wtf???????

[easy-e]

What is the spirit of the rules? What does this mean


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was a cop in my younger days. When the law is concerned, there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law would find you getting a ticket for rolling through a stop sign, regardless of ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. The spirit of the law is that you are ensuring that it is safe for you to proceed.

Say your kid suffers a terrible asthma attack in the middle of the night and you need to rush him to the hospital. You are approaching a 4-way stop sign with all lanes visible from your location. You slow down slightly to ensure that there are absolutely no cars coming and then you speed up again to get to the hospital.

Danny is the cop that writes you the ticket for running the stop sign when he catches up to you at the emergency room.

In that scenario you followed the spirit of the law. You recognized the danger and you ensured that you were not going to harm yourself or others. However, you broke the letter of the law.

 

[Neil]

This is a great post to clarify things (I hope). Letter of the rule states that the final Mosconi shot was a foul. Spirit of the rule says a scratch wasn't going to happen so it's all good. Anybody disagree in that scenario? Would you have called that foul?

In that case, no. Reason being, why bother when over half the team isn't even trying to win anyways? However, that rule has been utilized in the past a number of times by many people. Goes along with the league rule of not marking the pocket you shoot the 8 in. How many times has that rule been enforced on a gimmie 8 ball? I'm sure it's almost too many to count. Or, what about challenge of champions, where they are required to call the pocket for the 9. Opponent has a a very easy 9, obvious to everyone where he is going to shoot it, he shoots it there, and opponent gets ball in hand on a spot shot because he didn't call the pocket. Was that a douche move too? Everyone knew what his intent was, but he didn't follow the rules so the opponent got ball in hand and his easy 9 didn't count because he didn't follow the rules, only the intent as he saw fit.

 

[Straightpool_99]

...................

 

[easy-e]

We here loud and clear what you are saying. It goes like this- Yes, I know what the rules are, but I don't like them so I am going to make up my own rules that supercede the actual rules. And, if you don't follow my rules, then you are a douche.

In other words, you aren't against rules, as long as they are the ones you like or make up as you go along. Anyone that actually bothers to follow the written rules is a douche.

In case you hadn't noticed, Danny informed his opponent of the actual rules so that he could apply them. That totally eliminates him from any kind of "douchery". If he hadn't told his opponent the rules, then just applied them, then it could be debated as being a douche move. There is no debate the way Danny did it, No douche move at all. He gave his opponent every opportunity and went above and beyond to make sure the rules were followed.

The fact that some of you want to argue that says a lot about character. Guess it doesn't mean as much to some of you as you like to think it does. Finding fault in someone else for doing the right thing because in his situation you wouldn't do the right thing. Instead, you would make up your own set of rules and expect everyone to follow those. I'd say your outlook on things is rather tilted.

I wonder how many of you chiding Danny would act in this situation- your opponet is late. He is given 10 minutes to show up or forfeit. He shows up in 14 minutes. Do you play him, or take the forfeit after 10 minutes? Would you go up to the director and say, "forget the forfeit, he finally showed up"?

I'd play him. I'd be a douche not to. Unless he was a douche in his reason for being late, then I'd let him lose.

 

[easy-e]

In that case, no. Reason being, why bother when over half the team isn't even trying to win anyways? However, that rule has been utilized in the past a number of times by many people. Goes along with the league rule of not marking the pocket you shoot the 8 in. How many times has that rule been enforced on a gimmie 8 ball? I'm sure it's almost too many to count. Or, what about challenge of champions, where they are required to call the pocket for the 9. Opponent has a a very easy 9, obvious to everyone where he is going to shoot it, he shoots it there, and opponent gets ball in hand on a spot shot because he didn't call the pocket. Was that a douche move too? Everyone knew what his intent was, but he didn't follow the rules so the opponent got ball in hand and his easy 9 didn't count because he didn't follow the rules, only the intent as he saw fit.

WHAT?!?!?! You just lost all credibility with your argument (but you gained a little respect as a player if that makes you feel better). YOU just said that there ARE circumstances in which the rules don't need to be followed. Why bash the rest of us for doing the EXACT same thing?

 

[Straightpool_99]

.................

 

[itsfroze]

--------------

 

[RussPrince]

In other words, you aren't against rules, as long as they are the ones you like or make up as you go along. Anyone that actually bothers to follow the written rules is a douche.

Read my last post. Would you find someone that takes the rules a little bit too seriously a bit of a douche. Probably. Technically it's not your turn until every ball on the table has stopped moving. What would you say to someone that told you to stay in your chair until the balls have stopped moving? A great guy?

In case you hadn't noticed, Danny informed his opponent of the actual rules so that he could apply them. That totally eliminates him from any kind of "douchery". If he hadn't told his opponent the rules, then just applied them, then it could be debated as being a douche move. There is no debate the way Danny did it, No douche move at all. He gave his opponent every opportunity and went above and beyond to make sure the rules were followed.

If you hadn't noticed the guy did tell Danny he was on two fouls. That alone is enough to not call this rule. The point of the rule is to make sure everyone is on the same page. It was not done "correctly", but it was done. The guy didn't even understand what was wrong with the situation. If the guy had never said anything then of course he can call this rule as there's no "proof" he even had any idea he was really on two. But they actually talked about it and how he was on two. It's bs and bad manners no matter how you slice it.

The fact that some of you want to argue that says a lot about character. Guess it doesn't mean as much to some of you as you like to think it does. Finding fault in someone else for doing the right thing because in his situation you wouldn't do the right thing. Instead, you would make up your own set of rules and expect everyone to follow those. I'd say your outlook on things is rather tilted.

I wonder how many of you chiding Danny would act in this situation- your opponet is late. He is given 10 minutes to show up or forfeit. He shows up in 14 minutes. Do you play him, or take the forfeit after 10 minutes? Would you go up to the director and say, "forget the forfeit, he finally showed up"?

Really? You question the people that would do the right thing here about their integrity? You think bending rules to tip scales in your favor (unfairly) is ethical? And you think our outlook is tilted? To answer your question I would have without hesitation given him the game. It's not even a question. I really can't believe how anyone else could do otherwise. And to your second question, I leave those decisions 100% up to the tournament director. I stay 100 yards away from that call. What he says goes. No point in getting involved with that. That exact very thing happened last session in league playoffs. Players were given 15 minutes to show up on time. After 30 minutes waiting for the other teams player the director finally said forfeit. Did I bug him for the game anytime after the 15 minutes? No. Would you? Are you tilted?

 

[itsfroze]

We here loud and clear what you are saying. It goes like this- Yes, I know what the rules are, but I don't like them so I am going to make up my own rules that supercede the actual rules. And, if you don't follow my rules, then you are a douche.

In other words, you aren't against rules, as long as they are the ones you like or make up as you go along. Anyone that actually bothers to follow the written rules is a douche.

In case you hadn't noticed, Danny informed his opponent of the actual rules so that he could apply them. That totally eliminates him from any kind of "douchery". If he hadn't told his opponent the rules, then just applied them, then it could be debated as being a douche move. There is no debate the way Danny did it, No douche move at all. He gave his opponent every opportunity and went above and beyond to make sure the rules were followed.

The fact that some of you want to argue that says a lot about character. Guess it doesn't mean as much to some of you as you like to think it does. Finding fault in someone else for doing the right thing because in his situation you wouldn't do the right thing. Instead, you would make up your own set of rules and expect everyone to follow those. I'd say your outlook on things is rather tilted.

I wonder how many of you chiding Danny would act in this situation- your opponet is late. He is given 10 minutes to show up or forfeit. He shows up in 14 minutes. Do you play him, or take the forfeit after 10 minutes? Would you go up to the director and say, "forget the forfeit, he finally showed up"?

IN the spirit of the thread excellent post, so true.

 

[itsfroze]

The guy has the rules in his own language it's his responsibility to know and abide by them. Not Danny's to teach him, even though he tried to during the match.

The good thing is he knows the rules now, I'll bet!I

Originally Posted by RussPrince
"If you hadn't noticed the guy did tell Danny he was on two fouls. That alone is enough to not call this rule. The point of the rule is to make sure everyone is on the same page. It was not done "correctly", but it was done. The guy didn't even understand what was wrong with the situation. If the guy had never said anything then of course he can call this rule as there's no "proof" he even had any idea he was really on two. But they actually talked about it and how he was on two. It's bs and bad manners no matter how you slice it."

 

[easy-e]

IN the spirit of the thread excellent post, so true.

Except in his first paragraph when he wore that we "don't like the rules so
We change them." That's not true. We know what their purpose is. We play by the rules as they are, not as they are written.

 

[itsfroze]

You play by the rules as you see them.

Not As They're Written.

As they are in your eyes, not the eyes of the ref.
(the only eyes that count by the way)

If the rules wanted you to be able to tell the other
player anytime after the second foul that's what
the rules would say.
That's how rules work, also why they have them written.
For people who think their view overrides the rules.
You're purpose is to abide by the rules not to interpret.

Sorry but you don't get to interpret the rules the
way that you happen to see them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyE
We change them." That's not true. We know what their purpose is. We play by the rules as they are, not as they are written.

 

[Neil]

Except in his first paragraph when he wore that we "don't like the rules so
We change them." That's not true. We know what their purpose is. We play by the rules as they are, not as they are written.

Not even you can deflect enough for that to make any sense.:wink:

 

[Neil]

WHAT?!?!?! You just lost all credibility with your argument (but you gained a little respect as a player if that makes you feel better). YOU just said that there ARE circumstances in which the rules don't need to be followed. Why bash the rest of us for doing the EXACT same thing?

No, no matter how you try and twist what I said, I did not say that. I never said that there are instances where the rules don't need to be followed. I did say that in the case you mentioned, I wouldn't bother enforcing the rule because of the circumstances involved. Namely, three teammates not even trying to win, and at least one trying to lose. What's the point of enforcing a rule on the last shot when you are 100% going to lose anyways? It's not the the rule didn't need to be followed. It's just that there was no point at that time of enforcing it since it wasn't a legit match anymore anyways.

 

[Neil]

Except in his first paragraph when he wore that we "don't like the rules so
We change them." That's not true. We know what their purpose is. We play by the rules as they are, not as they are written.

I wasn't referring to me there, I was referring to all of you that think that way. Now, if one doesn't like the standard rules when just matching up, and they want to make their own rules, I have zero problem with that. But, in a tournament setting, you don't get that leeway, you are obligated to abide by the rules of the tournament.

 

[easy-e]

No, no matter how you try and twist what I said, I did not say that. I never said that there are instances where the rules don't need to be followed. I did say that in the case you mentioned, I wouldn't bother enforcing the rule because of the circumstances involved. Namely, three teammates not even trying to win, and at least one trying to lose. What's the point of enforcing a rule on the last shot when you are 100% going to lose anyways? It's not the the rule didn't need to be followed. It's just that there was no point at that time of enforcing it since it wasn't a legit match anymore anyways.

Weird, Hypocritical as always. A rule was broken, you wouldn't call it. You're retarded if you can't see that.

 

[corvette1340]

No, no matter how you try and twist what I said, I did not say that. I never said that there are instances where the rules don't need to be followed. I did say that in the case you mentioned, I wouldn't bother enforcing the rule because of the circumstances involved. Namely, three teammates not even trying to win, and at least one trying to lose. What's the point of enforcing a rule on the last shot when you are 100% going to lose anyways? It's not the the rule didn't need to be followed. It's just that there was no point at that time of enforcing it since it wasn't a legit match anymore anyways.

so much dumb in this post I can't even fathom it. You are in direct contradiction to your entire stance in this thread. You are choosing not to follow this rule to the letter in this situation. 10 lashes to you for not following the rule and calling for a foul on team Europe. Another 10 for being a douche. That's 20 lashes, wanna go for 30?

 

[Neil]

so much dumb in this post I can't even fathom it. You are in direct contradiction to your entire stance in this thread. You are choosing not to follow this rule to the letter in this situation. 10 lashes to you for not following the rule and calling for a foul on team Europe. Another 10 for being a douche. That's 20 lashes, wanna go for 30?

The dumbest thing was even attempting to reason with unreasonable people.:wink:

 

[row21097]

in its spirt the rule intends the incoming player to be warned he is on 2 fouls. he was.

bert

 

[itsfroze]

in its spirt the rule intends the incoming player to be warned he is on 2 fouls. he was.

bert

in its spirt the rule intends the incoming player to be warned he is on 2 fouls,
your right I agree right before he shoots, he wasn't

Next...