Foul or not? Player assisting a referee after a miss

[wildJONESEYE]

im chilling now ok

ok deferential between Dott picking a ball off the table against Selby in the WC that was in the D and Dott could ask Selby to play again even though he was at fault.....

i dont understand why same law dont aply to it anyway because it carries same penalty point.

with every foul options is there from freeball,miss,play from where ball come to rest,or take the shot yourself so parrot didnt have any advantage from it his oponement was always in charge of the situation the same as dott was when selby picked up that ball he thought had droped in the pocket..

[RocketRoy1983]

So is it a foul then?!?




What an interesting thread. Ive read it from post 1 to the last and have learnt something new.

[wildJONESEYE]

So is it a foul then?!?




What an interesting thread. Ive read it from post 1 to the last and have learnt something new.

me 2 ive learned a lot.

they complicate the snooker rules without any need to...

[poolqjunkie]

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

Wow, Ferrt, thanks a lot.
I have learned something today. Never knew there was a difference. But it makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for going through the trouble to email the authority to have it clarified.

[Forman]

Im with Janie and Rob on this one, Penalised = foul, so yes its a foul

Ill definitely admit i was wrong on this one,
Its obvious after the explanations from statman and the world snooker refs why there is a need to differenciate between the term 'foul' and 'penalty'.

Just for a bit of fun next time im at a tournament im going to ask the qualified referees there "If a player moves the cue ball to where he thinks it should be while the referee is trying to replace it after a miss is it a foul?"

i wonder how many will answer simply "yes" and how many will answer "no, its not a foul but it is a penalty"
:

[bongo]

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!

I was only posting in a friendly manner and there is no need for you to post that. The reason I said none of us are right is because even though technically it isn't a foul it would be penalised as if it's a foul. In most other cases it's either a foul or not. I am sorry you got the wrong end of the stick of what I was saying.

Please also appreciate that others were also quite correct in what they were saying too, when comparing penalised to foul and also trying to fugure out with justification why it would be a foul or not.

[wildJONESEYE]

Wow, Ferrt, thanks a lot.
I have learned something today. Never knew there was a difference. But it makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for going through the trouble to email the authority to have it clarified.

you think ???

it makes no sense at all.

[Crusader]

I was only posting in a friendly manner and there is no need for you to post that. The reason I said none of us are right is because even though technically it isn't a foul it would be penalised as if it's a foul. In most other cases it's either a foul or not. I am sorry you got the wrong end of the stick of what I was saying.

Please also appreciate that others were also quite correct in what they were saying too, when comparing penalised to foul and also trying to fugure out with justification why it would be a foul or not.

I got the wrong end of the stick? You were contributing in a friendly manner? I suggest that you re-read the entire thread to see your posts - especially when you so kindly highlighted and capitalised one of your posts so that I got your point. You were the most vociferous of any contributor. Your reply above shows that you still don't grasp that you were totally wrong in every way and that I had a point when I queried whether or not it was a foul. That's all I did. No-one could convince me that it was with their contributions but I would have been more than happy to have been corrected and admitted here on this thread that I was wrong. You say that the "others", as you describe them, were also quite correct when comparing penalised to foul? They weren't - penalised is not the same as foul that's why that particular rule was worded as it was because of the implications in doing otherwise. Yes by all means querie why it wasn't, but the Referee contribution obtained by Kevin, and the knowledgable contribution by The Statman were surely definitive proof that you were wrong.

This is the last post I intend making because it is now time to move on.

[mushka]

Like in a football! The penalties aspect, not the brawls between fans.

I have to admit I feel better after founding out I wasn't the only one unaware of the existence of penalties in snooker.

[poolqjunkie]

you think ???

it makes no sense at all.

How so?

I think it makes perfect sense.

[wildJONESEYE]

How so?

I think it makes perfect sense.

how can a rule thats a foul because it carries 4 point be called not a foul but a penalty.........sensless garbadge and only playing on words because some call foul penalty points so thats wrong aswell ???

[JanieWatkins]

If you think about it logically...

If they haven't played a shot then they can't have played a "foul" shot

but they've done some sort of activity that warrants incurring penalty points
so they call it a penalty.

how's that for playing with words!!

[wildJONESEYE]

If you think about it logically...

If they haven't played a shot then they can't have played a "foul" shot

therefore when a player cues over a ball and touches the ball with his cue or finger that is not a foul either because they havent played the shot so how can that carry the same penalty as a in off or a total miss of the ball ?

[wildJONESEYE]

im not being awkward or anything i just dont see the difference at all and im baffled that others do...

[Robert602]

im not being awkward or anything i just dont see the difference at all and im baffled that others do...

In a nutshell, calling a foul would disrupt the 'foul and a miss' situation, possibly to the advantage of the offender.