Two different worlds?

[petie]

Posts on several recent threads have raised an interesting ethical question. I have long been fascinated with how many levels there are to pool ethics if you will. Here is the question I would like to hear opinions on: if you have a backer, are you dumping if you call a foul on yourself when the opponent is unaware of the foul?

 

[jazz90]

Ethical conflict

Ethical conflict

It is ethical conflict between you and you
Purely on ethical grounds if you call foul, than other will also not cheat...

 

[Cary]

Posts on several recent threads have raised an interesting ethical question. I have long been fascinated with how many levels there are to pool ethics if you will. Here is the question I would like to hear opinions on: if you have a backer, are you dumping if you call a foul on yourself when the opponent is unaware of the foul?

No, although you will stress your backer.

 

[lll]

Posts on several recent threads have raised an interesting ethical question. I have long been fascinated with how many levels there are to pool ethics if you will. Here is the question I would like to hear opinions on: if you have a backer, are you dumping if you call a foul on yourself when the opponent is unaware of the foul?

dumping is losing on purpose under the pretences you are really trying to win
and getting paid for your act by your oppnent


although calling a foul on yourself might cost you the game or set you are not putting on a charade and dont have a preaaranged benefit to losing

so as long as you dont split the money with your opponent calling a foul on yourself is not dumping imho

 

[Red Shoes]

You are not actually allowed to call a foul on yourself (although it is the "good sportmen's" like thing to do), because certain "fouls" will favor the shooter. "IF" I was backing or "up with" a player on a bet, I expect him to do every LEGAL thing to win. I expect 100% of his ability to win the match. I do not want him to "cheat" to win. If I see him "cheat" his opponent, "I'm off". I am not interested in getting money that way.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Red Shoes, I'm not sure what you mean by not being allowed to call a foul on yourself. It might be possible to think of a situation where a shooter calling a foul on himself might benefit him; but a foul stands by itself as an event, with indifference to any other circumstances.

I'm not aware of any such rule in any rule set which prohibits a player from calling a foul on himself. Perhaps some league has that rule. But the WPA, BCA and presumably CSI has no such rule.

Now I could see a backer telling his player never to call a foul on himself.

Doc

 

[Red Shoes]

Doc...There are situations in "one pocket" where saying you committed a "foul" where none happened would "favor" the shooter. As much as I agree that a "foul" is a stand alone event (either it "happened" or it "didn't happen"). "IF" the cash is on the line predicated on the outcome of the shot, both players must "agree" that the "event" took place. That is why on questionable shots....it is better to get a "caller" (referee) which is what most experienced players would do. It is a rare situation where the "shooter" is aware of committing a foul that the opponent is unaware of. THAT being said...."pool players" are not members of the Royal Family....and might "see" or "unsee" things favoring their situations. All I ask of a player playing for my cash is to do everything (AND ONLY) legal things to win.

 

[beatle]

dumping is losing on purpose. it may be to split the money or to play the player later on for all your own.

ethics are another thing. as for calling a foul on yourself it is the right thing to do if your opponent cant see it. such as you double hit the cue ball while your opponent isnt able to view it.
if you believe it is okay not to call the foul on yourself how about if the rest of the poolroom saw it. then would you call it. if so you have double standards.

to each his own. if it is a player that wouldnt call it. then you are within your rights to walk around in front of him for his shots.

 

[8andout]

Cheating

Cheating

I was taught that cheaters never win and i've always lived by this advise, and i sleep well at night. Cheating is stealing and stealing in a pool room is punishable by broken knee-caps! Throwing (dumping) a game is fraud, cheating and stealing. Some people were never taught not to cheat, and alot of these people hang out in pool rooms. An honest player should always enter a pool room with the "buyer beware" attitude. I was watching a stream of one pocket from Sandcastle Billiards the other night where one player placed a piece of chalk on the rail as an aiming point for a kick shot. He executed the kick shot masterfully but lost the match. Cheaters never win. "Its all good and i love this game". The 10 Ball tournament is so boring... i would never pay to watch this. Peace

 

[petie]

Doc...There are situations in "one pocket" where saying you committed a "foul" where none happened would "favor" the shooter. As much as I agree that a "foul" is a stand alone event (either it "happened" or it "didn't happen"). "IF" the cash is on the line predicated on the outcome of the shot, both players must "agree" that the "event" took place. That is why on questionable shots....it is better to get a "caller" (referee) which is what most experienced players would do. It is a rare situation where the "shooter" is aware of committing a foul that the opponent is unaware of. THAT being said...."pool players" are not members of the Royal Family....and might "see" or "unsee" things favoring their situations. All I ask of a player playing for my cash is to do everything (AND ONLY) legal things to win.

Here's an example. Player A needs 2 balls. Player B needs 1. There are two balls on the table besides the cue ball. One is on the spot and the other is deeply within Player B's pocket. The cue ball is up table along the cushion on player B's side of the table. It's player A's shot.

He, player A, can't scratch behind the ball in player B's pocket because of the angle he is shooting from. He cleverly slow strokes the cue ball and purposely double clutches it. He makes the ball in player B's pocket and calls a foul on himself. If this foul is allowed to stand, the remedy for the foul is to spot the ball and give player B ball in hand behind the line.

 

[tylerdurden]

Especially if it costs us the set, if I was the backer i'd simply have a word with him and let him know that all he is required to do after a foul is go back to his chair -- as in, those are the actual rules of the game.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Here's an example. Player A needs 2 balls. Player B needs 1. There are two balls on the table besides the cue ball. One is on the spot and the other is deeply within Player B's pocket. The cue ball is up table along the cushion on player B's side of the table. It's player A's shot.

He, player A, can't scratch behind the ball in player B's pocket because of the angle he is shooting from. He cleverly slow strokes the cue ball and purposely double clutches it. He makes the ball in player B's pocket and calls a foul on himself. If this foul is allowed to stand, the remedy for the foul is to spot the ball and give player B ball in hand behind the line.

Heh, heh. You're tryin', Petie. In this particular case, I'm sure the opponent would object. It depends upon how rule 6.6 of the 1P.O rules are interpreted:

6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.

The "double-clutching" might be construed as an illegal technique, in which case the balls must be replaced. The opponent is going to argue that the only option the shooter has (outside of concession) is to make the OB while jumping whitey off the table.

And if the opponent is allowed to "accept the balls where they lay", then in this case he wins the game...

Nevertheless, I'm sure it's possible to dream up a situation where calling a foul on oneself would be tactically beneficial.

Incidentally, in normal play, on a foul such as "double-clutching", the CB would play from where it laid after the foul. It wouldn't be spotted in the Kitchen.

Doc

 

[onepocket926]

Posts on several recent threads have raised an interesting ethical question. I have long been fascinated with how many levels there are to pool ethics if you will. Here is the question I would like to hear opinions on: if you have a backer, are you dumping if you call a foul on yourself when the opponent is unaware of the foul?

...thats called the right thing to do...Petie......and if your backer dissagree's...then it's just another good argument for playing on your own money......

 

[onepocket926]

Here's an example. Player A needs 2 balls. Player B needs 1. There are two balls on the table besides the cue ball. One is on the spot and the other is deeply within Player B's pocket. The cue ball is up table along the cushion on player B's side of the table. It's player A's shot.

He, player A, can't scratch behind the ball in player B's pocket because of the angle he is shooting from. He cleverly slow strokes the cue ball and purposely double clutches it. He makes the ball in player B's pocket and calls a foul on himself. If this foul is allowed to stand, the remedy for the foul is to spot the ball and give player B ball in hand behind the line.

...another way to accomplish the same feat is to....jack up...make the opponants ball...and send the cueball...flying off the table.....but it's common dencency to warn the sweaters...that are within the cueballs range of flight.....

....I've never read a rule that forbids you from...purposly fouling...you might see a ..."top notch" player....in a onepocket match touch the cueball (with his cue tip)...when it's stuck in the stack...so as not to give away a shot.... take a foul (no rail after contact)...and spot a ball.....so as to leave the opponant in a like situation.....

 

[petie]

Heh, heh. You're tryin', Petie. In this particular case, I'm sure the opponent would object. It depends upon how rule 6.6 of the 1P.O rules are interpreted:

6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.

The "double-clutching" might be construed as an illegal technique, in which case the balls must be replaced. The opponent is going to argue that the only option the shooter has (outside of concession) is to make the OB while jumping whitey off the table.

And if the opponent is allowed to "accept the balls where they lay", then in this case he wins the game...

Nevertheless, I'm sure it's possible to dream up a situation where calling a foul on oneself would be tactically beneficial.

Incidentally, in normal play, on a foul such as "double-clutching", the CB would play from where it laid after the foul. It wouldn't be spotted in the Kitchen.

Doc

Right you are, Doc.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Here's an example. Player A needs 2 balls. Player B needs 1. There are two balls on the table besides the cue ball. One is on the spot and the other is deeply within Player B's pocket. The cue ball is up table along the cushion on player B's side of the table. It's player A's shot.

He, player A, can't scratch behind the ball in player B's pocket because of the angle he is shooting from. He cleverly slow strokes the cue ball and purposely double clutches it. He makes the ball in player B's pocket and calls a foul on himself. If this foul is allowed to stand, the remedy for the foul is to spot the ball and give player B ball in hand behind the line.

Petie,

That "foul" is automatic loss of game when done on your opponents game ball. I believe it's now in all one-pocket rules.

Many years ago when there was no rule against it I did it (twice) and got away with it both times. One time was on Horseface Harry. He almost broke his neck calling a foul on me and insisting I spot one up. About 30 seconds later he felt real stupid.

Dennis

 

[petie]

Petie,

That "foul" is automatic loss of game when done on your opponents game ball. I believe it's now in all one-pocket rules.

Many years ago when there was no rule against it I did it (twice) and got away with it both times. One time was on Horseface Harry. He almost broke his neck calling a foul on me and insisting I spot one up. About 30 seconds later he felt real stupid.

Dennis

Good old Harry Aproff (sp?). Brings back lots of memories. If you don't mind snitching yourself out, howed you play him, Dennis?

 

[KindlyOleUncleDave]

Ethics

Ethics

Nice to see that we now have a broad overview of the ethics of pooldom.

A wiser man than me once observed, while we were somewhere in the Great Valley in California, that ethical considerations in pocket billiard emporia would always be situational ... or worse. And that, in addition, the game was basicly stealing anyway so why worry about it: two folk shake hands ... one of them is the mark ... that was his outlook .

His dog, Boulder, agreed with him even though I did not.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Good old Harry Aproff (sp?). Brings back lots of memories. If you don't mind snitching yourself out, howed you play him, Dennis?

Harry Aporff I believe but I could be wrong. One F or two F's I'm not certain.

I played Harry even one-pocket on the pooltable & on the 10' snooker table. I don't remember ever betting more than $50 a game with him though.

Dennis

 

[petie]

Harry Aporff I believe but I could be wrong. One F or two F's I'm not certain.

I played Harry even one-pocket on the pooltable & on the 10' snooker table. I don't remember ever betting more than $50 a game with him though.

Dennis

This speaks very well of your game. He was no joke.