Foul or not? Player assisting a referee after a miss

[Odrl]

I've seen this one happen a couple of seasons ago, but can't remember what tournament or match it was in. One of the players was Ken Doherty and the referee I think was Alan Chamberlain. The balls were being replaced after a miss, Doherty was trying to help. One of the balls that needed to be replaced was right where Doherty was standing, while Chamberlain was across the table. Doherty then pushed the ball towards Chamberlain with his hand, but Chamberlain was just re-positioning another ball, so he couldn't intercept it in time. It hit another ball that was already in a correct position, so Chamberlain had to replace it. He looked annoyed and Doherty looked embarrassed. No foul was called though, and Doherty wasn't penalised if I remember correctly.

Anyone remember seeing that?

[ferret]

Here is a reply I have had form a senior World Snooker referee.

Hi Kevin. It is NOT a foul. It is a penalty with the same points awarded to the other player as if it WERE a foul. Just think about it logically – if it were a foul, then the “offending player” would forfeit his time at the table – see Section 3 Rule11(a). Because it is not deemed a foul, Section 3 Rule 12b (vi) Penalties does not apply. In order to counter this, reference must be made to Section 3 Rule 14 (h) Foul and a Miss which clarifies the procedure that should be applied when replacing balls. You have to remember the reason why the balls were being replaced in the first instance – it was due to a “Foul and a Miss”. If the original offending player were to touch a ball, and if we were to call it a foul, he would get out of replaying the stroke and thereby get out of jail because it would then be his opponents turn! The rule book doesn’t say it’s a foul – it says that it’s a penalty – there is a difference! The Referees would, if this was to occur, not say “Foul” and announce the appropriate value of the ball involved. They would say “Penalty” and the penalty’s value instead. I hope this clarifies the situation to your satisfaction.

[RGCirencester]

So its a foul if you go by the dictionary definition but not technically a foul

I still want to hear Statman say the same thing though

[wildJONESEYE]

Ferret

that reply from a World Snooker sais it all about incompitance withing the WSA....

if the penalty point is awarded its a foul why the bloody hell do they feel the need to complicate EVERYTHING ...jesus christ

[bongo]

Well in Billiards referees call TIME if the time runs out, or GAME if the points target is reached. Of course you can hear TOUCHING BALL in both games and of course FOUL, or FOUL AND A MISS. In Billiards you can hear MISS which can happen. But out of all those I've never heard a referee call PENALTY and I never knew that they should in that case.

So it's foul and not a foul. The reply from World Snooker at least helped us as we know what should happen in that case. But we can't say it's a foul or it isn't, so none of us are right!

[wildJONESEYE]

Well in Billiards referees call TIME if the time runs out, or GAME if the points target is reached. Of course you can hear TOUCHING BALL in both games and of course FOUL, or FOUL AND A MISS. In Billiards you can hear MISS which can happen. But out of all those I've never heard a referee call PENALTY and I never knew that they should in that case.

So it's foul and not a foul. The reply from World Snooker at least helped us as we know what should happen in that case. But we can't say it's a foul or it isn't, so none of us are right!

it was splitting hairs Reply ...

they should have said its a Foul and explain that its a foul with a difference .....to come out with "It is NOT a foul. It is a penalty with the same points awarded to the other player as if it WERE a foul." is very aragant and i know best bull.

[ferret]

Here is the reply I got from Paul Collier about it.

It isnt actually a foul but the referee can award 'penalty points' to the value of the ball on and then you carry on. You cannot realistically call a foul because then you have the problem of possible freeball etc. And of course the other player would come to the table. The penalty point rule was introduced by world snooker several years ago. I remember five or six years ago colin brinded awarded penalty points in this situation against ronnie on tv at the crucible.

[wildJONESEYE]

really i dont know why it couldnt be normal foul if you touch a ball with youre sleve or finger what realisticly is the difference by handling it ?

Remember Alan Chaimberlain penalising Selby for Dott handling the ball during the WC whats the difference between both incidents ??

[Crusader]

So it's foul and not a foul. The reply from World Snooker at least helped us as we know what should happen in that case. But we can't say it's a foul or it isn't, so none of us are right!

You have had a reply from a World Snooker Referee saying that it is not a foul but you keep saying that "it's a foul but not a foul". You have obviously got a problem with the fact that you and most of the others are wrong. How can you say that "none of us is right"? One clearly was!

[dantuck_7]

Crusader, it was the way you started arguing without any justification as to why it wasn't a foul that seemed to get everyone worked up.

I think you've had a lucky result. It is simialr to the Dott/Selby incident where a foul was called. News to me that you can be awarded a penalty alone. Guess that is simialr to the time-foul used in PL.

[Souwester]

News to me that you can be awarded a penalty alone. G

It's only been in the rule book for nigh on 14 years since the light blue book came out in September 1995.

[The Statman]

Technically it is not a 'foul' – if you look at the list of fouls, you will not find it among them.

However, as stated passim above, Rule 14 (Foul and a Miss) states that if a player touches any ball during the replacement, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker.

So the player should be penalised 4 points (or more if the ball on or ball disturbed is of higher value) for each time that he touches a ball.

There is no referee's call specified in the Rules but the accepted practice, I understand, is to say "Penalty, Joe Bloggs 4".

The reason for the technical distinction is in that same paragraph of Rule 14 – which goes on to say "...without affecting the order of play." After a "foul" the non-offender has options of play-again and possibly a free ball; but this makes clear that the order of play cannot be affected, whichever player touches the ball. (Another distinction is that, normally, only the striker can be fouled – here, we are clarified that either player can be penalised as if he were the striker (which, of course, one of them is).)

Another reason for stating "without affecting the order of play" is to ensure that any sequence of Misses, which may lead to a warning for three consecutive failures, will still be in force even if the other player has touched the ball – and been penalised – in between.

[Crusader]

Crusader, it was the way you started arguing without any justification as to why it wasn't a foul that seemed to get everyone worked up.

I think you've had a lucky result. It is simialr to the Dott/Selby incident where a foul was called. News to me that you can be awarded a penalty alone. Guess that is simialr to the time-foul used in PL.

I'm not going to get into a long protracted conversation with you but how can you say that I did not argue with any justification, I continued replying to other posters stating that I did not agree with their reasoning why it was a foul because the word foul didn't appear on the World Snooker Rules website. Surely it was they who couldn't argue with any justification. No-one could convince me otherwise - I wish they could have but there you go.

And as for having a lucky result, how can you justify such a comment? I read the website rules which are there for all to see and didn't agree that it was a foul. I happened to be correct but the reponse by some when they were proved wrong is giving me second thoughts as to whether I will ever post here again.

[The Statman]

I will add to my previous reply (no.72) that, to interpret "penalised as if he were the striker" we then look at the list of fouls to see what the penalty would have been if he were the striker.

That comes under
"(vi) touching a ball in play, other than the cue-ball with the tip of the cue as a stroke is made"

which is value of ball on or ball concerned, whichever is the higher.

So, ball on is blue (after a red, let's say; it would remain so until the 'real' striker declares something different). His opponent helps the referee by moving the cue-ball to where he thinks it was. It is at this point that he has to be 'penalised as if he were the striker'; we see above that it is the value of the ball on or ball concerned, whichever is the higher – and we see it is 5.

(You could almost decide that it is 'ball forced off the table' if you wanted, but I'm pretty sure without looking that the penalty for that is the same.)

[RGCirencester]

I happened to be correct but the reponse by some when they were proved wrong is giving me second thoughts as to whether I will ever post here again.

I'm perfectly happy to admit I was wrong on the technicality of the rules. It is still a foul by the dictionary definition of foul though.. which is surely what I meant all along