Foul or not? Player assisting a referee after a miss

[wildJONESEYE]

if im not very much mistaken they have discused this very rule during a world championship regarding viewers letter and im possitive the referee in question at that time said it was a Foul for a player to handle a ball in a foul and a miss situation...obviously that referee had no clue either

and as a BBC Presenter JP wasent paying much atention lol

[The Statman]

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

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

2 Whichever player did the "foul", his opponent would then have options including a free ball or play-again

3 A foul can normally only be called on the striker. Here, it could be the non-striker who touches the ball

4 Supposing it was a red that a player thought needed replacing. He picks it up. If you call that a foul, it cannot be replaced because a red 'forced off the table' in this way becomes out of the game. Similarly, if it was the white, it would now have to be played from the D and not replaced; if a colour it would have to be spotted, not replaced.

We have to remember here, that the replacement of the balls is happening because a Miss has been called – the only (well, not quite) time any balls can be manually moved by anyone, even the referee.

[RocketRoy1983]

I must admit eddie it makes sense to me now.

[wildJONESEYE]

4 Supposing it was a red that a player thought needed replacing. He picks it up. If you call that a foul, it cannot be replaced because a red 'forced off the table' in this way becomes out of the game. Similarly, if it was the white, it would now have to be played from the D and not replaced; if a colour it would have to be spotted, not replaced.

now then

that is the only piece of explanation ive seen on this thread to make any sense of that rule .....

Well done Statman full marks as for the others with respect pathetic atempts to make me see sense in the rule

[poolqjunkie]

I am beginning to suspect that Stateman is actually a computer. He is too logical to be real!

[bongo]

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

4 Supposing it was a red that a player thought needed replacing. He picks it up. If you call that a foul, it cannot be replaced because a red 'forced off the table' in this way becomes out of the game. Similarly, if it was the white, it would now have to be played from the D and not replaced; if a colour it would have to be spotted, not replaced.

We have to remember here, that the replacement of the balls is happening because a Miss has been called – the only (well, not quite) time any balls can be manually moved by anyone, even the referee.

Those two points make it very clear why it's a penalty and not a foul. Well done Statman!

[wildJONESEYE]

4 Supposing it was a red that a player thought needed replacing. He picks it up. If you call that a foul, it cannot be replaced because a red 'forced off the table' in this way becomes out of the game. Similarly, if it was the white, it would now have to be played from the D and not replaced; if a colour it would have to be spotted, not replaced.

ill tell you what that would be brilliant if you 40 in front and 43 on the table you lift a red off the table randomly you get a 4 point foul and youre oponement needs a snooker 36 infront and 35 on the table because the red is forced off the table hahaha

[DandyA]

I am beginning to suspect that Stateman is actually a computer. He is too logical to be real!

nah, I don't believe that for the simple reason someone once said "it's human to err but it takes a computer to really f*** up"

so given The Statman has never either erred or f***ed up, I believe there is one and only one rational explanation ...

ladies and gents ... The Statman is an ALIEN!

[RocketRoy1983]

ill tell you what that would be brilliant if you 40 in front and 43 on the table you lift a red off the table randomly you get a 4 point foul and youre oponement needs a snooker 36 infront and 35 on the table because the red is forced off the table hahaha

Interesting I wonder what would happen here. Would the player get simply a warning? At 17-17 at the crucible imagine that!!

[dantuck_7]

I heard a story on here a while back about some money match where it was the same situation as Wild described with one red left. There was no pot on and no safety left with the last red remaining, all colours well placed for a clearance, so the player simply blasted the red and white off the table. His opponent then needed a snooker. Ouch!

[spike]

At 17-17 at the crucible imagine that!!

Dont mean to sound cruel but i would quite like to see that happen.

[Souwester]

I think that kind of behaviour is quite adequately covered in Section 4 of the rules, and the frame (and match possibly) could be awarded to the non-offender.

1. Conduct
In the event of:

(a) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the selection of a stroke; or
(b) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion
of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(c) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise
amounts to ungentlemanly conduct; or
(d) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(e) warn the Player that in the event of any such further
conduct the frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(f) award the frame to his opponent; or
(g) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious
award the game to his opponent

[The Statman]

Yes if the referee was pretty certain that it was deliberate, a warning or loss of frame would certainly be in order.

There is the situation where a player, 33 in front, pots the last red but then goes in-off (or some other foul occurs). In that scenario, the player who now needs snookers may well feel that his opponent gained an advantage from a foul whereas in reality he didn't.

But forcing the red off the table is certainly a different matter and that is wilfully gaining an advantage from the foul.

Even then, the Rules are quite clear and at one point actually state "Reds are not replaced on the table, despite the fact that a player may benefit from a foul." It does go on to give exceptions – Miss replacement, ball on edge of pocket falling by itself – but with that categorically stated in the rules, I see no option but warning and/or loss of frame.

One would have to be cautious though; a warning or loss of frame would be harsh on someone who was genuinely trying to pot the red and it bounces off the pocket jaws and onto the floor – it can happen!

[wildJONESEYE]

i think in the effect of a player lifting a red off the table losing that frame is the only course of action....its just not the done thing is it.

[crush]

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