Ball drops

[taipafan]

Most of the people said, when the red dropped, the cue ball is still moving, so it should be counted.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8WTN...ABHZgngTTs99Q6 NGhxzhQeGksYfBR-oPCxrs-Do9aUiXV-sbZDmffg3FwV0g_aem_lHeusi55_Py0-FLOq0FBkg

[DeanH]

Yes the balls have not all come to rest so the stroke and the player are still "in play"; so a legal pot - to me



The rule that most are referring to is 3.9, but to me the scenario discussed this rule does not apply as the stroke and turn was still in-play and the ball WAS hit.

3.9 Ball on Edge of Pocket
When a ball falls into a pocket without being hit by another ball, and:
(a) being no part of any stroke in progress, it shall be replaced and any points scored shall count.
(b) If it would have been hit by any ball involved in a stroke:
(i) with no infringement of these Rules (including cases where an infringement would have occurred but for the ball falling into a pocket), all balls will be replaced and the same stroke played again, or a different stroke may be played by the same striker at their discretion;
(ii) if a foul is committed, the striker incurs the penalty prescribed in Section 3 Rule 11, all balls will be replaced and the next player has the usual options after a foul.
(c) If a ball balances momentarily on the edge of a pocket and then falls in, it shall be considered potted or pocketed and shall not be replaced.
A consultation period starts when the decision is made to replace the ball(s).


Also, I have always been concerned about the first line ending with the "AND" that infers that the three sub-rules can be applied; where (c) seems to want to be applied to when a ball is hit.
:shrug:

[Londonlad147]

Until the 2011 rule book, paragraphs a, b and c were standalone paragraphs:

9. Ball on Edge of Pocket
(a) If a ball falls into a pocket without being hit by another ball, and being no part of any stroke in progress, it shall be replaced and any points scored shall count.

(b) If it would have been hit by any ball involved in a stroke:
(i) with no infringement of these Rules, all balls will be replaced and the same stroke played again, or a different stroke may be played at his discretion, by the same striker.
(ii) if a foul is committed, the striker incurs the penalty prescribed, all balls will be replaced and the next player has the usual options after a foul.

(c) If a ball balances momentarily on the edge of a pocket and then falls in, it shall count as in the pocket and not be replaced.

The 2011 rule book changed to the current format, and I think that changed the meaning. However, the wording change was not highlighted by the official summary of rule changes, and it passed me (and, I suspect, many others) by.

Under the old rules, ANY ball, at any stage, whether part of the stroke or not, that balanced no more than momentarily would be considered as pocketed or potted: anything longer than momentarily and it would have been replaced.

Therefore, my initial reaction to the OP's scenario was that the referee's call was correct. Subsequent checking of the rule suggests that this is not now the case, and it should have counted as potted, which Ben has confirmed should have been the case.

The current format of the rule, though, does, therefore, leave a lot of questions to be answered about the time limits for a ball dropping. If any ball which drops during a stroke is considered to be pocketed/potted as part of that stroke, and the striker prolongs his visit to the table for an abnormal amount of time to see whether it drops, where is the line drawn? The wording of the rule needs to be looked at again.

[DeanH]

Until the 2011 rule book, paragraphs a, b and c were standalone paragraphs:

9. Ball on Edge of Pocket
(a) If a ball falls into a pocket without being hit by another ball, and being no part of any stroke in progress, it shall be replaced and any points scored shall count.

(b) If it would have been hit by any ball involved in a stroke:
(i) with no infringement of these Rules, all balls will be replaced and the same stroke played again, or a different stroke may be played at his discretion, by the same striker.
(ii) if a foul is committed, the striker incurs the penalty prescribed, all balls will be replaced and the next player has the usual options after a foul.

(c) If a ball balances momentarily on the edge of a pocket and then falls in, it shall count as in the pocket and not be replaced.

The 2011 rule book changed to the current format, and I think that changed the meaning. However, the wording change was not highlighted by the official summary of rule changes, and it passed me (and, I suspect, many others) by.

Under the old rules, ANY ball, at any stage, whether part of the stroke or not, that balanced no more than momentarily would be considered as pocketed or potted: anything longer than momentarily and it would have been replaced.

Therefore, my initial reaction to the OP's scenario was that the referee's call was correct. Subsequent checking of the rule suggests that this is not now the case, and it should have counted as potted, which Ben has confirmed should have been the case.

The current format of the rule, though, does, therefore, leave a lot of questions to be answered about the time limits for a ball dropping. If any ball which drops during a stroke is considered to be pocketed/potted as part of that stroke, and the striker prolongs his visit to the table for an abnormal amount of time to see whether it drops, where is the line drawn? The wording of the rule needs to be looked at again.

Thanks for the clarification and background of the wording
Let's hope the rules committee has a look at this one
I have always taken the timing of the fall to be AFTER all balls have come to rest, etc.; as in after the end of a stroke

[taipafan]

I would like to try to solve the problem.

Rule 3.9 can be divided into four parts:
9(a)
9(b)(i)
9(b)(ii)
9(c)
These four conditions should cover all the circumstances that may occur when a ball drops.
Therefore, the result can only be one of these four.

The easy way:
9(c) is the only result that the dropped ball is counted. Means if it is not 9(c), the ball must be replaced.
To determine if it is 9(c), we need to decide whether the ball is balancing momentarily or is already steady still.
In this case, there is no doubt that the red ball has stopped moving for a while, as we observed, and also the referee said so.
Therefore, the ball shall be replaced.

The hard way:
We can compare each of the four conditions with what we observed.
However, this is not necessary unless there is an error in the explanation provided by the easy way.
+++

People might say that the cue ball is still moving when the ball drops, in that case, it is part of the stroke in progress, which would result in the opposite of 9(a) and the ball should not be replaced.

There are two reasons to argue that this is not the case:
'His father has no beard' does not mean that anyone without a beard is his father. This is simple logic.
A ball drops when it is part of a stroke, but there are still different conditions to consider.
That is what 9(c) addresses: whether the ball balances momentarily or has become steady still.


Secondly, if we consider 'part of any stroke in progress' to mean that the cue ball is still moving,
or something similar, we need to look at the definition of a stroke:

2.6(d) A stroke is not completed until:
(i) all balls have come to rest;
(ii) spotting of any balls required is completed; and
(iii) any ancillary equipment being used by the striker has been removed, or the referee is satisfied that the stroke is completed

When we read this definition, we understand that no one would write a rule allowing a ball that is steady still already, then to drop during the entire duration of a stroke—perhaps lasting 3 minutes—and still count the dropped ball.

[taipafan]

Regarding this matter, I asked WPBSA, and Jan Verhass replied to me saying:

【The situation was a referee’s error.
It should have counted as potted (and scored) and not been replaced, as per Section 3, Rule 9(c).】

+++
However, there was no further explanation as to why it was judged under Rule 9(c).