Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can you decline a foul your opponent calls on himself?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I have always believed what we really need to do here is work from the other end. A foul should never be a disadvantage for the incoming player. How we would do that I am not saying is an easy question to answer, but it would solve this and dozens of other little problems if we approached it like that (ie made the game logical instead of turning "gutter balls" into advantageous shots).

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't think I can agree with that statement. An intentional foul at times is as much a skill shot as a carom bank to start an 8 & out. It's part of the beauty of 1 pocket. And as such, it's designed to put the incoming player at a disadvantage. I pay for it by giving back a ball - or owing one going forward.

      Comment


      • #18
        Speaking about using fouls to help yourself, I remember one time watching Efren play where he was truly locked up and couldn't go anywhere to help himself. He simply pushed the cueball right onto the spot. He then spotted a ball and left his opponent stymied. He ended up winning the game. In One Pocket these moves are simply part of a game that is truly intriguing where all is not lost if you can simply think it through. In nine/ten ball we see it all the time where a player is hooked and cannot hit the ball and he ties up other balls such that he makes the incoming player open them up in order to run out. This is what makes One Pocket such a great game.

        Comment


        • #19
          Here is another example of a player loop holing the rules. When shooting the cb past a close proximity illegal ob and the ball moves, and you see it move as the cb passes it, so then you call a foul.
          The cheater then responds; "I hit with my cue stick"!
          This has happened a few times to me, so I talked to a head regional ref. about this and he just tweaked his head, he had no real answer for this. But, I talked to a regular ref. and he stated; "how does the cue beat the cue ball to the ob"? And he further stated always call a ref. when someone pulls this on you. I thought those were very good answers.

          I wrote up a rule that would prevent this cheating tactic, but it was not adopted by CSI. They do have a rule when you jump over an illegal object or masse' around and it moves, it is a foul regardless whether it is contacted by the cue of cue ball. But this rule has further flaws that a cheater could use, for it states in jumping or masse' on a 'direct path' to your intended ob. But many times you jump over balls to contact a rail and then to contact the intended ob, thus 'not' on a direct path. They did not adopt that adjustment to the rule either.
          Well what can you do, you try to help and they do not want it, even though they ask for suggestions. Whitey

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jerry matchin View Post
            Speaking about using fouls to help yourself, I remember one time watching Efren play where he was truly locked up and couldn't go anywhere to help himself. He simply pushed the cueball right onto the spot. He then spotted a ball and left his opponent stymied. He ended up winning the game. In One Pocket these moves are simply part of a game that is truly intriguing where all is not lost if you can simply think it through. In nine/ten ball we see it all the time where a player is hooked and cannot hit the ball and he ties up other balls such that he makes the incoming player open them up in order to run out. This is what makes One Pocket such a great game.
            Jerry, yes this is very cool tactic, and the trap is further enhanced by the fact you can not freeze the ob to the cb, making it very hard to work with an ob that is 'not' frozen to the cb.
            Where I played in spotting a ball it was always spotted frozen to the cue ball. As you know you can then use the ob to get out of a trap for you can shoot into it without fouling. This is also in line with my '68 BCA rule book, where it states all balls spotted are spotted frozen to balls, including the cb.

            We have discussed this before and most all members do not remember this way of spotted, or thought it might be regional, or maybe just forgot how the game was played. Whitey

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Red Shoes View Post
              NO you can not "CALL" a foul on yourself. We of course would ALL PLAY a gentleman's game. When we bring to our opponents attention something they might have missed OR they have yet to say, we should be commended BUT there are of course a few situations where FOULING would be to our advantage. With no ref. the foul CALL rests with your opponent.
              The ability to refuse a foul can be abused too.

              How about you can only call a foul on yourself if it isn't obviously to your advantage.? Then there's also no need to refuse it.

              pj
              chgo

              Comment


              • #22
                honest effort

                I think that you must have players calling their own fouls. Anything else, and its just BS. Many times, the shooter is the only person able to detect committing a foul. If you don't call the foul on yourself, it needs to be a penalty stroke(s) or a DQ. Other player or witnesses can confirm the infraction.

                This same rule applies to accepting or declining a penalty ball. If the foul was committed in the spirit of one pocket, then the penalty must be accessed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
                  CityHall,
                  nor should it ever be regarding as poor sportsmanship to not call a foul upon yourself.
                  Wow, do I ever disagree with that.

                  You can say it's not poor gamesmanship, but it's definitely IMO poor sportsmanship.


                  BTW, I think I am in the minority in thinking it is OK for a referee called in after the fact to inquire of spectators, especially if he knows one and trusts one of them. He should inquire privately, and he doesn't have to follow the suggestion, but nothing wrong with trying to gather more information. It's more important to get it right in the spirit of the rules than it is to comply with the written letter of the rules. Fairness, in my thinking, is #1 priority.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [QUOTE=El Chapo;251328A player is not some sort of saint, stand up guy if he calls fouls on himself. [/QUOTE]

                    Nobody said anyone should get a trophy for simply doing what is right. The issue is what it means if you don't do what's right.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
                      Jerry, yes this is very cool tactic, and the trap is further enhanced by the fact you can not freeze the ob to the cb, making it very hard to work with an ob that is 'not' frozen to the cb.
                      Where I played in spotting a ball it was always spotted frozen to the cue ball. As you know you can then use the ob to get out of a trap for you can shoot into it without fouling. This is also in line with my '68 BCA rule book, where it states all balls spotted are spotted frozen to balls, including the cb.

                      We have discussed this before and most all members do not remember this way of spotted, or thought it might be regional, or maybe just forgot how the game was played. Whitey
                      Everywhere I ever played for cash, or watched others play for money, it was never allowed to freeze a spotted ball to the cb... spot it as close as possible, but not frozen...as far back as I can remember, until present day, that’s been how it’s been played...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I would say the original question, "Can a player call a foul on themselves?" is misleading. It would be more accurate to ask what happens should a player bring the foul to their opponent's attention?

                        By looking at it in this way the incoming player will then always have the option of accepting the foul or ignoring it. So no, a player cannot "call" a foul on themselves but they can certainly call it to the attention of their opponent.

                        In this way there is no way a player can have any expectation of gaining any advantage in having called his own foul.

                        Hence, the honorable thing to do every time.

                        Tom

                        "Controlled Aggression" trwirth369@gmail.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jeff sparks View Post
                          Everywhere I ever played for cash, or watched others play for money, it was never allowed to freeze a spotted ball to the cb... spot it as close as possible, but not frozen...as far back as I can remember, until present day, that’s been how it’s been played...
                          Jeff, in every room I've ever played, you are correct. To freeze an object ball to the cue ball is to foul the cue ball. The only thing that can touch a live cue ball is the tip of a cue stick.

                          Tom

                          "Controlled Aggression" trwirth369@gmail.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Hey Guys, a lot of times a player does not realize they have committed a foul. So you just can not blanketly say it is unsportsmanlike conduct to not call a foul upon yourself.
                            I seen a pro match, and one of the guys is a real prominent pro OP member, and he really pushed through a close object ball close to his pocket and forced the ob and cb to fly into the opponents balls by his pocket. The commentators did not say a word and the opponent did not say a word, an obvious blatant foul, call it with brail.

                            Say a ball does not hit a rail, but you can not tell, or in OP your main attention is what your trying to accomplish getting the balls to do what you want them to do, and not really paying attention to if you hit a rail or not.

                            I seen Skylar Woodward playing a guy, and he had him so he had to kick at a ball on the rail, well the cue ball hit the rail before the ob, Skylar could a foul, but the guy argued and Skylar gave in. He should of called for a ref. he ended up losing.

                            Many players do not know the rules of close proximity hits, and many times they do not think they did an illegal hit or stroke. This gets real complicated when the player elevates their cue. In team competition BCAPL an opponent elevated their and we call a ref. the ref. called a foul, and the guy said but I elevated my cue! DCC now has it so if you elevate your cue it is not a foul even if you do foul.

                            I was playing this guy in a BCAPL tournament and I verbally called a bank and also pointed to the hole. I did the bank, and he yelled at me, you have to call it. He was screwing around the whole match and not watching the game. It was a mini tournament, and I said it is not worth playing you, and quit.

                            I was in team BCAPL 9-ball, broke the balls and made the classical 1 ball in the side, and my opponent said I did not hit the head ball on the break. He honestly thought and I honestly believed he thought that, it took 5 min. and finally his own team mates said I hit the head ball. He wanted to win so bad he seen something that did not happen.

                            So how do you know a guy committed a foul, if as the opponent you did not watch and did not call a foul, and if you are watching and do not call a foul, but you think it is a foul, then do you think the opponent is unsportsmanlike for not calling it on their self.

                            This happened to me on a split hit. My opponent thought I hit my ball first, he did not call a foul, and I then shot in the 8 and won. Boy, was he mad, he slap my hand instead of shaking it, and I could not figure out what was wrong. Well his team mates and others explained to him that it was not a foul, buy the way his ob went.
                            So how can one make a blanket assertion that it is unsportsmanlike to not call a foul upon yourself. Whitey

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jlcomp45 View Post
                              I don't think I can agree with that statement. An intentional foul at times is as much a skill shot as a carom bank to start an 8 & out. It's part of the beauty of 1 pocket. And as such, it's designed to put the incoming player at a disadvantage. I pay for it by giving back a ball - or owing one going forward.
                              Let us just use bowling as an analogy, where you throw a gutter ball and gain an advantage. Ridiculous right? Why don't we see it is ridiculous in one pocket? Only because we have always played like this. Throwing a gutter ball takes no skill. In fact, it is the opposite. So, I am not sure why in the world we would want to see gutter ball equivalents as advantageous shots.

                              The basis for your position is one of being accustomed to current rules in my opinion. In fact people have even recently brought up rule changes that would stop all this on the board here, but nobody cares. If you objectively look at these topics, skilless shots should not result in an advantage, and it is far from "beautiful" to say purposefully launch cueballs and object balls off the table. As i always say though, maybe it will be better to bring this stuff up in ten years or so, I don't know.

                              It would not be too difficult to actually punish all scratch shots in my opinion either, kinda like a gutter ball is punished by not giving points and thus you fall behind. Seriously, can anyone even imagine a bowler throwing a gutter ball on purpose and that being "the shot". Not good for the fans, not good for the players, not good for anyone. This is what we see in one pocket though. It needs to change in my opinion but hey, again, whatever.

                              Rules should never promote poor play. If i told you a golfer gained an advantage by turning away from the hole and whacking his ball 400 yards off the entire course, you would think that is insane, because it is. But in one pocket this happens everyday and they are advantageous shots. Clear up the rules, make scratches actually punish players, and you will never get little problems and quiries like are presented here... all the problems would just clear up automatically because the game would follow logic and "bad shots" would always be a disadvantage.
                              Last edited by El Chapo; 01-23-2019, 11:15 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                spotting balls frozen

                                In BCA '68, which are revised rules, the rule committee signing off on the revisions and rules were non other than: Willie Mosconi, Irving Crane, Joe Balsis, Don Tozer, Dan Cahill, & Joe Farhat.
                                The rule on spotting balls is very long, so I'll just quote that pertaining to the cue ball.

                                If the cue ball rests on the long string, thus interfering with the placement of an object ball, the object ball is either placed in front of or behind the cue ball, as near as possible to the cue ball (which means frozen to the cue ball).

                                They even put it in parenthesis to emphasis this point. This is the rule these great players played by and signed off on.

                                The last time this came up, it garnered the same response. Some thought it might be a regional thing. But one member seen the light through the tunnel, Dr. Bill. He stated and of course I am paraphrasing; "it makes sense, for when a ball is frozen to the cue ball you can stroke through it".

                                It is only commonsense to freeze an object ball to the cue ball when spotting because then it allows the shooter to play off of the ob. When you leave a slight gap there is not much you can do with that ob. In our rules it is not a foul to disturb balls when spotting a ball or when pulling a ball from the pocket.
                                From '68 to 2004 the President of BCA changed practically ever other year, and along with that rules invariably changed. When the spotting rule changed who knows.
                                But it a good rule and should be played this way today! At least Dr. Bill and I believe so, and so did the great players that signed off on this rule. Whitey

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X