hit black with rest

[P.Rook]

You were right. The stroke was not finished until the striker has completed the shot and left the table. Therefore yellow must be re-spotted and the penalty is seven points.

[The Statman]

You were right. The stroke was not finished until the striker has completed the shot and left the table. Therefore yellow must be re-spotted and the penalty is seven points.

Hello Peter, good to have you here at times like this!

Can you just clarify - I'm absolutely in agreement about the stroke not being finished until the player has left the table. But in this case, since he potted the yellow (to all intents and purposes, until he knocked a ball with the rest) then he is surely not going to leave the table because it will still be his turn.

This is surely slightly different from leaving the table at the end of his turn?

What if he hadn't put the rest away because he needed (or might need) it for his following shot, gone for a walk round, and then, putting the rest away because he decided he didn't need it, knocked the black? You would surely decide that the foul was on the following shot, wouldn't you?

The only reference to the ref being satisfied that a player has left the table is under "Striker" which explains that the striker remains the striker until he's left the table at the end of his turn. This in itself has no link to the definition of end of stroke, particularly when the player is not at the end of his turn.

[P.Rook]

P.Rook

Statman et al: When the striker is using the rest, spider, or whatever to aid his/her execution of a stroke, then the stroke is not deemed finished when the balls have come to a stop. The end of the stroke also requires any colour potted/pocketed to have been respotted and any implement being used to have been removed. The case in question involved the striker still holding on to the rest when he fouled the black with it. That foul meant he was no longer on a break and the only other thing that could happen in the same stroke is if he made another foul before leaving the table. Since the black was fouled, the penalty will still be 7.
Had he fouled blue with the rest, the penalty would be 5 - which could be increased by a further foul if he then fouled pink or black while or before leaving the table. Hope that helps. It's exactly what my co-author of the rules (the late John Street) would have said and is quite clear in our joint Referees' Handbook which is now back in print.

[Krypton]

seems as if I haven't been that wrong before pretending exactly the same about "balls have come to rest" and "shot still not over"...

[The Statman]

Peter

Thanks for the useful clarification. I think the Rule could (should) be made clear exactly when a shot is completed. It is interesting that three referees in this very thread found, after discussion, that the only conclusion they could come to by rule was that the balls stopped and that was end of shot. Indeed, DawRef I think in this thread said that he had discussed it with referees and could only achieve a 50-50 split.

Could the Rule not be re-worded along the following lines, to cover the eventualities that are bound to occur at some point:

A stroke is not be completed until
(a) all balls have come to rest, and
(b) the player has got up from the table after execution of the stroke, and
(c) if applicable, any ancillary equipment has been safely removed from the table.
If the same ancillary equipment is required for the next stroke, (c) shall not apply; if the player does not get up because he can play the next stroke from the same stance position, (b) shall not apply.


In practice, despite all my ramblings to the contrary, I would have called a foul on the original shot when a player bridging awkwardly over the pack nudged a red on his way up – even if all balls had stopped. My opinion was changed when this thread picked apart the Rule.

[Krypton]

It has to be discussed if it's senseful to re-wright the rule, yeah - it will be longer, more complicated and maybe even more discussable through that. I always went by the logic (in a lawyer's, mathematician's, ... referee's way of thinking) that

"a shot has not ended until all the balls have come to a rest" means: as long as a ball moves, the shot cannot be considered complete (to add one more very uncommon point: the ball I foul will normally be MOVING too).

this, by logic (in a lawyer's...) means: as soon as the balls HAVE stopped, the shot can possibly be over, but that must not always be the case.

Discussion in here went on to "as soon as the balls stop, the shot IS over", which is now proved to be a) wrong and b) not the way it's being handled by the pro-refs. I remember several situations where I have seen ref's call FOULs on the one shot just played even if the other balls have stopped, which always seemed logic to me.

One BIG advantage of snooker and its rules over certain american pool hall ruling made by casual players and discussed (no, screamed) about is the fact that it is NOT IMPORTANT normally in which order several fouls are commited (touch blue, play black, while red is on, with a misscue is always foul 7 - biggest foul point value in the shot). In pool, some people consider it legal to pot both black and the cueball in the last stroke, as long as the black is in earlier - complete nonsense, in my humble opinion.

therefore, I think it's nothing but normal to see a whole shot as a) correct or b) foul, and draw the finishing line of the shot when the player has got out of the shot position (AND removed his equipement).

If you cue through a bunch of reds, potting one of them with a dead stun stop shot (imagine it being played very hard), and then touch one of the other reds getting up, thats a foul on red - 4 points.

Imagine the ref would have to see:
a) when the cueball EXACTLY stops (dead on impact, 2mm rolling, ...)
b) when the red played for stops (what does that mean? enter pocket? when is it IN the pocket? stop moving on the baize? stop moving in the pocket? stop it's fall? stop in the ballrail?)

and depending on that, it could be a question of fractions of a second to decide whether it's foul 4 (red one mm from pocket and going in 0.02 seconds later) or foul 7 (red become airborne on/in/above the pocket) because the player is "logically on colour, with none specific nominated yet" as stated by other people in here.

For me, it looks more sensible, more logical, more... common, more natural, to call a foul 4 anyway, as the shot is not finished as long as the player's got his cue so delicately close to other balls playing a difficult shot.

"The referee shall use common sense" is enough ruling for me in this situation, without further additions needed. If a player uses the rest for two consecutive shots, the ref should be easily capable to decide to what shot a foul belongs...


Or am I off for another planet, standing alone with this???

[P.Rook]

P.Rook

To elaborate further, John Street and I collaborated for 12 more years after writing the 1995 Rules and in February this year I met members of WSA at Newport where I presented our improvements, sadly after the passing of my good friend. The wording of Section 2 Rule 6 was put to them as:
(a) A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue in the direction of cue alignment.
(b) A stroke is fair when no infringement of Rule is made.
(c) A stroke is not completed until
(i) all balls have come to rest,
(ii) the striker has stood up, in readiness for a succeeding stroke, or leaving the table,
(iii) any equipment being used by the striker has been moved from a hazardous position, and
(iv) the referee has called any score relevant to the stroke.
Paragraph (d) follows without change. Points of note are that a sideways swipe of the cue is verboten as a stroke and the score will not be called until relevant colours have been spotted (or missed through oversight).
The Rules Committee are deliberating all the changes we suggested and I have had some feedback that this is still progressing.

[The Statman]

To elaborate further, John Street and I collaborated for 12 more years after writing the 1995 Rules and in February this year I met members of WSA at Newport where I presented our improvements, sadly after the passing of my good friend. The wording of Section 2 Rule 6 was put to them as:
(a) A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue in the direction of cue alignment.
(b) A stroke is fair when no infringement of Rule is made.
(c) A stroke is not completed until
(i) all balls have come to rest,
(ii) the striker has stood up, in readiness for a succeeding stroke, or leaving the table,
(iii) any equipment being used by the striker has been moved from a hazardous position, and
(iv) the referee has called any score relevant to the stroke.
Paragraph (d) follows without change. Points of note are that a sideways swipe of the cue is verboten as a stroke and the score will not be called until relevant colours have been spotted (or missed through oversight).
The Rules Committee are deliberating all the changes we suggested and I have had some feedback that this is still progressing.

Well Peter I think that is an excellent addition/improvement and clears this up perfectly.

I presume it is your (plural) suggestion of recent tweaks to the rules, such as the start of a re-spot being added to the list of times when the cue-ball is in hand – obviously a simple oversight – so if that is the case, do you have any reason to doubt that the Rules Committee would have reason to throw out this particularly useful suggestion?

[DawRef]

such as the start of a re-spot being added to the list of times when the cue-ball is in hand

I actually mentioned this to the late John Street a couple of years back.

[The Statman]

To elaborate further, John Street and I collaborated for 12 more years after writing the 1995 Rules and in February this year I met members of WSA at Newport where I presented our improvements, sadly after the passing of my good friend. The wording of Section 2 Rule 6 was put to them as:
(a) A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue in the direction of cue alignment.
(b) A stroke is fair when no infringement of Rule is made.
(c) A stroke is not completed until
(i) all balls have come to rest,
(ii) the striker has stood up, in readiness for a succeeding stroke, or leaving the table,
(iii) any equipment being used by the striker has been moved from a hazardous position, and
(iv) the referee has called any score relevant to the stroke.
Paragraph (d) follows without change. Points of note are that a sideways swipe of the cue is verboten as a stroke and the score will not be called until relevant colours have been spotted (or missed through oversight).
The Rules Committee are deliberating all the changes we suggested and I have had some feedback that this is still progressing.

Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure that it is necessary to include part (iv). I don't see that it is necessary for the referee to call the score for the stroke to be completed, for the following specific reason.

It is, under a different rule, a foul to play a stroke before the referee has had time to spot a ball from a previous stroke. I believe the above rule would render that foul redundant, because the referee does not call the score until the colour has been spotted.

If a player were to play his next stroke before the ref had spotted the colour (and, therefore, before he'd called the score), the new rule suggested above would make this a foul on the previous stroke (in which the colour was potted) and not on the next stroke.

This is the same as the current situation where an oncoming player, playing the first stroke of his turn, does so before the balls are at rest from the previous shot (played by his opponent). It is now established that he cannot be fouled for playing without balls at rest, because he is not the striker – the previous player is still the striker until his balls have stopped moving (as it were). Under current guidance, in this situation the balls would have to be replaced under the "balls moved by other than striker" rule, though in reality the referee might as well prevent the player from proceeding with his shot till the balls have stopped moving. This makes redundant the foul of "playing before all balls have come to rest" because, in a shot where the player is continuing his break, if he were to play before his previous shot was completed, this would be a foul under that previous shot for striking the cue-ball a second time during the shot.

The same will apply here. I think it would suffice that the shot is not completed until (i), (ii) and (iii) in the quoted passage above. Then, if those three criteria are met, the player can continue with his break but can still be fouled if the next stroke is played before the referee has finished spotting the colour.

[P.Rook]

p.rook

The calling of the score by the referee is relevant as, where the striker has pocketed the pink and plays at the next red before the pink has been spotted (and the score called) the foul will be six, not four, away.
It is correct that the referee should stop the next player from playing before all balls are at rest because, as you say, he is not the striker until the balls are at rest and the old inclusion of Rule 12(b)(i) was deleted in the new version John Street and I submitted.

[The Statman]

Thanks for the swift reply, Peter.

I accept your response and it does make sense. As you say, the foul would be 6 (on the previous shot) and not a score of 6 for that pink and a foul of 4 on the next shot.

But do you agree with me, that the foul for "playing before the referee has had chance to spot the colour" is therefore redundant in the same way as "playing with all balls not at rest"? I cannot see how the "playing before the referee has had chance to spot the colour" can be put into practice - if it is the same player who pocketed the colour then the shot on the colour will be called foul rather than the next one; if it is the oncoming player who plays the shot, he is not yet the striker because the referee, after immediately calling foul, should not announce the penalty until the conclusion of the stroke, i.e. after he has spotted the colour.

Once again, though, the exact definition of when a stroke is completed is a very useful addition to what, as proved by previous discussions on this thread, is not clearly written in the Rules as they currently stand.


(By the way, is there any reason why the non-striker is not penalised as if he were the striker for any disturbance of the balls during play, as is the case when the ball marker is on the table, and when replacing the balls after a Miss call?)

[The Statman]

One further point:

Would it be worth wording (iv) along the lines of:

(iv) the referee has spotted any balls and called any score relevant to the stroke.

Because I don't think it's written anywhere in the rules that the referee should not call the score until he has finished spotting – although we all know this is the accepted approach.

[Terry Davidson]

As he was using the rest to pot the yellow and presumably not going to use it on the green and was putting it away as a result of potting the yellow I would say the shot 'on' at the time of the foul would still be the yellow and even if the 'balls have come to rest' in fact the player himself 'has not come to rest' and has not fully completed the entire yellow shot.

I believe I would re-spot the yellow in this case and award a 7-point foul with no points for potting the yellow.

(However, if the rest head fell off and the player did not supply that rest then no foul.)

Terry

[Krypton]

yeah, Terry, seems reasonable, I thought the same, but was told to be VERY wrong...