Keep shooting after a foul?

[poolqjunkie]

So, player A is feathering a red next to the black, his tip touches the red by mistake. He knows it, but he shots at the red and draws the cue ball all the way back past the blue spot anyway--even as a foul is called by player B.

What can player B do?

[Krypton]

Play from where the cueball came to a rest, or let A play.

Call the foul as soon as he spots it.

Warn Player A to behave, as that is very unsportsmanslike.

[bkpaul]

This has happened numerous times in matches, we all know the ref has been heard but it would take a very strong ref to call a player for ungentlemany conduct.

The player could quite rightly say they were concentrating that hard that they didn't hear the ref, and how can that be disputed?.

You must give the player the benefit of the doubt.

the rest was answered by Krypton.

[The Statman]

So, player A is feathering a red next to the black, his tip touches the red by mistake. He knows it, but he shots at the red and draws the cue ball all the way back past the blue spot anyway--even as a foul is called by player B.

What can player B do?

Once the referee has called Foul, Player A's turn ends immediately.

If he then plays regardless, he cannot foul again because he is not the striker. See the Rule "Ball moved by other than striker" which states that such balls will be replaced to their original position.

If I were refereeing and I was certain that the player had heard the call but belligerently played on, I would have no hesitation in putting this into practice.

If the player is fouled on his last backswing and could not realistically stop his reflexes from continuing with the shot when the foul is called, then that's a different story.

[bkpaul]

Good answer Statman but :

you would be on really sticky ground if you did that, like I said what if the player didn't hear you for whatever reason...

By putting the balls back you are calling him a cheat, I just can't see that happening on the Pro Tour or indeed on the PIOS tour for that matter.

I do admire your stand on the issue but I am certain very, very few referee's would do that.

The benefit of the doubt is always with the striker!.

[Krypton]

you're right with this, but then, hopefully, you would not see players on the main tour play the shot if the were aware of the foul.

[The Statman]

Good answer Statman but :

you would be on really sticky ground if you did that, like I said what if the player didn't hear you for whatever reason...

By putting the balls back you are calling him a cheat, I just can't see that happening on the Pro Tour or indeed on the PIOS tour for that matter.

I do admire your stand on the issue but I am certain very, very few referee's would do that.

Indeed, but the player cannot be fouled because he isn't the striker. If he genuinely hasn't heard my call, that doesn't change the fact that I made the call – a call which ends his turn.

When replacing the balls I would explain that I had indeed called a previous foul and that that ended his turn.

He won't have lost out on penalty points (other than the 4 that were rightly awarded for the original foul), and the game will resume as it would have done had he heard me.

If you think of the 'not hearing something' as the equivalent of 'not seeing something' – if Player A plays a shot which results in a red being potted that the other guy didn't see, and the other guy then comes to the table and goes for a red thinking it's his turn, you would of course replace the balls to allow Player A the rightful continuation of his break.

Replacing the balls is not necessarily tantamount to accusing the player of cheating.

The benefit of the doubt is always with the striker!.

Exactly, and he is no longer the striker.

[quintahunter]

Indeed, but the player cannot be fouled because he isn't the striker. If he genuinely hasn't heard my call, that doesn't change the fact that I made the call – a call which ends his turn.

When replacing the balls I would explain that I had indeed called a previous foul and that that ended his turn.

He won't have lost out on penalty points (other than the 4 that were rightly awarded for the original foul), and the game will resume as it would have done had he heard me.

So you might give him a warning but no extra penalty, right? Even if you know he did it on purpose.

If you think of the 'not hearing something' as the equivalent of 'not seeing something' – if Player A plays a shot which results in a red being potted that the other guy didn't see, and the other guy then comes to the table and goes for a red thinking it's his turn, you would of course replace the balls to allow Player A the rightful continuation of his break.

I don't get this one. If Player A pots a red it's still his turn, no matter if no one (except the ref) has seen it, why should you have to replace the balls? You mean if Player B actually hits any balls? Why not warn him not to do it because it's not his turn?

Similar to the episode between Wenbo and Swail, although here Player B was actually the one (or the ref?) who told Player A that he had potted a red...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKn7q9soRWk

[bongo]

Once the referee has called Foul, Player A's turn ends immediately.
If he then plays regardless, he cannot foul again because he is not the striker. See the Rule "Ball moved by other than striker" which states that such balls will be replaced to their original position.

If I were refereeing and I was certain that the player had heard the call but belligerently played on, I would have no hesitation in putting this into practice.

STOP! I disagree with The Statman and especially the part which I have put in bold.

You say as soon as Foul has been called, then the offender's turn ends immediately.

So, consider this situation, which could happen in many different situations. As the striker fouls the cue-ball while feathering, even if he played the shot or not after he fouled, as he was getting up from the table, he fouled a ball with his shirt or arm for example, surely he would be fouled. Also, say a player went in-off, as the player got up from the table he moved the black with his hand; of course this will be a foul and seven points to his opponent, as well as the foul for the in-off.

When you say that 'Player A's turn ends as soon as the ref calls foul, then that would apply to all other situations when the ref calls foul, including the one I mentioned above.

What should happen is that Player B has the usual options after a foul, Player A will be warned for ungentlemanly/unfair conduct unless it was impossible for him to not play the shot (for example, fouling a ball when he is delivering the cue, especially if it's a power shot), and as soon as the player fouls the ball the referee calls FOUL and if he plays the shot after that even knowing he fouled then he will again be fouled. It wouldn't be foul 12, but it would be a Foul of 7 if he touched the black but another foul of the value of the ball on for playing the next shot, if he was on a colour, then the value of the ball the striker declared to be the ball 'on' or a foul 7 if he didn't nominate. It wouldn't be fair if he was penalised for playing the shot after he fouled the ball if he couldn't not play the shot, so he would probably only be fouled for fouling the ball he was cueing over or touched or whatever.

Even though you are correct in saying the striker's turn ends immediately after a foul, you're incorrect in what you say after, as even though his TURN ends immediately after the foul (and not entitled to play a stroke) but he is still the striker until the referee is satisfied that he has left the table.

bongo

[poolqjunkie]

Thank you.
This has happened to me many times, and sometimes, without a ref and the table is so messed up that it is hard to move the balls back to their original positions. Some people I played with even denied having touched the cue ball. What am I to do in a friendly game, right? But that certainly took a lot of enjoyment away for me.
Bongo, I believe even if a player moves the balls after a foul is called, he will not be penalized again, only to have the balls moved back to their respective positions.

[bongo]

Bongo, I believe even if a player moves the balls after a foul is called, he will not be penalized again, only to have the balls moved back to their respective positions.

They would be moved back if the player who moved them was the non-striker but the player who fouled in our situation hasn't left the table and is still the striker. A player only becomes a non-striker when the referee is satisfied that the player has left the table, in our situation he hasn't.

[The Statman]

Once the referee has called Foul, Player A's turn ends immediately.
If he then plays regardless, he cannot foul again because he is not the striker. See the Rule "Ball moved by other than striker" which states that such balls will be replaced to their original position.

STOP! I disagree with The Statman and especially the part which I have put in bold.

You say as soon as Foul has been called, then the offender's turn ends immediately.

Merely quoting the rules, in this case Rule 11:

11. Fouls
If a foul is committed, the referee shall immediately state FOUL.
(a) If the striker has not made a stroke, his turn ends immediately and the referee shall announce the penalty.


This is another of those situations which is apparently contradictory according to the Rules, because, as you intimate, elsewhere we are told that the player's turn is not at an end until he is considered by the referee to have left the table.

But look at it this way:

You can follow the logic that "he remains the striker until considered to have left the table", in which case if he continues to play a stroke after a foul has been called – in which case the balls cannot be replaced and any advantage the offender has gained by continuing to play the balls when he was not entitled to (e.g. leaving his opponent an opening) will be condoned, albeit for the loss of a further 4 points.

Or you can follow the logic that "when a foul is called, his turn ends immediately", in which case if he continues to play a stroke after a foul has been called, he is no longer the striker and the balls are replaced under the "ball moved by other than striker" rule. In this scenario, the extra four points are not awarded but the offender does not retain the advantage he gained by continuing to play the balls.

I know which I would rather see – a 4-point bonus or an opening – if I was the other player.

[Terry Davidson]

poolqjunkie and bongo:

Sorry, I have to agree with Statman. His interpretation is correct in that a striker's turn ends IMMEDIATELY the referee calls a foul (even if he didn't hear it). Any subsequent action by that (now) non-striker would be the same as outside interference and the balls should be replaced to where they were by the referee.

Unfortunately, for poolqjunkie, without a referee I'd say you were 'pooched' buddy and there's not much you can do unless a spectator say it and decided to chime in.

Terry

[Forman]

say a player went in-off, as the player got up from the table he moved the black with his hand; of course this will be a foul and seven points to his opponent, as well as the foul for the in-off.

bongo

provided the cue ball went in the pocket before the player touched the black i always thought the opponent just gets the 4 points for the in off because you can only foul once during any one shot, kinda like if you were playing for a red and you miss and hit the black but the cue ball also goes in off, you only get the foul 7 for hitting the black not 11 for both failing to hit the ball on and the in off

[poolqjunkie]

You know, once this person touched the ball with his cue. I saw it, was just about to say something; but he potted the ball before I had the chance--then he rolled up behind the brown and snookered me solid.