hit black with rest

[Krypton]

now you're mixing up exactly the things I wanted to make clear and separate.

If the shot is still going (an removing the rest IS part of the shot also if the balls have stopped) while you make a foul, the ball won't count, fact. This was my example. i played black with the rest, only black, an removing it... i drop my chalk on a red, touch a red with my clothes, touch a red with my hands, cue... definitely a foul on the black pot. sorry I really got to disagree with you.

Walking around, checking out my next shot - THEN dropping my chalk... is a foul on red - 4 points. It's "only" a question of when you consider a shot to be completed.

A ref once told me that they learned: As soon as the ref counts the score, the shot is completed. Watch the pro's refs: They wait for the balls to come to rest and the player to get up, THEN they say "one" - and from then on, the player is on colour.

Your point of view would have another rather unlogic consequence:

I play RED with rest, all balls stop, and removing the rest i hit another red. I'd say: Foul 4, while playing red I touched a red.
You would say: Foul 7, because I was on colour, even though it was not specified which one. And that's where I have to disagree: Being called a foul 7 when removing the rest after potting a red... that doesn't make sense, i think.

[The Statman]

A ref once told me that they learned: As soon as the ref counts the score, the shot is completed. Watch the pro's refs: They wait for the balls to come to rest and the player to get up, THEN they say "one" - and from then on, the player is on colour.

Well that is not strictly true. The referee should call the score once the stroke is completed. Similarly, if a foul occurs he should immediately call FOUL, but not announce the penalty until the stroke is at an end in case a higher value foul also occurs during the stroke.

However, what if the referee calls "One" but the white hasn't quite stopped moving and ends up going into a pocket? Or another red trickles in? Are you suggesting that the player should not be penalised for the in-off, or rewarded for the extra red?

Your point of view would have another rather unlogic consequence:

I play RED with rest, all balls stop, and removing the rest i hit another red. I'd say: Foul 4, while playing red I touched a red.
You would say: Foul 7, because I was on colour, even though it was not specified which one. And that's where I have to disagree: Being called a foul 7 when removing the rest after potting a red... that doesn't make sense, i think.

Quite so, I would say that because that is exactly the case. I have awarded the 7-point foul in this scenario as well, at fairly important level (English Amateur if I recall correctly). The player scores for the red which he has legally potted. He is fouled 7 for making a foul when on a colour before having nominated it.

Here's a scenario, a bit silly but it could happen. Player uses the rest to pot the brown and leaves it out because he thinks he'll need it for the blue. He goes to his chair to get his mini-extension.

He returns to the table having fitted the extension, and stretches over to see if he can in fact reach without the rest – and finds that he can. Rather than get up and replace the rest, he just remains down on the shot and pots the blue.

He now returns the rest to the referee and in doing so nudges the black with it. Do you foul him for the brown and replace the balls as they were for his opponent, including re-spotting brown and blue?

[Krypton]

going with your last situation, i'd certainly call that a foul while playing blue. the player has even PLAYED the blue. foul 7 (hitting black) and RESPOT blue. The rest is part of his shot on blue, even if not needed - it's still on the table. a player can decide to place all available rest on the table and play like that if he likes.

there might not be a specific word in the rules to tell you WHEN a shot is finished - that's the so called "common sense" the ref will have to follow.

for me, this is clear:
removing rest: foul on the shot just played. if it's a colour, respot it.
placing/moving rest for next shot: foul on next shot, even if that means foul 7 in case of not nominated colour.

i know the rule saying that fouls commited before nominating a colour means the foul counts 7. but then i'd still argue: as long as an action the player makes can be called as "belonging to the stroke on the past red", that's common sense, even if in your case the ref stated a foul seven. I'd certainly have a word battle with that ref

to bring up the simplest example i can think of:

I bridge over the pack and play a red into the corner pocket. a difficult shot, awkward bridging, high danger of hitting reds with the cue, playing out of the pack. i pose on the shot after striking the cueball to make a shot as controlled as possible.
red falls into corner pocket, i land perfectly on black, cueball stops. i'm still in my shot position.
now getting up i slightly touch a red with the cue. the ref doesn't even see it.

I say: "Foul, i touched that red slightly." Annoying enough, now with a good chance of splitting from black.

Ref: "Foul seven then, cueball has stopped and red was in"

Hard to accept... don't you think this could be called foul 4? As moving out of the shot position IS part of the pot on red?


as soon as i left the shot position and walk around the table i'm with you: every foul i commit now i worth 7 points (unless i nominate a lower valued colour)

[The Statman]

As Davis Greatest said upthread, the Rule states that "A stroke is not completed until all balls have come to rest".

Although this does not explicitly state therefore that the stroke is completed as soon as the balls come to rest, it is the only logical and entirely objective point at which a stroke is completed.

If the Rule intends to continue by saying that there are perhaps instances when the stroke may be seen to be still in progress after the balls have stopped moving, why does it not go on to give the various scenarios?

In the absence of such a subparagraph (and I am thinking along the lines of

(a) if the player is down on the shot or has ancillary equipment, used in that stroke, in his possession when the balls have come to rest, the shot remains in progress until the player has got up and any equipment removed from the table
(b) if the player is already up from the shot when the balls stop moving, the stroke is completed as soon as all balls are at rest

... or similar), the only consistent conclusion that we can come to is that, once all balls have stopped moving, the shot is completed.

I agree it is not 100% soundly written in the Rules, but going on the Rules as they are currently written, I think we have no choice but to come to the conclusion above.

There is of course the Section 5 rule which says that the referee can make any decision in the interests of fair play, for any situation that is not adequately covered by Rule. This is perhaps one such situation – there is another that I can think of but that is for another thread!

So in the situation you describe with the awkward bridging, if the balls have come to rests before the foul is committed, then you score the 1 point for legally potting the red, and fouled 7 for causing the spider to touch a ball, on the next shot.

Any other decision – even a more logical one – is against the Rules as they are written.

[Krypton]

i my example i was thinking of a shot without spider. just by hand. but that doesn't really matter.

i don't think there's right/wrong here, as it's just some sort of "convention". More important: if you do it either way, everybody should do it that way. That's more important. I got no problem respecting you point of view, it just wasn't mine - but i can learn

You would, consequently, give me one point for my red - ty



so there is only one tiny little point left to disagree:

Although this does not explicitly state therefore that the stroke is completed as soon as the balls come to rest, it is the only logical and entirely objective point at which a stroke is completed.

That is wrong, but common:
If some system of logic says "If A, then B", that does NOT mean: "if b, there had to be A" or "A is the only way to get to B".

the rules say: a shot cannot be considered as completed as long as balls are still moving - nothing else. Following that it is everything but illogic to speak about shots not being over even if the balls have stopped.
that's a normal rule using logics - from a mathematical, technical point of view of course. reverse/contraposition is not necessarily true.

But i'll go with your interpretation from now on and call my foul "foul 7" if you say that's the way refs have agreed to count.

[The Statman]

In fact I agreed with you that the Rule was not clear. I appreciate that it does not explicitly state when a shot is finished.

But, after that section of the Rule, since it does not go on to explain in any more detail, I don't think we can come to any other conclusion. At least the "all balls at rest" is a matter of absolute fact and is not open to any interpretation.

By the way, I think that a subparagraph along the lines of the one I drafted above, would be a good move – or, indeed, a re-wording to "The shot is completed once all balls have come to rest". This would clarify which of the two is intended.

Meanwhile, we await DawRef's comments after his referee friends have come back with some further opinions.

[APK]

It is a sad fact that the Rules are inadeuately written in many areas.
But that fact allows us referees to indulge a passion. We get together and put questions just like these to each other.
You can bet that if there are 4 referees in the discussion, you will have 3 different opinions for any situation not adequately covered by Rule.
In fact Statman and I do this on a regular and ongoing basis.

It should be remebered that the Rules are there to keep the play flowing and as fair as possible for both parties.

In my opinion this situation is covered by Rule.
The Rule states- A stroke is not completed until al balls have come to rest.
No other parameters are specified or implied.
Therefore, regardless of what else is happening on the table, once all balls have come to rest, the stroke is complete.

An awkward situation just occured to me-

After potting the black using the rest, the striker leaves the rest on the table whilst the referee respots the black.
The striker moves the rest and touches the black.
The black was legally potted so how can the striker foul the black by touching it with the rest when he has also legally potted it in the same stroke?
He can't. All balls have come to rest, the foul is on the next stroke.
A set of snooker balls only comes with 1 black.

If you can agree with this scenario, then you must agree with Statmans conclusion.

[DawRef]

After potting the black using the rest, the striker leaves the rest on the table whilst the referee respots the black.
The striker moves the rest and touches the black.
The black was legally potted so how can the striker foul the black by touching it with the rest when he has also legally potted it in the same stroke?
He can't. All balls have come to rest, the foul is on the next stroke.

What if when potting said black, the points were equal and, therefore, a re-spot required. The referee has yet to draw lots to see who would play the next stroke. So would the player who pocketed the black be penalised?

[sArnie]

On that situation, DawRef, my decision would be this: The opponent of the player who touched the black, would receive 7 points and that frame is over.

I would base this decision on the fact that - whoever the striker would have been on that respotted black - the player who touched the black, with or without the rest doesn't matter, has fouled on the black. I do not see a rule in the book, to support any other decision.

On the original question I can't see, why the removal of the rest should be considered part of the stroke on the yellow. I can put my chalk on the table, leave the rest or the spider or even both on the table and still I could strike the next ball on and score points for it. In fact I could clear the table with all those things on the table and the referee could not interfere*, all pots would score just as they would have, without anything but the balls on the table. In my opinion that is a very strong indicator, that (re)moving the rest cannot be counted as part of the stroke before, but has to be counted as happening during the next stroke (or the one after that, or the one ...) once the balls have come to rest.

The fact, that the ref waits until all balls have come to rest, before he calls the points awarded to the striker (or its opponent in case of a foul), is another point for that position. He cannot call points before that, because the rule says the stroke is not over until all balls have come to rest. I assume, everyone here agrees, that after the ref has called the points, no foul can be committed, that could make those points void.

He still may pause a moment before calling the ponts, due to an irritation of the throat or something along that line. I don't think that should have any influence on the fact, that the stroke is over once the balls have come to rest. The striker can not be held responsible for any delay in calling the points to be awarded.

My conclusion is, that the strike has to be considered over, as soon as all balls have come to rest. If it were not so, the referee would have to wait until any accessories used during the stroke were removed, before calling the score; as far as I remember, I have never seen a ref do that. One last point: Consider the possible confusion that would arise, if the striker would choose to leave the accessories on the table for the next shot. When should the ref call the points? During the strikers preparation for that next stroke? Or rather, when the ref considers it obvious, that the striker himself has decided *not* to remove the accessories? And what if the striker does decide to remove them later on? That would cause irritation and ambiguity. That cannot be the intention of that part of the rules.

(* Of course, the ref could interfere, if one of those items was used to mark or measure during any stroke after that. )

[The Statman]

An awkward situation just occured to me-

After potting the black using the rest, the striker leaves the rest on the table whilst the referee respots the black.
The striker moves the rest and touches the black.
The black was legally potted so how can the striker foul the black by touching it with the rest when he has also legally potted it in the same stroke?
He can't. All balls have come to rest, the foul is on the next stroke.
A set of snooker balls only comes with 1 black.

If you can agree with this scenario, then you must agree with Statmans conclusion.

What if when potting said black, the points were equal and, therefore, a re-spot required. The referee has yet to draw lots to see who would play the next stroke. So would the player who pocketed the black be penalised?

On that situation, DawRef, my decision would be this: The opponent of the player who touched the black, would receive 7 points and that frame is over.

I would base this decision on the fact that - whoever the striker would have been on that respotted black - the player who touched the black, with or without the rest doesn't matter, has fouled on the black. I do not see a rule in the book, to support any other decision.

However, only the striker can be fouled. Anything disturbed by other than the striker would be replaced in its original position. That is made clear by the Rules, and at the moment between the final black being potted to level the scores, and the decision as to who plays the re-spot first, neither player is the striker.

I would conjecture that, after the potting of the final black which levels the scores, once the cue-ball has stopped moving it is in-hand. [NB The Rules state that the cue-ball is in hand (a) before the start of a frame; (b) when it has entered a pocket; or (c) when forced off the table. However, As the re-spot is commenced by a quasi start-of-frame procedure, I would suggest that it be considered in-hand at this point.] The ball remains in-hand until played fairly from the D (in this case, on the re-spot) or a foul is committed while the ball is on the table. However, I do not believe that a foul HAS been committed; the only foul situation is for touching a ball in play other than the cue-ball with the tip of the cue. In this case, the cue-ball is in-hand, not in play.

[The Statman]

The rule has now been changed to include the re-spot situation in the list of times when the cue-ball is in hand.

[sArnie]

Is that an official change of rules, when is it valid and (where) is it documented?

Thanks in advance for any reply.

[The Statman]

I received a notification last month I think. Oh no, we're in July – probably the month before! Can't remember off hand but I think there was another amendment as well, was it to do with ... oh I can't remember, I'll report back!

[sArnie]

Thank you very much. I'm going to qualify for referee some time later this year and want to stay ahead of things. Reply whenever you're ready.

[The Statman]

Here it is.