Foul or not?

[OmaMiesta]

Interesting video I came across, what do you guys think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1sDiLapr0g



Sorry just realized there was already a thread for this sort of question*

[Terry Davidson]

Two fouls, one by Dott and then when Selby moved the cueball since it wasn't in hand.

However the referee should have grabbed the cueball once Dott hit it with his fist

[The Statman]

Two fouls, one by Dott and then when Selby moved the cueball since it wasn't in hand.

However the referee should have grabbed the cueball once Dott hit it with his fist

Why should he? It was still in play.

[Terry Davidson]

Why should he? It was still in play.

I know it's against the rules as the cueball was still in play but he should have in order to be fair to Selby who would be penalized where the cueball ended up and wouldn't have his full set of choices if Dott hadn't touched the cueball.

I think a rule should be modified in fairness to both players and should not be followed blindly. Remember, the referee is always right anyway, no matter what he does or how he interprets the rules.

[OmaMiesta]

I know it's against the rules as the cueball was still in play but he should have in order to be fair to Selby who would be penalized where the cueball ended up and wouldn't have his full set of choices if Dott hadn't touched the cueball.

I think a rule should be modified in fairness to both players and should not be followed blindly. Remember, the referee is always right anyway, no matter what he does or how he interprets the rules.

I think Dott should have given the shot back to Selby or at least intentionally fouled in the pocket.

[narl]

Does it surprise anyone Selby was in a frame involving a re-rack? Don't think I've ever seen a player create more situations that involve a re-rack than him.

[The Statman]

I know it's against the rules as the cueball was still in play but he should have in order to be fair to Selby who would be penalized where the cueball ended up and wouldn't have his full set of choices if Dott hadn't touched the cueball.

I think a rule should be modified in fairness to both players and should not be followed blindly. Remember, the referee is always right anyway, no matter what he does or how he interprets the rules.

Yes I get what you're saying.

But the referee did indirectly tell Selby not to pick it up, if only Selby had realised. If the cue-ball had been in hand, the referee would have picked it up, given it a wipe, and rested it against the baulk cushion. The referee did not do this. I was in the third row right behind Selby and I knew exactly what was going to happen!

(I also agree that Dott putting Selby in again would have been a nice touch.)

[jwinsor]

I think Dott should have given the shot back to Selby or at least intentionally fouled in the pocket.

yes that would be the right solution

[Ricky2112]

When Dott first blocks the pocket with his knuckle the ball bounces of his knuckle and moves forward a couple of inches and that is the foul, but he then pushes his hand forward and hits the cue ball again so should the cue ball have been placed back at the pocket as it was a second hit with his hand that caused the white to end up where it did. Where do you draw the line, how many times are you allowed to hit the white.
If this is allowed and your in off is going to cost you the frame by giving your opponent ball in hand to the D then just block the pocket as Dott did and your opponent has to play from there or make you play again. It's a ridiculous situation where there was a deliberate foul committed so Dott should have lost the frame or the ref use common sense and give ball in hand to Selby.
There is loads of scenarios here but I think the ref made a pigs ears of the situation. If it was ok for Dott to deliberately foul by hitting the ball with his hand then it should have been ok for him to just pocket the cue ball into the pocket when it was his shot to return the points for the ridiculous foul giving selby back the points and ball in hand.
SO IS IT OK NOT TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT A POT AND POT THE WHITE STRAIGHT IN TO THE POCKET?

Cheers Ricky

[The Statman]

When Dott first blocks the pocket with his knuckle the ball bounces of his knuckle and moves forward a couple of inches and that is the foul, but he then pushes his hand forward and hits the cue ball again so should the cue ball have been placed back at the pocket as it was a second hit with his hand that caused the white to end up where it did. Where do you draw the line, how many times are you allowed to hit the white.
If this is allowed and your in off is going to cost you the frame by giving your opponent ball in hand to the D then just block the pocket as Dott did and your opponent has to play from there or make you play again. It's a ridiculous situation where there was a deliberate foul committed so Dott should have lost the frame or the ref use common sense and give ball in hand to Selby.
There is loads of scenarios here but I think the ref made a pigs ears of the situation. If it was ok for Dott to deliberately foul by hitting the ball with his hand then it should have been ok for him to just pocket the cue ball into the pocket when it was his shot to return the points for the ridiculous foul giving selby back the points and ball in hand.
SO IS IT OK NOT TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT A POT AND POT THE WHITE STRAIGHT IN TO THE POCKET?

Cheers Ricky

Well yes, Dott remained the striker until he had left the table, so each time he touched the cue-ball was a foul 4, although of course only one 4-point penalty can be awarded per stroke.

I think both players were so confused by the situation that it didn't cross Dott's mind to play a foul or put Selby back in. If he had just gone straight in-off, that would have been a Miss of course, as he did not attempt to hit the red!

The rules, possibly partly in light of this incident, have since been changed so that if a player deliberately touches the cue-ball in play, then it will be deemed forced off the table and played from hand.

If this is allowed and your in off is going to cost you the frame by giving your opponent ball in hand to the D then just block the pocket as Dott did and your opponent has to play from there or make you play again.

Of course, that now brings up the situation where it might be worth deliberately touching the ball if leaving it where it is would cost you the frame!

[LittleMissAlexa]

personally I think the punch of the ball by Dott should of been a docked Frame otherwise it opens up the possibility of cheating moving the ball like that and only getting the said penalty points like that to me isnt not justuce

[jrc750]

personally I think the punch of the ball by Dott should of been a docked Frame otherwise it opens up the possibility of cheating moving the ball like that and only getting the said penalty points like that to me isnt not justuce

Yeah but it was clear to everyone except the ref that he was being nice nudging the red towards the D ready for the next player

[LittleMissAlexa]

I would still dock a frame for deliberately interferring with the balls whats stopping a player picking up the last red putting it on a cushion for me a 4 point penalty isnt enough

[jrc750]

I would still dock a frame for deliberately interferring with the balls whats stopping a player picking up the last red putting it on a cushion for me a 4 point penalty isnt enough

That would be a totally different scenario tho wouldn't it !!!

[LittleMissAlexa]

Still think it needs to be a rule on deliberately interfering with the balls. Only the ref should touch the balls while a frame is in play different if you do it to concede maybe make it an automatic concession of the frame.