Referee Exam

[tommydale]

Some of you may be aware that I took a D-Grade pool referee exam in mid-September. Unfortunately I missed out on passing by 5.4% - I scored 79.4% whereas I needed 85% to pass. Disappointing, but I was chuffed with almost 80%. I think it was the fact that the questions were particularly wordy; they described the layout of a table scenario rather than show a picture of the positions of the balls - if that makes any sense :')

Now I've been doing my swatting and would really appreciate some of your help. I'd like people to comment with some scenarios that occur during a regular game (and some that rarely do) so that I am more prepared for the exam. The wordier the better but not over the top wordy - most of the questions were about 3 lines long! It would also help if you knew the answers to the questions, or knew where to look to get the answers.

A good few people did last time I mentioned this, and I would be eternally grateful if you could help me out . I'm 18 and love the game - that's why I want to be 'qualified' :}

[SnkrRef]

OK, a question. Player A breaks and does it with such force that the black, a red and a yellow are forced off the table. What should the referee do?

[tommydale]

YAY

I believe the referee would first stop the timer (assuming there is one) so as to avoid eating into the oncoming player's 60 seconds. After this, assuming 4+ balls touched a cushion, he would attempt to spot the balls that forced off the table. The black takes priority on its spot, then the red and then the yellow. If the black spot is obstructed, the balls would be aligned in a straight line between the black spot and the short cushion nearest it. If this is not possible, then the ref would attempt to put them in the same straight line but the other side of the spot. Lastly, he would award the oncoming player 2 visits. However, if the break was not fair, the referee would rerack the balls and award the oncoming player 2 visits.

Does that sound rightish?

[tommydale]

Forgot to say that the spotted balls would be as close to without touching any other ball when they are being spotted!

[CueInAction]

OK, a question. Player A breaks and does it with such force that the black, a red and a yellow are forced off the table. What should the referee do?

Have the offending player tested for performance enhancing drugs?

EDIT: I read this as a snooker reffing question & wondered how the hell it would be possible to force the yellow off the table on break haha

[tommydale]

Would that be the governing body and not the referee? < Genuine question, that :')

[DeanH]

Referee Exam

well done with getting so close to passing the exam. (5.6% short by my maths )
Question
Player comes to the table, he is on Black and he has to bridge over a colour. The colour is on the lip of a corner pocket. As he strikes he touches the colour which drops into the pocket.
1. he doesn't pot the Black.
2. he does pot the Black.

[SnkrRef]

YAY

I believe the referee would first stop the timer (assuming there is one) so as to avoid eating into the oncoming player's 60 seconds. After this, assuming 4+ balls touched a cushion, he would attempt to spot the balls that forced off the table. The black takes priority on its spot, then the red and then the yellow. If the black spot is obstructed, the balls would be aligned in a straight line between the black spot and the short cushion nearest it. If this is not possible, then the ref would attempt to put them in the same straight line but the other side of the spot. Lastly, he would award the oncoming player 2 visits. However, if the break was not fair, the referee would rerack the balls and award the oncoming player 2 visits.

Does that sound rightish?

That sounds like an excellent complete answer to me!

[tommydale]

well done with getting so close to passing the exam. (5.6% short by my maths )
Question
Player comes to the table, he is on Black and he has to bridge over a colour. The colour is on the lip of a corner pocket. As he strikes he touches the colour which drops into the pocket.
1. he doesn't pot the Black.
2. he does pot the Black.

I did genuinely mean 79.6% . I missed out by 27 marks and it was out of 250 - let's see your maths now ;D :}

In terms of the scenario, it would depend on whether or not it followed a foul snooker or not (and if I've interpreted it correctly!)
1. If it did follow a foul and was snookered behind this colour in the jaw (or a foul jaw snooker, ooer) and he nominated that particular ball, he would still have 2 visits. This is of course assuming there was a foul previously and that it was the cueball that knocked the colour into the pocket. If it was the cue that knocked it in, then of course the opposing player would be awarded 2 visits. If it did not follow a foul snooker, however, the opposing player would be awarded 2 visits no questions asked. Also if it was touching ball, the opposing player would be awarded 2 visits unless the colour rolled in simply because the white was no longer there, but that's quite unlikely.

2. Again, if it did follow a foul snooker behind this colour in the jaw (or a foul jaw snooker, again) and he nominated that specific ball, he would win. This is because when nominating an opponent's ball following a foul snooker, it 'becomes' a ball on of the group that the player in control of the table is on. As this player only has the black left, it is assumed that the ball nominated 'becomes' black for the duration of the shot. Therefore, potting this as well as the black would mean that this player is awarded the frame, again unless it was anything other than the cueball that knocked the colour in. If, however, there is no foul jaw or foul snooker, or he does not nominate explicitly the colour in the jaw, potting the black would of course result in loss of frame. Also as mentioned previously, if it is touching ball the opponent would win the frame, again unless the colour went down because the white was no longer there. Again unlikely though.

How did I do?

That sounds like an excellent complete answer to me!

Really? Is there nothing I missed out at all?

[DeanH]

I did genuinely mean 79.6% . I missed out by 27 marks and it was out of 250 - let's see your maths now ;D :}

In terms of the scenario, it would depend on whether or not it followed a foul snooker or not (and if I've interpreted it correctly!)
1. If it did follow a foul and was snookered behind this colour in the jaw (or a foul jaw snooker, ooer) and he nominated that particular ball, he would still have 2 visits. This is of course assuming there was a foul previously and that it was the cueball that knocked the colour into the pocket. If it was the cue that knocked it in, then of course the opposing player would be awarded 2 visits. If it did not follow a foul snooker, however, the opposing player would be awarded 2 visits no questions asked. Also if it was touching ball, the opposing player would be awarded 2 visits unless the colour rolled in simply because the white was no longer there, but that's quite unlikely.

2. Again, if it did follow a foul snooker behind this colour in the jaw (or a foul jaw snooker, again) and he nominated that specific ball, he would win. This is because when nominating an opponent's ball following a foul snooker, it 'becomes' a ball on of the group that the player in control of the table is on. As this player only has the black left, it is assumed that the ball nominated 'becomes' black for the duration of the shot. Therefore, potting this as well as the black would mean that this player is awarded the frame, again unless it was anything other than the cueball that knocked the colour in. If, however, there is no foul jaw or foul snooker, or he does not nominate explicitly the colour in the jaw, potting the black would of course result in loss of frame. Also as mentioned previously, if it is touching ball the opponent would win the frame, again unless the colour went down because the white was no longer there. Again unlikely though.

How did I do?

27 out of 250, so you got 223 correct out of max of 250, that to me is 89.2%


Question.
Sorry not what I meant.
The player comes to the table to play the Black (ball on), no previous foul, no touching ball (but cue ball is close to the ball in the pocket) and he is not snookered.
To play the cue ball he has to bridge over the opponent's colour ball that is on the edge of a corner pocket.
He plays the shot (hitting the Black fairly) but as he lifts his bridging hand, his hand touches the opponents colour and it drops into the pocket.
sorry for any confusion.
Your other answers are good to me with the scenarios you state.

[billabong]

27 out of 250, so you got 223 correct out of max of 250, that to me is 89.2%

Maybe he didn't miss out on a perfect score by 27 marks, but missed out on a pass mark by 27.

If it's out of 250, then an 85% pass mark would mean a score of 212.5.

if this was missed by 27 marks, then score would have been 185.5, which would have been 74.2%

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

[SnkrRef]

Maybe he didn't miss out on a perfect score by 27 marks, but missed out on a pass mark by 27.

If it's out of 250, then an 85% pass mark would mean a score of 212.5.

if this was missed by 27 marks, then score would have been 185.5, which would have been 74.2%

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

Sounds like he missed out by 27 half-marks. 85% = 212½ minus 27 half-marks = 199 = 79.6%.

[billabong]

LOL, this is more testing than the ref's test .

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

[tommydale]

That sounds like an excellent complete answer to me!

Really? Is there nothing I missed out at all?

27 out of 250, so you got 223 correct out of max of 250, that to me is 89.2%


Question.
Sorry not what I meant.
The player comes to the table to play the Black (ball on), no previous foul, no touching ball (but cue ball is close to the ball in the pocket) and he is not snookered.
To play the cue ball he has to bridge over the opponent's colour ball that is on the edge of a corner pocket.
He plays the shot (hitting the Black fairly) but as he lifts his bridging hand, his hand touches the opponents colour and it drops into the pocket.
sorry for any confusion.
Your other answers are good to me with the scenarios you state.

Ah okay then mate, thank you for clearing it, I hope by assuming or going all hypothetical I didn't go too off course :').

If he pots it, I would guess at the balls being replaced? Because knocking in the other ball by something else other than the cue or another ball on the table would mean it's a non-standard foul? I'm scraping the barrel now :'). If he doesn't pot it, would it be the same thing because it's again a non-standard foul? :/

[DeanH]

The scenario actually happened in a pub league match we had, the funny thing is the player coming to the table made such fuss about bridging over the colour on the edge of pocket before he got the cue into position to play the black, he then played his shot, hitting the black but not potting it, then as he lifted his bridge hand he touched the colour and it dropped into the pocket - it was funny at the time
Anyway, you mention some of what we went through on the night;
1) Standard Foul, K.3. Potting an opponent's ball.
2) Serious Standard Foul, M.3. Deliberately causing any ball to be moved in a manner other than...

the thing is M.3. states "moves" not "pockets"
any thoughts

What happened on the night was Standard foul, colour stayed in the pocket, opponent 2 visits.
(easier than putting another £1 to get one colour out )