rules question

[paulb]

Hi, I've found similar threads but not been able to find one that answers my exact question, so hoping someone here can help.

It's a variation on the common question about taking a red off the table with a foul of presumably 4 points but removing a possible 8 points from the table., thus possibly gaining an advantage. So the situation is that a player has potted a red, and leaves him/herself with difficulty to play a following colour (say angled, or snookered by a red). In playing the escape, say to the yellow, the player hits a red and pots it. Is the foul four or 7 points? I understand there is a rule saying if you "play at" a red twice in a row it's a 7 point foul. But does "play at" mean "deliberately play at"?

[The Statman]

Yes, "play at" means exactly that.

If you nominate yellow (or any other colour) then that is by definition the ball you are "playing at". So in the case of the yellow it would be a 4-point foul.

Of course, if the miss on the yellow is poor enough, or seen to be a deliberate foul, the 'Miss' can be called and the balls could be replaced, bringing the red back to its original position. But this can only be judged on the attempt at hitting the yellow, not the fact that the red was pocketed.

By way of example: suppose you are 33 in front, and pot the last-but-one (14th) red. You are not ideally on a colour and the final red is hanging over a pocket. There is nothing the rules can do to stop you nominating a colour (yellow, let's say) and play the yellow onto the red to knock it in.

It will be a foul, of course, but you will end up 28 in front with 27 on – no 'Miss' can be called because you did not miss the intended colour.

[The Statman]

Indeed Section 3 Rule 3 is quite specific that:

"Reds are not replaced on the table once pocketed or forced off the table regardless of the fact that a player may thus benefit from a foul."

It goes on to list five exceptions, which are (a) when the ball is off the table being cleaned and a player fouls by touching the marking device; (b) when a ball on the edge of a pocket falls of its own accord; (c) being replaced after a Miss call; (d) being moved by either player during the replacement after a Miss call; (d) ball moved by other than the striker.

[paulb]

Many thanks Statman.

[MattCash]

is there anything you don't know statman?

[davis_greatest]

...the final red is hanging over a pocket. There is nothing the rules can do to stop you nominating a colour (yellow, let's say) and play the yellow onto the red to knock it in...

There is, of course, the rule that "in the event of ... any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully ... unfair...the referee shall either ... warn the Player ... or award the frame to his opponent".

If the above shot were played, in your view, deliberately, would you not as a referee consider whether this shot might be wilfully unfair?

If not, at what point would you consider the player to be behaving wilfully unfairly? What if he he attempted the shot you mention, but failed to pocket the red, and then pushed the red in with his hand? Or what if he pushed 2 reds off the table, or 3....?

[The Statman]

There is, of course, the rule that "in the event of ... any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully ... unfair...the referee shall either ... warn the Player ... or award the frame to his opponent".

If the above shot were played, in your view, deliberately, would you not as a referee consider whether this shot might be wilfully unfair?

If not, at what point would you consider the player to be behaving wilfully unfairly? What if he he attempted the shot you mention, but failed to pocket the red, and then pushed the red in with his hand? Or what if he pushed 2 reds off the table, or 3....?

An interesting point. It had not occurred to me to include shot selection within "conduct". It would be difficult to call a player 'unfair' for something which, if anything, is unfair from the Rules rather than from the player's actions. It would be easy, though, for the player to appear that he was trying to nudge up to the red (it would probably have to be over the pocket) but overhit; and the referee would have to be certain that this was not the case to entertain any thoughts of gamesmanship.

Let me think a bit more on that ... but I still don't think you can use it. If the player pushed the red in with his hand, then that might well come into it (he needn't have played a shot, even) but I'm not sure that shot selection can be said to be unfair conduct.

[davis_greatest]

Let me think a bit more on that ... but I still don't think you can use it. If the player pushed the red in with his hand, then that might well come into it (he needn't have played a shot, even) but I'm not sure that shot selection can be said to be unfair conduct.

In my view, there is a good case for it to be considered as unfair conduct - but I do wonder what a referee (such as yourself, or one during a professional match) would do.

Many will recall a similar incident in the 2007 World Championship where it appeared (but no one could tell for sure) that John Parrott may have been attempting deliberately to pocket a red after first striking the black, rather than leave the red in the jaws for his opponent Steve Davis. It seemed to many to be almost inevitable that, in playing such a shot, the red would be pocketed and a foul committed (still benefiting Parrott when compared to the alternative of leaving the red on for Davis). However, somehow the red did not drop, and the referee did not have to make a ruling.

Steve Davis, when asked about it after the match, did say that, had the red dropped, he would have asked the referee to make a ruling. One can only imagine that Davis was thinking of the unfair conduct rule here.

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

One might also ask, then, what would you do if there were 2 reds remaining (the striker, say, 35 or so ahead), and the striker deliberately struck one red (instead of the cue ball) with his tip very hard in order to hit the other red and force them both from the table? Is this also 'shot selection'?