Foul or not? Player assisting a referee after a miss

[wildJONESEYE]

it's one of the most interesting threads I have read here! Emotions and Drama! Many thanks to Statman and Ferret for their attempts to clarify this strange situation with "something which looks like foul being not a foul, but just a penalty" I also believe it might be a good task for new refs to explain it for themselves

during the Grand Prix ill send a E Mail in to jog Parrott's Memory and ask for a full and frank explenation lol

[bongo]

during the Grand Prix ill send a E Mail in to jog Parrott's Memory and ask for a full and frank explenation lol

If you do actually do that I would love for somebody to post it on Youtube to watch if I can't see it on TV and hear what the refs say!

[lk8]

Calling it a foul would do the following:

1 The sequence of Misses would come to an end, and possibly a potential warning for three Misses on the next attempt

oops.. now i happen to disagree with that...




MISS RULES:
(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, and the striker fouls any ball, including the cue-ball while preparing to play a stroke, a miss will not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate penalty will be imposed and
(i) the next player may elect to play the stroke himself or ask the offender to play again from the position left, or
(ii) the next player may ask the referee to replace all balls moved to their original position and have the offender play again from there, and
(iii) if the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls, any warning concerning the possible awarding of the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.



now notice the word "foul" in section (d), but in (iii) it states that after such "foul", the sequence of miss calls shall remain in effect, so that clearly means, a "foul" call DOES NOT interupt the miss sequence... oh no... no conclusion yet... we can continue debating...

[DawRef]

Hi. DawRef here. I'm answering the original question and YES it is a FOUL!!!!. Rob is correct in stating the rule:

Rob to the rescue... hoping world snooker website isnt wrong about the rules lol!

As i understand it the balls were being replaced after a miss and he touched the white to move it? (didn't see the actual incident) In which case this section would be in effect.

14. Foul and a Miss
(g) When any ball is being replaced after a miss, both the offender and the next player will be consulted as to its position, after which the referee’s decision shall be final.
(h) During such consultation, if either player should touch any ball in play, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker, without affecting the order of play. The ball touched shall be replaced by the referee, to his satisfaction, if necessary, even if it was picked up.

[Souwester]

Hi. DawRef here. I'm answering the original question and YES it is a FOUL!!!!.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

A foul has been committed with the 'foul and a miss' and I fail to see how another foul can be committed before the table is ready for the next stroke to be played. If a player stays down on the table after going in off, then fouls another object ball with his cue as he leaves the table, you wouldn't call him for a second foul.

Also the rules don't provide for the non-striker committing a foul, only the striker.

[wildJONESEYE]

PASS.........

its now going round in circles

[DandyA]

Hi. DawRef here. I'm answering the original question and YES it is a FOUL!!!!. Rob is correct in stating the rule:

Dawref, I always enjoy reading your excellent posts, you've taught me many things I didn't know about this beautiful game ...

but are you sure? I assume you've read the whole thread and whilst I initially thought it was a "foul", The Statman and others have convinced me it's a "penalty" rather than a "foul" ...

now you're saying it's a "foul" so presumably not a "penalty" ...

gosh, this is getting confusing

[lk8]

Also the rules don't provide for the non-striker committing a foul, only the striker.

(h) During such consultation, if either player should touch any ball in play, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker, without affecting the order of play. The ball touched shall be replaced by the referee, to his satisfaction, if necessary, even if it was picked up.



I think to clarify, we need to ask the people that "wrote" the rules... but reading off the written rules, it seems like, penalty always comes after a foul, and there's no penalty without fouls... Although I read the whole thread and the official referee seems to say that penalty points can also be given without a foul, although the text doesn't seems to agree...

[RocketRoy1983]

Guys im sorry but as ferret says YOU HAVE HAD 2 PROFESSIONal ref's opinions what the hell do you want blood?? Jeeez

[lk8]

Guys im sorry but as ferret says YOU HAVE HAD 2 PROFESSIONal ref's opinions what the hell do you want blood?? Jeeez

maybe it's because the theory of penalty without foul doesn't seem to be in line with the rules that's written in black and white? And the theory that a foul will disrupt the sequence of miss call is proven not true? Are you saying that a professional doesn't make mistakes? I'm sorry but I'm sure I've seen many "professional" referees making controversial calls/mistake on tv, so by what you're saying, it should not be further discussed?

So in your words, this topic should never have been started because the original scenario wasn't worth discussing since the decision was made by a professional referee, who is never wrong, right?

Either way this is my last post regarding this topic, I was merely pointing out that everyone thought they had a conclusion, when in fact the clues that drew them into conclusion, ie. fouls disrupts miss calls, is in fact not true, thus the only way this problem doesn't arise again, is to have the people that are responsible for writing the rules, to either take out the fouls while consultating, or to rewrite the wording for the fouls and penalties, as obviously, at the current moment the written rules is not clear enough to be understood by most people...

[DawRef]

but are you sure? I assume you've read the whole thread

I must admit that I didn't read the whole thread. However, re-reading the rules, it does state that the player shall be penalised, which does assume that the payer would incur a "penalty", rather than a "foul".
Therefore, I shall correct my previous statement and if it were to happen whilst I was refereeing, I would just call "penalty" and award the requisite number of points.


Oh! And to clear up one tiny thing, I am only a Class 1 amateur referee.

[dolphin72]

Dawref, your a class 1 referee? I thought you had to know the rules inside out to get to that level? What happens in a game your refereeing when an unusual incident occurs, do you tell the players to stop while you look through your rule book? How long ago did you get your class 1? Maybe you need to be re-examined!

[RGCirencester]

Thats a bit harsh, there is a reason there are different classes of referees, and even the ones on tv make mistakes occasionally! Just because you can be stumped on an obscure point of the rules that many people did not know does not make you a bad referree.

[DawRef]

What happens in a game your refereeing when an unusual incident occurs, do you tell the players to stop while you look through your rule book?

I have always maintained that it is not just a case of 'knowing the rules' (anyone can learn and recite them back), it's how to apply them given any situation, even in the odd incidents that very rarely crop up.
Like all referees, amateur and professional, you make a decision there and then. Players very rarely question your decision and if they did, I would ask them to see me after and I would explain the relevant rule then.
Section 5 Rule 1(a)(ii) ....be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by Rule;

[dolphin72]

Why is it harsh? He posted a thread saying YES it is a FOUL. That's how he wrote it, so he obviously THOUGHT he knew the rule. After reading the rule book over night, he changed his mind. My point is that a class 1 ref should have been refereeing long enough and got enough experience to know the rules.