What’s your take on this?

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
This little exercise is a perfect example of what is wrong and frustrating with so many aspects of our lives in society today in this country.

Everybody has an opinion, and is very happy and willing to express it and then to defend it whether it makes any sense, whether it has any logic or not, whether it is in direct contradiction to a previously considered and established rule.

There is no longer any truth to be found, there is only opinions ensconced in dogma stemming from self importance (my opinion is just as good as your opinion) thinking. Even when confronted with the written rule which contemplated the exact situation, opinions will continue to be argued.

In this little example it is for the most part inconsequential, but consider this same situation as it applies to something like, say, immigration.

Asking a question like this, as innocently as it may have been asked, prior to looking to see if there is already an established rule that directly addresses the situation, only gives license to people to opinionate and muddy the water, garanteeing that some going forward, when confronted with the same or similar situation, will respond based on opinion rather than fact.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
This little exercise is a perfect example of what is wrong and frustrating with so many aspects of our lives in society today in this country.

Everybody has an opinion, and is very happy and willing to express it and then to defend it whether it makes any sense, whether it has any logic or not, whether it is in direct contradiction to a previously considered and established rule.

There is no longer any truth to be found, there is only opinions ensconced in dogma stemming from self importance (my opinion is just as good as your opinion) thinking. Even when confronted with the written rule which contemplated the exact situation, opinions will continue to be argued.

In this little example it is for the most part inconsequential, but consider this same situation as it applies to something like, say, immigration.

Asking a question like this, as innocently as it may have been asked, prior to looking to see if there is already an established rule that directly addresses the situation, only gives license to people to opinionate and muddy the water, guaranteeing that some going forward, when confronted with the same or similar situation, will respond based on opinion rather than fact.
That's why we have rules for our game -- and we try to keep them simple and consistent. But I have noticed that it is quite amazing how many unusual nuances and quirky situations can come up in real life -- I mean specifically in One Pocket but obviously the greater world also.

I also try to use this kind of question as an opportunity to look at how our rules did at answering the question. In this case I think they were pretty clear in faulting player B, although several people (including me) expressed a lot of sympathy for player B and might have ruled differently in the moment, if we did not check the written rules. Or even if we did, and both players were in agreement. Ultimately my feeling is that if two players agree to a solution, that works for me. It's when they don't, then rules are our friend in settling without bias as best we can.
 

jalapus logan

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
307
That's why we have rules for our game -- and we try to keep them simple and consistent. But I have noticed that it is quite amazing how many unusual nuances and quirky situations can come up in real life -- I mean specifically in One Pocket but obviously the greater world also.

I also try to use this kind of question as an opportunity to look at how our rules did at answering the question. In this case I think they were pretty clear in faulting player B, although several people (including me) expressed a lot of sympathy for player B and might have ruled differently in the moment, if we did not check the written rules. Or even if we did, and both players were in agreement. Ultimately my feeling is that if two players agree to a solution, that works for me. It's when they don't, then rules are our friend in settling without bias as best we can.

The written rules, such as they are, are known in their entirety to almost no one, except the lawyers, lol. Case in point, my wife booked a rental car through a travel broker months ago for our vacation to the Florida keys last week. We prepaid in full. Our plane was delayed and we were 20 minutes late to pick up the car. The company rented the car to someone else, had no car to give us, AND took all of our money. When we protested that we paid for services that were not rendered, they informed us that hat we had agreed to it by contract, despite our travel plans getting skewed beyond our control. But, they have the lawyers, and consumers don't have them in their stable, so guess who wins? Not the little guy. We are living in a gotcha society these days, imo.

Like I said, I'll adhere to the rule, but I feel that in certain circumstances, the rules can go against the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship. Personally, I refuse to win on that type of technicality.
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
Friendly competition for $20.00 a game... They both agreed to abide by whatever I decided before I would even listen to the problem... one guy I know for a long time, the other, 1st time I met him...

I listened and thought about what had happened and decided what I would do if I was involved as either player in this type of friendly competition...

I told the guy that said he was out, that he was wrong in saying that before counting the balls, however he didn’t disturb any of the remaining balls on the table, so technically he was ok within the written rules as I knew them...

I explained to the other guy that even though I sympathized with his error of picking up the cb, that he was at fault under the rules as I understood them... He should lose the game...

However, neither player had touched either one of the object balls, and both knew where the cb was before it was picked up, so I recommended replacing the cb and continuing the game to a conclusion... The player didn’t have a gimme shot at his out ball, so they agreed and continued... I sensed the player who picked up the cb was unhappy with the decision, but I thought it was fair and would rule that way again in a friendly game in the unlikely event this ever happened again...

I do believe in a tournament environment, he would have been even more unhappy, I think he would have lost the game...

Good job Jeff, I say that because it's exactly what I'd of done.
P.S. Great minds run deep. :)
 

cincy_kid

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
7,794
From
Cincinnati, OH
It depends, friendly 20/30 a game, put the CB back and shoot, good call Jeff!

Big tournament or high stakes, I am with Frank on this one too...no matter what player a says, it was player b that disturbed the CB. Make sure you know before you touch anything...
 

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,950
President Reagan once said, "Trust But Verify." In my younger days when I was scuffling for a living, I probably (almost surely) would have called a game ending foul on my opponent. But father time has softened my position on life and now, I would have offered up some resolution satisfactory to both of us. I have played games where the opponent was "OUT" and he and I both continued to play on and he then scratched off and had to spot a ball. OOPSEE, now what do you do about that?
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
President Reagan once said, "Trust But Verify." In my younger days when I was scuffling for a living, I probably (almost surely) would have called a game ending foul on my opponent. But father time has softened my position on life and now, I would have offered up some resolution satisfactory to both of us. I have played games where the opponent was "OUT" and he and I both continued to play on and he then scratched off and had to spot a ball. OOPSEE, now what do you do about that?

Game over, balls count them selves.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
Like I said, I'll adhere to the rule, but I feel that in certain circumstances, the rules can go against the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship. Personally, I refuse to win on that type of technicality.

(Darrell, I'm directing this at your point also.)

Rules remind me of "company policy." If a strict interpretation leads away from fairness, rather than toward it, something has gone wrong. A willingness to ignore a rule to find a more just outcome is a good thing IMO, but Darrell is right that this will always lead to diverse opinions. I think it's worth the price.

Pretty hard for me to find anything I'd put on a higher pedestal than fairness. (Well, yeah, boobs. :D)
 

Tobermory

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,881
From
San Francisco, CA
In law school, my contracts professor liked to tell this story, apropos to this situation. There are different versions of it floating around. This one includes some metaphysical pondering:

Three umpires are sitting in a bar, sharing a beer together. They begin talking about their job and the difficulties they face in calling balls and strikes. The first umpire states quite confidently, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as they are!” The second umpire, with a slight look of disapproval, says, “No, no, no, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as I seem ’em.” The third umpire says, “You know, you’re both wrong. There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ till I call ’em.”

And like that, nothing exists until we perceive, label, and interpret it.

Or, put differently: The first umpire claims we perceive the world as it actually exists. The second umpire claims we interpret the world that exists. The third claims we create the world through our perception of it.

Every single moment of our life we are experiencing something, even if we are not aware of what we are experiencing. Even while we are unconscious or asleep there is still perception. Neuroscientists now believe that within our brains there are over 11 million neurons firing each second! The firing of these neurons occurs when the brain is active and having some kind of experience. Thus, there is always something filtering through our mind.

Raw experience, though, almost never remains in that form. Once it rises to a conscious thought, we have already labeled and interpreted it. The colors and movement have become a baseball, and we’ve further judged whether it’s a ball or a strike, good or bad. it may seem like we are passive perceivers, but we are actually active engagers, though we are usually unaware that we are constantly interpreting, creating reality as it happens. This engagement happens automatically and seemingly our of our control, moment to moment. And it’s true, we can’t stop our thoughts. The only reality we know is our concept of it. Life is nothing till we call it something, and this is where mind training comes in. Through it, we learn to hold our concepts loosely, particularly those that allow unhelpful emotions to take over and cause us problems.

Disturbing emotions are so called because they hypnotize us, in effect, so they become “reality.” These particular thoughts cloud the clarity of mind so that it is completely obscured, and we act as if what exists in our mind is real, unchanging, immutable. We live our life constantly jumping from emotion to emotion, fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes. To create a meaningful, self-directed life, we must confront the untamed, undisciplined, uncontrolled mental activity that we have let run us.

To take an everyday example, consider drinking a latte. initially, we drink coffee because we are thirsty; we enjoy the taste and smell, and we like how the caffeine gives us a boost. But eventually, our happiness depends on coffee. We feel we can’t start a day without it, and even more, we aren’t truly happy unless we’ve had “good” coffee, our favorite latte. And we no longer just drink our favorite latte; we evaluate each one critically, judging it too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak, too bland or too sweet, and so on. We become unhappy if we have anything that falls short of a “perfect” latte. Suddenly, every morning revolves around our “need” for coffee and our “desire” for the best, and our entire emotional self might hang in the balance. This is crazy. Sadly, we live much of our life at the mercy of such fantasies, and it is a wonder that lasting peace and satisfaction are elusive?
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
(Darrell, I'm directing this at your point also.)

Rules remind me of "company policy." If a strict interpretation leads away from fairness, rather than toward it, something has gone wrong. A willingness to ignore a rule to find a more just outcome is a good thing IMO, but Darrell is right that this will always lead to diverse opinions. I think it's worth the price.

Pretty hard for me to find anything I'd put on a higher pedestal than fairness. (Well, yeah, boobs. :D)

Jeff's initial question was in the context of the DCC. The answer can only be (assuming the TD knows the rules), B loses. Outside the DCC or any other tournament make your own rules as you go, it's nobody's business but your own. But, don't lose site of the context being served.

MY earlier comment was an observation that when we opinionate in the face of a rule or a law, we condition ourselves (and others) that rules and laws don't really matter so much if we can rationalize that somebody may be treated unfairly or unjustly. Justice and fairness are subjective concepts and in the eye of the beholder. Unintended consequences are generally the result of failing to recognize, accept, and prosecute the rule or law.

This conditioning leads to inappropriate thinking on larger issues cause of course, "my opinion is STILL just as good as yours", is the standard. Forgive my analogy once again, but, immigration is a perfect example. Just consider the unintended consequences of not recognizing, accepting, and prosecuting this rule or law.

I eluded recently to being a boater in the past. One of the things i learned from that experience is that very small things can easily lead to much bigger things that can sink your boat.

So, my opinion :lol:lol:sorry is that it's ok to work to change a rule (law); it is not ok to ignore it. It is not worth it.:)
 

oldschool1478

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
139
From
Quincy, MA
In law school, my contracts professor liked to tell this story, apropos to this situation. There are different versions of it floating around. This one includes some metaphysical pondering:

Three umpires are sitting in a bar, sharing a beer together. They begin talking about their job and the difficulties they face in calling balls and strikes. The first umpire states quite confidently, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as they are!” The second umpire, with a slight look of disapproval, says, “No, no, no, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as I seem ’em.” The third umpire says, “You know, you’re both wrong. There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ till I call ’em.”

And like that, nothing exists until we perceive, label, and interpret it.

Or, put differently: The first umpire claims we perceive the world as it actually exists. The second umpire claims we interpret the world that exists. The third claims we create the world through our perception of it.

Every single moment of our life we are experiencing something, even if we are not aware of what we are experiencing. Even while we are unconscious or asleep there is still perception. Neuroscientists now believe that within our brains there are over 11 million neurons firing each second! The firing of these neurons occurs when the brain is active and having some kind of experience. Thus, there is always something filtering through our mind.

Raw experience, though, almost never remains in that form. Once it rises to a conscious thought, we have already labeled and interpreted it. The colors and movement have become a baseball, and we’ve further judged whether it’s a ball or a strike, good or bad. it may seem like we are passive perceivers, but we are actually active engagers, though we are usually unaware that we are constantly interpreting, creating reality as it happens. This engagement happens automatically and seemingly our of our control, moment to moment. And it’s true, we can’t stop our thoughts. The only reality we know is our concept of it. Life is nothing till we call it something, and this is where mind training comes in. Through it, we learn to hold our concepts loosely, particularly those that allow unhelpful emotions to take over and cause us problems.

Disturbing emotions are so called because they hypnotize us, in effect, so they become “reality.” These particular thoughts cloud the clarity of mind so that it is completely obscured, and we act as if what exists in our mind is real, unchanging, immutable. We live our life constantly jumping from emotion to emotion, fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes. To create a meaningful, self-directed life, we must confront the untamed, undisciplined, uncontrolled mental activity that we have let run us.

To take an everyday example, consider drinking a latte. initially, we drink coffee because we are thirsty; we enjoy the taste and smell, and we like how the caffeine gives us a boost. But eventually, our happiness depends on coffee. We feel we can’t start a day without it, and even more, we aren’t truly happy unless we’ve had “good” coffee, our favorite latte. And we no longer just drink our favorite latte; we evaluate each one critically, judging it too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak, too bland or too sweet, and so on. We become unhappy if we have anything that falls short of a “perfect” latte. Suddenly, every morning revolves around our “need” for coffee and our “desire” for the best, and our entire emotional self might hang in the balance. This is crazy. Sadly, we live much of our life at the mercy of such fantasies, and it is a wonder that lasting peace and satisfaction are elusive?

Thank you for a refreshing and thought-provoking post.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
Unintended consequences are generally the result of failing to recognize, accept, and prosecute the rule or law.

I disagree. I'd say that vastly more unintended consequences come from making one-size-fits-all rules/laws that only approximately fit an array similar situations and circumstances. "Spirit of the law" can differ significantly from the letter of the law in many situations, at least partly because it is impossible to write a perfect law to cover every situation. Isn't justice the most important thing we're looking for when we write a law ("we" doesn't count any resident of The Swamp. :p )

immigration is a perfect example.

Reminds me of our recent discussions about two other big situations analgous to that (too far off topic, so beat me with a hose) :"making schools safe" and "fixing" the perceived or alleged problems in the Middle East. Some problems can't be solved at the price you're willing to pay (in terms of money, freedom, fairness and unintended consequences.) Huge resources have been put into these problems, yet here we are. Time will tell whether investing much, much more will do the jobs.
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,649
I believe if our rules had been truly belabored over, like they do in golf for example, where they really make a concerted effort to garner a fair set of rules and put all the necessary time into the process, then what you said would hold weight.

As it stands however, and we can rationalize all we want as far as admitting this, but our rules have not been belabored over in the slightest. I'd be curious of the actual history, but it seems to me a few guys got together 50 or whatever number of years ago, made some rules, and by and large these are the rules we are playing under today.

There are things that severely need to be address in one pocket in my opinion, like why an actual common and approved shot in one pocket consists of purposefully launching the cb off the table in search of an advantage, with the shooter many times clearing people out of the adjacent areas. We have really got to step back, be objective, and ask ourselves if that is befitting of our game, because the fact is, it is not.

So yes, our rules do need relatively high amount of interpretation, because the answer in so many of the situations like the one posted don't even exist.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
we learn to hold our concepts loosely

What I like about this thought may be aomething a little different than was intended, but it is, don't jump to conclusions and, in fact, even after studying and considering a situation, to leave open in my mind a little room for the possibility that I might still be wrong.


fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes.

That can certainly be the case, but bad luck does exist. People are often victims of circumstances that they didn't cause any part of. The trick is in recognizing whether a situation arose because of real bad luck, or poor thinking, planning or execution. Easy to see a on pocket analogy there.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,715
From
Ghosttown
I don't expect many people to agree with me, but I think it would be a good idea to allow the shot to just be declared verbally and not need to be struck.

John...I do this with my pals Donn, John, & Pat when we play - so we don't send the cueball flying across the poolroom, and don't have to go to the hassle of warning other players and sweaters to take cover...:heh

- Ghost
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
The jumped cue ball rule is one I would not mind seeing go. I don't think just declaring it would fly at high stakes or tournaments though -- but that is just my personal opinion and many others of you have way way more experience at both of those than me. I would be inclined just to eliminate it as an option. I.e, either dig it out, or follow it in.

But if we do that, how do you write it? I mean a jump shot is legal with your playing cue, and it is only a common foul to have the cue ball jump the table. Fine, if the object ball goes in the hole you can still have it count for the opponent (that rule change is easy), but what if the object ball also jumps the table? Or better yet, only the object ball jumps the table? With either of those as possibilities, you would have to ban the jump too or it would still be tempting to try it.

I'm just wondering specifically how you would re-write the rule to prevent jumping attempts.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
If we're being technical, isn't that a foul by Player A? If so, when Player B made his error, it was no longer Player A's inning, so it was not "interference."
Well, the addendum to rule 10.4 implies that it is. But OTOH it also sounds more like an advisory. But that's why I stated that player "A" had committed two no-nos.

~Doc
 
Top