100%, sure, black first...?

[taipafan]

"a simultaneous hit on two differing balls is a foul "
(There is hardly to find a simultaneous hit on two balls if we measure it with some equipments).
I think the reason to make this rule, is... beside we can clearly see which ball is hit first, there are quite a grey area that we cannot tell which one was hit first. So in this grey area, we call it "simultaneous" and is a foul.

So my question is, when I see two differing balls were hit almost the same time, even I can hear two hitting sound, but I cannot tell which one was hit first....What should I do, as a referee.

[DeanH]

What should I do, as a referee.

Follow the rules.

When I referee these situations and know a simultaneous could occur I focus on one ball and allow the other to be in the periphery of my vision, this often allow me to see which moves first and make the decision based on what I see.
I place myself as close as possible without being too close that the player is annoyed but close enough that one or two steps I am quickly as close as possible to view the event.

If it is still too close to call, call it simultaneous and in snooker, Foul.
Four penalty points or the value of the higher value ball involved.

I have had a few of these over the years but only one event haunts me
All others I will stand by my decision, most I was able to see which moved first.

[taipafan]

So far I got two different answers to my question. Since I cannot find anything mentioned "benefit of the doubt, to the striker" in the rule, I will do what I used to...

Easy to see hitting the ball on... No foul

Not easy but can tell hitting the ball on... No foul

Cannot tell which ball is hit first ...=simultaneous hit=Foul

Not easy but can tell hitting the ball not on... Foul

Easy to see hitting the ball not on... Foul

[DeanH]

Since I cannot find anything mentioned "benefit of the doubt, to the striker" in the rule,

There is no such wording in the rules; I said that referees apply the rules and ensure that no player gets a greater advantage unfairly.
Again these words ae not specifically in the rules but they are in the spirit of the Rules Committee when assessing the wording of the Rules and also, referees are trained with this in mind when applying the rules.
The old SRA Rules Explanation document mentions "unfair advantage" in their explanation six times

Your break down seems fair to me - but would say add the word "first"


Easy to see hitting the ball on first... No foul

Not easy but can tell hitting the ball on first... No foul

Cannot tell which ball is hit first ...=simultaneous hit=Foul

Not easy but can tell hitting the ball not on first... Foul

Easy to see hitting the ball not on first... Foul

[taipafan]

If the referee said, he could not tell which one is hit first, so that it is a foul. Then it is ok. But he said, 100% sure, black first...What makes him so sure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GIqEImUanE

If we use Dr Dave "Tangent line" method in this case, we can see after contacted with the red and black, the cue ball goes to left hand side of the screen, means the last ball contact is the black ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EBSGWrnzjs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GIqEImUanE

Dr Dave "Tangent line" method ...

Not everyone, including players and referees, is aware of or accepts this method for determining which ball was hit first. In my casual games involving small bets, I often suggest using this method to resolve such situations. However, if others disagree, I'm willing to drop the issue.