Can you decline a foul your opponent calls on himself?

Patrick Johnson

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
1,447
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
 

squeezeplay

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
27
honest effort

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.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
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.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
3,317
From
Houston, Texas
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...
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
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
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
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
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
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
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,649
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:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
spotting balls frozen

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
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
And so Dennis, when your opponent or you for that matter attempts to spot an object ball behind the cue ball and in the process moves the cue ball even slightly, what then?

No, I totally disagree. And in the case of Willie, Joe, or whomever, who do you think they were referring to as the person spotting the ball? A ref maybe?
And with no wish to speak for Dr. Bill, the quote you provided does not appear to refer specifically to spotting balls next to the cue ball. As I stated before, I have never played a single match where an object ball could be spotted frozen to the cue ball nor have I ever heard of a tournament where this was allowed, including the DCC.
Was I missing something at all those DCC events I played in? At least half of them.
I would be interested in Dr. Bill addressing this specific issue.

Tom
 
Last edited:

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
3,317
From
Houston, Texas
And so Dennis, when your opponent or you for that matter attempts to spot an object ball behind the cue ball and in the process moves the cue ball even slightly, what then?

No, I totally disagree. And in the case of Willie, Joe, or whomever, who do you think they were referring to as the person spotting the ball? A ref maybe?
And with no wish to speak for Dr. Bill, the quote you provided does not appear to refer specifically to spotting balls next to the cue ball. As I stated before, I have never played a single match where an object ball could be spotted frozen to the cue ball nor have I ever heard of a tournament where this was allowed, including the DCC.
Was I missing something at all those DCC events I played in? At least half of them.
I would be interested in Dr. Bill addressing this specific issue.

Tom

I agree...

Everybody who ever played serious pool knows you can’t freeze an object ball to the cb when spotting the object ball... I don’t believe Dr. Bill ever sanctioned this as proper when spotting balls in front of or behind an interfering cb located along the foot spot string...

Onepocket.org rule 9.1 clearly states this as a fact and specifically mentions the cb in this context as not being allowed to be frozen to an object ball... Common sense tells us that in non white gloved referee governed matches, which, for all but a select few, we are spotting the referenced object balls ourselves, and in doing so, we are not allowed to freeze the ob to the cb for a reason... One such reason could be that in allowing the spotter of said ob, the spotter could knowingly or accidentally move the cb to a more advantageous position, which certainly can’t be allowed. Just makes sense to not allow that possibility, by simply not allowing the spotter to freeze the ob to the cb, just place it as close as possible, which I believe the legends of yore had in mind also...
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
And so Dennis, when your opponent or you for that matter attempts to spot an object ball behind the cue ball and in the process moves the cue ball even slightly, what then?

No, I totally disagree. And in the case of Willie, Joe, or whomever, who do you think they were referring to as the person spotting the ball? A ref maybe?
And with no wish to speak for Dr. Bill, the quote you provided does not appear to refer specifically to spotting balls next to the cue ball. As I stated before, I have never played a single match where an object ball could be spotted frozen to the cue ball nor have I ever heard of a tournament where this was allowed, including the DCC.
Was I missing something at all those DCC events I played in? At least half of them.
I would be interested in Dr. Bill addressing this specific issue.

Tom
Tom & Jeff, I just deleted my long reply.
But the real question is, which rule would you rather play by?
A rule that allows the opponent to spot an object ball so close that it almost touches the cue ball, so that there is no way to shoot your way out of it, except to skim that object ball. Trapping the opponent like Efren did!
Or, a rule that allows the object ball to be frozen to the cue ball, and you can shoot directly into it and on any angle you want? The '68 BCA rule!

This is the question I would put to Billy, if you really want to Tom. But, Tom & Jeff ask that question of your selves. Let me know which way you would rather play by, and the wisdom behind it, if you wish to reply.

As I remember, Billy only recalled an object ball not being frozen to the cue ball, but he realized the wisdom behind having the object ball frozen to the cue ball. Further as I recall, he questioned the gap, for it is not specifically defined as to how much of a gap.

I tried to find his response this morning but was unable, but I will look some more.

OP.org allows a ball to be disturbed when spotting a ball, including the cue ball. So there is no argument there, whatsoever. I just reviewed a post by Steve that stated this in my search for Billy's response. Whitey
 
Last edited:

cityhall

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
5
There are two types of fouls, ones that you can take intentionally and ones that would be unsportsmanlike to do deliberately.

In the first category we have scratches, cue ball off the table, and intentionally not hitting a rail. It's reasonable to expect a ball to always spot for each of them as an established part of game strategy.

The second category includes press shots, fram pushes, scoop jumps, and moving object balls with your cue or hand. Perhaps the incoming player should have the option to decline fouls of the second type but not the first.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
8,530
From
monett missouri
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.

That's not what you were talking about initially, because you said

"nor should it ever be regarding as poor sportsmanship to not call a foul upon yourself."

And no one else ever implied that it would be poor sportsmanship to fail calling a foul on yourself if you didn't know you fouled.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
garczar posted this on azb an example of snooze you loose and no self call of a foul (if Jennifer knew she fouled )lorree jon vs Jennifer barretta
no ref present late night match
LJH comes from behind to go hill-hill with J. Baretta. JB fails to get a rail, LJH snoozes it and ends up losing when JB makes combo to win. Gotta pay attention when there's no ref. Brutal. Start at 2hr30min point:
https://www.facebook.com/UpStateAL/videos/2414378728572168/?fref=mentions
should someone from the audience say something?
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
Tom & Jeff, I just deleted my long reply.
which rule would you rather play by?
A rule that allows the opponent to spot an object ball so close that it almost touches the cue ball, Dennis, YES, definitely. The same rules apply to both players in each case but at least prohibiting freezing the OB to the cue ball removes the risk of disturbing the precise position of the cue ball. This to me is the far more important issue. To touch the cue ball is to move it.

Billy questioned the gap, for it is not specifically defined as to how much of a gap. It seems to me that by his questioning the size of the gap he is stating there must be a gap. Personally, I have always left that the to player spotting the ball as to how close they wish to attempt spotting it without risking touching the cue ball.


OP.org allows a ball to be disturbed when spotting a ball, including the cue ball. So there is no argument there, whatsoever. I just reviewed a post by Steve that stated this in my search for Billy's response. Whitey

Are you sure of that? Where have you played where it was "okay" to disturb the position of a live cue ball? Never in my career. Here is the copy and paste of the rule taken from OP.org. maybe I'm wrong but I read this as OBs are NOT to be frozen the the cue ball when spotting them. It's just not a foul if it happens.
"It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes."
Tom
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
That's not what you were talking about initially, because you said

"nor should it ever be regarding as poor sportsmanship to not call a foul upon yourself."

And no one else ever implied that it would be poor sportsmanship to fail calling a foul on yourself if you didn't know you fouled.

In the CSI rules that govern DCC, under Applied Rulings, pg.90 1-23 Calling Fouls/Fouls Not Called
General Discussion; There is no requirement for a player that fouls to make their opponent aware of the foul.

I stand by what I said; sometimes a player actually does not realize that they committed a foul. So then how can you determine that they are unsportsmanlike for not calling a foul on themselves?

This is not a one size fits all, and as I pointed out there are several times the opponent calls a foul that never happened. And then when you do not accept it then he thinks you are unsportsmanlike.
Whitey
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
3,923
From
Klamath Falls, Or.
Are you sure of that? Where have you played where it was "okay" to disturb the position of a live cue ball? Never in my career. Here is the copy and paste of the rule taken from OP.org. maybe I'm wrong but I read this as OBs are NOT to be frozen the the cue ball when spotting them. It's just not a foul if it happens.
"It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes."
Tom
Tom, This is getting pretty hard, for you really do not believe how I recalled Billy's comments, nor Steve's comment which I just viewed, nor do you believe that the '68 rule of spotting an object was to be spotted frozen to the cue ball, even though they extra emphasized it in parenthesis, so it was clearly understood. All BCA sanctioned tournaments at that time would of been played by this rule. I played that way and so did my opponents. '68-'73 So. Cal. @ the Palace So. Cal.

I was mentored by Vern Peterson, and Fred Whalen in straight pool, I also ref'ed. the '73 Cal. State Championships 14.1. Peterson won it.

You keep bringing up disturbing the cue ball is a foul, well disturbing any ball is a foul in '68. Every sanctioned BCA tournament was All Ball Fouls. So why when spotting a ball should the cue ball be treated any different than any other ball? Answer me that, if you will ! The '68 BCA rule did not treat it any different, nor should they. It is much easier to get out of a trap when the ob is frozen to the cb when spotted. The BCA HOF masters knew this, signed off on it, and I know this, everyone knows this! And that is the way BCA sanctioned tournaments were played, by BCA rules which this was one! It is pretty simple!
Just because you and others did not play by this rule does not mean it was not a rule. 8-ball was a loss during this period when made on the break, but did anybody play that way, no! But, in a BCA sanctioned 8-Ball tournament they would of. Whitey
 
Top