Are the world rules wrong?.

[bkpaul]

World rule 8c

Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:
(i) the ball is on,
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares he is on it, or
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares, and first hits, another ball

Taking this rule literally it states:

Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move

This sentence then eliminates the rest of 8c (i) (ii) & (iii) where only black remains on the table and the white is touching the black ball.

Thus if a player plays away from the black, lets say he goes off several cushions around the table and the white which was played away from the black comes back to pot the black.

Is this a legal shot?

As a referee I have to implement the rules as given and this rule makes it a foul but as we all know rules can be an ass and in this instance it is!... the players has caused the touching ball to move!.

Common sense states that the rule has not been breached but like i said we must implement the rules as given.

I have known instances where this has happened and the referee has called a foul (quite correctly) so what we need is a rul change from World Snooker to address this issue.

Ok most of you will have never been in this situation and will probably never be in this situation but we should address it as it can happen.

The same situation can of course exist in any other part of the frame i.e. touching a red, you play off a cusion and come back to pot the red without initially moving the white or you play a masse type shot and don't even go off a cushion (common in 9 ball)

thoughts?

[Krypton]

you left 8 b) away completely:

(b) When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it or it is a push stroke.
(c) Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:
(i) the ball is on,
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares he is on it, or
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares, and first hits, another ball that could be on.

b) tells you: if touching, you shall play away not moving the ball
c) tells you: if you managed to do that b) correctly and THEN do not hit a (another) ball, it still is no foul if you declared the touching ball to be your ball on, or it was your ball on anyway (plus gives the fact that you can leagally play at what ever other ball you want that could be on)

therefor, if the cue ball is touching the black, following 8.b) you got to play away from black. This stroke then is NO foul even if you don't hit the black again, as 8.c) (i) tells you the black is on.

None of the rules' points tells you it's illegal to come back off a cushion and then move the black.

[Krypton]

Just to make clear my understanding of 'providing' and both 8.b) and 8.c) in this context:

1. the player normally has to hit the ball on
2. given the fact of a touching ball, he is entitled NOT to hit (and so moving) the ball on, as an exception, but only if the cue ball is touching the ball on, following 8.c)
3. executing the stroke, you shall NOT move the touching ball, following 8.b) - no statement is made (and therefor it's not forbidden) to move the ball on and touching AFTER the stroke

[The Statman]

World rule 8c

Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:
(i) the ball is on,
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares he is on it, or
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares, and first hits, another ball

Taking this rule literally it states:

Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move

This sentence then eliminates the rest of 8c (i) (ii) & (iii) where only black remains on the table and the white is touching the black ball.

Thus if a player plays away from the black, lets say he goes off several cushions around the table and the white which was played away from the black comes back to pot the black.

Is this a legal shot?

As a referee I have to implement the rules as given and this rule makes it a foul but as we all know rules can be an ass and in this instance it is!... the players has caused the touching ball to move!.

Common sense states that the rule has not been breached but like i said we must implement the rules as given.

I have known instances where this has happened and the referee has called a foul (quite correctly) so what we need is a rul change from World Snooker to address this issue.

Ok most of you will have never been in this situation and will probably never be in this situation but we should address it as it can happen.

The same situation can of course exist in any other part of the frame i.e. touching a red, you play off a cusion and come back to pot the red without initially moving the white or you play a masse type shot and don't even go off a cushion (common in 9 ball)

thoughts?

Not sure if the wording is technically wrong or not. However,

"Providing the striker does not cause the ball to move..." means that this rule cannot apply if the ball moves. This does not state categorically that if the ball does move then it is a foul.

Therefore, by coming off a cushion and returning to hit the ball originally touching, this rule does not apply. We would then need to look at another rule to decide if it's a fair shot. Any other rule will show that the ball on was struck, that a push shot did not occur, and therefore it is no foul.

In the example that you describe on the final black, with the white touching the black and the player sends the white off a cushion, returning to hit the black:

Rule 8c:

"Providing the striker does not cause the [black] ball to move..." immediately renders this Rule as irrelevant since he did cause the ball to move.

So is it a foul? No. The striker did not hit another ball first (there is no other object ball, and even if there was, the black ball is on and the first impact of the cue-ball would be essentially considered as on the ball which was touching, thanks to earlier subparagraph of the same rule.

(This is from memory without the actual rules or paragraph numbering in front of me!)

[DawRef]

I contacted a senior referee and posed the question to him. My initial thought was that it is NOT a foul, as the player had correctly 'played away' from the black and not caused it to move as a result.

This is the answer I got, which agrees with me and Statman:

"The rule is not specific but we quote "that so long as the cue-ball has been played away from the ball-on (touching ball which was declared as the object ball) with no infringement of the rules, then as long as the cue-ball has first struck another ball or a cushion then it is permissable for the cue-ball to then 'strike' the ball-on without penalty". Should this result in the ball-on being potted, then the appropriate points shall be awarded and the frame shall continue according to the rules of Snooker."

[Watford]

I don't see the problem or don't get this; I might have to get the rules out.
Surely common sense should prevail here.
The player has hit the ball by starting by touching it. He can then play off a cush, hit another ball that then hits a cush, hitting the black again off a cush. No foul obviously.
If you foul after hitting away then it's a standard foul.
The foul section of the rule tells you what a foul is: not hitting a cush or potting your own ball, potting an opponents ball, potting white, putting a ball off the table etc.
I'm I missing something here?

[bkpaul]

[QUOTE=DawRef;420258]then as long as the cue-ball has first struck another ball or a cushion then it is permissable for the cue-ball to then 'strike' the ball-on without penalty"[QUOTE]

Given that to be an interpretation of the rule which in my mind is quite correct except it is also flawed.

What if the player doesn't play off a cushion and doesn't hit another ball on, i.e. in my original post I said he could also play a masse shot. In your definition that would be a foul would it not?

Sorry Krypton but I don't see how the rules given make your case even if you include (a) and (b) as they really bare no relevance to the issue raised.

Its the moving of the ball that is the crux of the issue as no definition of the push shot is given within the rule as to when the referee should deem the shot to be fair in relation to that moving of the object ball.

Technically any touching ball situation is a push shot in the tip of the cue comes into contact with the cue ball and at the same time the cue ball is in contact with the object ball, what the rule should do is differentiate between the technical and the practical situation clearer which it does not.

We all know its not a foul (well I hope everyone does) but as said it has been called a foul by a qualified referee (and not a new one!) therefore ambiguity is present and as such that is when rules should be clarified.

There are referee guadance notes available and I would imagine these cover many of the ambiguties but they are not freely available and do not form part of the rules.... maybe they should?.

There are a lot of rules and situations the rules do not cover as such which is obviously confusing not only to players but to referee's as well.

I therefore think my original post still stands in that technically it is a foul.

[Mal]

[QUOTE=bkpaul;420270]

We all know its not a foul (well I hope everyone does) but as said it has been called a foul by a qualified referee (and not a new one!) therefore ambiguity is present and as such that is when rules should be clarified.

.

What was the situation when it was called a foul and at what standard was this?

[Krypton]

I still don't get your conclusion...

(b) When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it or it is a push stroke.

This says: play it away without moving it, or it's a push stroke.
IF you play it away, a 'push stroke foul' shall/will NOT be called!

This alone covers the situation with black only on the table. It is fully ok to play a massé and pot black like this. As long as you can accept that 'play away without moving' means that the cue ball shall first go away from the black, and the black shall not move during the execution of this shot. Not a single word is there that says the black might not be moved later on in the shot. just as playing away, don't move it THEN.


(c) Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move,...

Does NOT apply as the black IS moved. Statman already mentioned that:

"Providing the striker does not cause the ball to move..." means that this rule cannot apply if the ball moves. This does not state categorically that if the ball does move then it is a foul.

Therefore, by coming off a cushion and returning to hit the ball originally touching, this rule does not apply.

Rule 8c:

"Providing the striker does not cause the [black] ball to move..." immediately renders this Rule as irrelevant since he did cause the ball to move.

So is it a foul? No.

Everything is fine as long as you accept that
'play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it'
really means 'not moving while acually playing/striking the cue ball'.

[The Statman]

What if the player doesn't play off a cushion and doesn't hit another ball on, i.e. in my original post I said he could also play a masse shot. In your definition that would be a foul would it not?

No.

The rule you highlighted (specifically, subparagraph 'c') states,

"Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:
(i) the ball is on,
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares he is on it, or
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares, and first hits, another ball"

So this subparagraph says that, as long as the 'touching' ball is not caused to move, then it's not a foul if one of those three points is true.

However, this is not to say necessarily that if the ball does move, then it is a foul.

Let us look at the entire Touching Ball rule, Rule 8:

8. Touching Ball
(a) If the cue-ball comes to rest touching another ball or balls that are, or could be, on, the referee shall state TOUCHING BALL and indicate which ball or balls on the cue-ball is touching.
(b) When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it or it is a push stroke.

This directly states that it is a push shot if the ball is moved by playing directly into the ball. There is no way from this that sending the white across the table and back to touch the ball can be called a push shot.

(c) Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:
(i) the ball is on,
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares he is on it, or
(ii) the ball could be on and the striker declares, and first hits, another ball that could be on.

This rule clarifies that the player is "already deemed to have hit the ball" and cannot be fouled if no other ball is hit (as long as it is a ball on).

To me, the wording of (c) just elaborates that the player need not hit another ball and that initial touching contact is good enough.

Paragraph (b) is all that is needed to determine whether a foul for a 'push stroke' has occurred.

=========

However, there is one position where even this wording is a little dodgy. Consider this: I have left you snookered on the reds with the white touching the yellow - not directly behind it but so you can go into the pack off the side cushion near to the middle pocket.

You play that shot - but cause the yellow to move, i.e. you've played further up the cushion than is actually available. This will of course be a foul for a push stroke but, assuming you hit the reds, can a Miss be called?

The common-sense and probably unanimous answer is Yes, failure to hit the red first. However, you have not actually struck the yellow, merely played a push stroke and, as such, I believe that technically a Miss cannot be called because you have not failed to first hit the red first. You have been called for an unrelated foul (just like if you'd touched the green with your sleeve as you played an otherwise fair shot) according to the strict wording of the rule.

[bkpaul]

As I said

(b) When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it or it is a push stroke.

(c) Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:

So (b) is correct I do not dispute that but (c) negates that almost entirely.

Don't forget I am not saying it is a foul far from it, but the rules at best are confusing as has been proved by people experienced referee's calling fouls in such situations.

There of cause is the other situation where (b) is apparently wrong and that is if the touching ball is resting against the cue ball in that due to dirt or uneven surface when the white is played away the touching ball moves, this is usually when the balls are on or near spots as I am sure you are aware.

(b) really should read "When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball" as if you play the ball away then any movement caused was caused as I described and thus is not a foul and would also cure my original point.

Therefore you could say the rule is trying to say in this instance too much which adds the ambiguity.

[The Statman]

As I said

(b) When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it or it is a push stroke.

(c) Providing the striker does not cause the object ball to move, there shall be no penalty if:

So (b) is correct I do not dispute that but (c) negates that almost entirely.

Don't forget I am not saying it is a foul far from it, but the rules at best are confusing as has been proved by people experienced referee's calling fouls in such situations.

There of cause is the other situation where (b) is apparently wrong and that is if the touching ball is resting against the cue ball in that due to dirt or uneven surface when the white is played away the touching ball moves, this is usually when the balls are on or near spots as I am sure you are aware.

(b) really should read "When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball" as if you play the ball away then any movement caused was caused as I described and thus is not a foul and would also cure my original point.

Therefore you could say the rule is trying to say in this instance too much which adds the ambiguity.

Paragraph (b) cannot stand on its own, because it doesn't specify, if the touching ball is on, that no other ball on need be struck. It only states that you must play away from the touching ball without causing it to move.

The purpose of (c) is to explain that you are considered already to have made the required contact with a ball on (if touching ball is on) and that if the touching ball is not on, contact with a ball on must still be made.

[bkpaul]

I Know we are talking semantics and its fun to do so even when we know what the outcome should be (common sense).

You disagree with my reading of the rules and I disagree with yours, isn't life fun

I have had this particular discussion with a few referee's and the common theme is not one has quoted the rule directly they always quote an interpretation this in itself is grouds for change.

I will just pick up on one thing you posted to show that exact point:

you said

"This directly states that it is a push shot if the ball is moved by playing directly into the ball"

Nowhere in the rules does it say that, that is your interpretation of the rule. Your interpretation justifies your point and is clear and cannot be argued against whereas the rule itself is not and can.

[bongo]

There is certainly a lot of ambuiguity in this rule, I have never thought of this situation and it just shows how complicated the rules are and however much somebody thinks they know the rules there will always be a situation which you would have never heard of. If I was refereeing I would not call foul if the player was touching a red and on red and played away from it fairly and came back to hit it off a cushion or another ball. I wouldn't say the rules are wrong but I think that an extra line saying something like "if the striker plays away from the ball which it is touching, which happens to be the ball 'on', or the ball which the striker declares to be 'on', no foul will be called if the striker causes that ball to move after playing fairly away from it." It isn't absolutely necessary but it wouldn't do any harm either.

If the cue-ball is touching Red for example and after playing fairly away from it hits it after hitting a cushion for example, then a referee calling foul is, in my opinion, taking the rules to the extreme, and common sense must be applied. Nowhere in the 'Penalties' rule (Section 3 Rule 12) does it say anything about moving a ball 'on' which the cue-ball was touching it even after playing away from it.

If anything, the rule Section 5 Rule 1 should be applied:

(a) The referee shall
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play,
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by Rule,

It is one of a number of sitiations where the referee should use common sense.

Interesting discussion and why not send it to Snooker Scene to be answered in next month's refereeing column? I think Paul Collier is answering questions next month in Snooker Scene and it would be interesting to hear what he thinks.

bongo

[The Statman]

When a touching ball has been called, the striker must play the cue-ball away from that ball without moving it or it is a push stroke.

you said

"This directly states that it is a push shot if the ball is moved by playing directly into the ball"

Nowhere in the rules does it say that, that is your interpretation of the rule. Your interpretation justifies your point and is clear and cannot be argued against whereas the rule itself is not and can.

Yes, but that is a black-or-white situation.

Saying "must play away without moving it or it is a push stroke" leaves room for only one opposite, i.e. "playing into it and causing it to move is a push stroke.

There is no middle ground.

However, with (c), saying, "providing the player does not cause the ball to move, it is no foul if xxxx or xxxx or xxxx occurs" does not specify that if the ball is caused to move then it is a foul full-stop.