain breaks and runs on him and he gets a zero...Next game he plays he breaks dry and my other team mate runs out and gives him a zero.....He dropped from 8th in league to 18th that night...So Karma does get you eventually...LOL

This guy plays good enough to finish in top 10 every session..Why is all this necessary on his part?

 

[pt109]

Probably yes, but it depends on the evidence. Sportsmanship issues are more subjective and give the ref some leeway. Reviewing the video would be a big help in that instance.

However ---- not with calling a hit.

Bustamente vs Peach...2007 world nine ball
..watch at 27 minutes....I think video is a great way to call a shot.
( that hit is too tough for the human eye )

 

[AtLarge]

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.

... You can't allow a ref to make a call on a hit that he or she didn't see, regardless of how sure the ref may be about the call. It sets a bad precedent and isn't fair to the player the call goes against. The ref has to be there to witness it. If not, the call goes to the shooter. ...

Fran -- Are your views on this counter to those of the WPA? Here's a passage from their Regulations:

"If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred."

As I read that section, the process of gathering information regarding the situation would apply to making calls on hits as well as other possible reasons for dispute. The ref should gather whatever information he can to help make the call. But if all he has to go on is what the two players say, and one says "foul" and the other says "no foul," then "it is assumed that no foul occurred."

In other words, calls don't automatically go to the shooter when the ref didn't see the shot.

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

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

I worked with a Fellow Ref, originally from England. still had a strong accent.

He was the same if he suspected someone wasn't telling the truth.

He would look at the person, cock his head and give them a disappointed look.

Then, he would say something to the nature of, "Really, come on now".

Twas funny as the story would usually change a bit. His actions and mannerisms would guilt them into it.

Quite funny to watch him diffuse a tough situation at a table.

 

[FranCrimi]

Fran -- Are your views on this counter to those of the WPA? Here's a passage from their Regulations:

"If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred."

As I read that section, the process of gathering information regarding the situation would apply to making calls on hits as well as other possible reasons for dispute. The ref should gather whatever information he can to help make the call. But if all he has to go on is what the two players say, and one says "foul" and the other says "no foul," then "it is assumed that no foul occurred."

In other words, calls don't automatically go to the shooter when the ref didn't see the shot.

Yes, I think you are right in that it does look like it's allowed. If I were still on the board of the WPA, I would definitely address the issue with the rest of the board members to reword that regulation so that it is clear that the referee can not make a call on a shot he did not witness. That regulation seems to be all encompassing to include other issues that may arise as well. That's too bad, because it opens a can of worms that should not be opened.

I've been there many many times over as a ref, as a player, and as a TD. I'm speaking from experience that the ref should never try to call a shot he did not see.

 

[AtLarge]

... I've been there many many times over as a ref, as a player, and as a TD. I'm speaking from experience that the ref should never try to call a shot he did not see.

The shooter calls "no foul."

The opponent, every spectator in the place, the commentators, the video replay, the tournament director, the players on several adjacent tables, the camera operators, and the waitress all indicate "foul."

You, the ref, did not see the shot.

You're going with the shooter?

[Sometimes shooters, knowingly or unknowingly, make the wrong call.]

Edit -- and everyone in chat said it was a foul, too.

 

[Masayoshi]

The shooter calls "no foul."

The opponent, every spectator in the place, the commentators, the video replay, the tournament director, the players on several adjacent tables, the camera operators, and the waitress all indicate "foul."

You, the ref, did not see the shot.

You're going with the shooter?

[Sometimes shooters, knowingly or unknowingly, make the wrong call.]

Edit -- and everyone in chat said it was a foul, too

With video and assuming a foul is clearly visible,I think it is ok to call the foul because you can actually witness the shot as a referee. Without video, I would give it to the shooter because you have to be uniform with your judgements. Letting one bad apple get away is much better than being forced to make a call when witness reports are slightly less unanimous.

 

[rrick33]

We've had this debate many times in the past. The simple answer to your question is that a foul is only a foul when it is called.

If the player on the sideline didn't have a vantage point then they needed to move so they could observe the shot. There is no rule that states you must remain in your chair.
If the shooter does not call a foul on himself and the opponent does not call the foul, then technically, under the rules......there was no foul.

As for all the players who choose to infuse morality into the equation...well, when the day comes that we all operate on the same unyielding moral code, then you can judge behavior.

Until then, it has no place in sports....We have rules to define what is acceptable and what is not. Personal opinions carry no weigh.
Choosing not to call a foul on yourself is not a violation of the rules.

It's unfortunate that your teammate missed an opportunity to advance his position but the fault was entirely his own. The rules side with the shooter.

 

[FranCrimi]

The shooter calls "no foul."

The opponent, every spectator in the place, the commentators, the video replay, the tournament director, the players on several adjacent tables, the camera operators, and the waitress all indicate "foul."

You, the ref, did not see the shot.

You're going with the shooter?

[Sometimes shooters, knowingly or unknowingly, make the wrong call.]

Edit -- and everyone in chat said it was a foul, too

Probably not. Because....

If I found that the hit was so incredibly obvious with no possibility of obstructing balls, and the shooter's intention to deceive was clear, then I would probably call an unsportsmanlike behavior foul on the shooter. I might even penalize him the game and not just the shot.

 

[AtLarge]

... Choosing not to call a foul on yourself is not a violation of the rules. ...

I imagine you remember that I do not agree with this. You and I debated it a couple years ago. I don't want to go through it again. For anyone interested, I refer you to the threads I listed in post #24 above.

 

[AtLarge]

The rulebook for American Rotation has removed the ambiguity as to whether a player is obligated to call fouls on himself:

2. Honor and integrity, and “own fouls”
2.1 — A player is obligated to call his or her “own fouls,” even if the referee or opponent (player who was not shooting) failed to see or call the foul. It is not acceptable to “get by.”
2.2 — When a referee (a designated third person) calls a foul, and the opponent (player who was not shooting) believes that a foul did not occur, then the player who was not shooting may “override” the referee and call “no foul”. Because the referee’s ruling is subject to this “override,” the referee is prohibited from touching the balls after calling a foul.

 

[pocket]

The simple answer to your question is that a foul is only a foul when it is called.

Because you say so?

If the shooter does not call a foul on himself and the opponent does not call the foul, then technically, under the rules......there was no foul.

The rules state it is illegal to double hit. The cue ball - please quote me a rule where it is written as you state it. "Unless the opponent doesn't call it" something like that would convince me.

Choosing not to call a foul on yourself is not a violation of the rules

Yes, actually it is, and a referee can be called in to rule and assess a penalty.

The rule states no such thing. It defines what a foul is.

I agree, it defines a foul as a foul, there is no "unless you can get away with it"

Some rules eliminate the foul if a successive shot has been taken, but that does not mean it was not a foul to begin with.

 

[mikepage]

The rulebook for American Rotation has removed the ambiguity as to whether a player is obligated to call fouls on himself:

2. Honor and integrity, and “own fouls”
2.1 — A player is obligated to call his or her “own fouls,” even if the referee or opponent (player who was not shooting) failed to see or call the foul. It is not acceptable to “get by.”
2.2 — When a referee (a designated third person) calls a foul, and the opponent (player who was not shooting) believes that a foul did not occur, then the player who was not shooting may “override” the referee and call “no foul”. Because the referee’s ruling is subject to this “override,” the referee is prohibited from touching the balls after calling a foul.

Thanks. Don Owen did ask us to look at this.... I like it.

 

[BRussell]

The rulebook for American Rotation has removed the ambiguity as to whether a player is obligated to call fouls on himself:

2. Honor and integrity, and “own fouls”
2.1 — A player is obligated to call his or her “own fouls,” even if the referee or opponent (player who was not shooting) failed to see or call the foul. It is not acceptable to “get by.”
2.2 — When a referee (a designated third person) calls a foul, and the opponent (player who was not shooting) believes that a foul did not occur, then the player who was not shooting may “override” the referee and call “no foul”. Because the referee’s ruling is subject to this “override,” the referee is prohibited from touching the balls after calling a foul.

Looks good, but they've got to lose all the scare quotes.