Easy way to avoid being called FOUL AND A MISS??!!!

[C-J]

So now, IMO, we have an anomoly in the rules.
Here are two scenarios which basically are the same, but will have a diferent outcome:
1. Player A pots a red and nominates the yellow. He fails to hit the yellow, the balls are replaced and he is asked to play again. He fails to hit the yellow again, put back in and warned that failure to hit the ball on he will lose the frame (and possibly match). If he now fouls, for example, the blue with his sleeve and asked to play again, he is still on the yellow (or any colour of his choice) and still on a warning;
2. Player A pots a red and is snookered on all colours. He nominates the yellow but fails to hit it. Again the balls are replaced and he is asked to play again (for a colour). As he goes to play his shot, he brushes a ball with his sleeve. This time, if he is asked to play again, he is now on a red.
Why, following scenario 1, is he not still on a colour?
In both scenarios his turn ended when he committed the foul of brushing a ball with his sleeve.

he has made a foul before he played the shot and this fact has limited player B his options and that shouldn't be possible.

[RCMIGil]

Subparagraph (d) continued: 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.

Doesn't (ii) above solve it?

By the balls being replaced it implies the offender is replaying the original shot in accordance to subparagraph (a): ...from the original position, in which latter case the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on,
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table, or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.

:

Not sure if what you are quoting is only when a miss is called, or a foul. In any case, fair play, and therefore the rules, should (and maybe do) provide that Ronnie's ball on was to remain a colour, and John's ball on would be a red, and John would have discretion as to who would play the shot.
Until, of course, the situation arises that it is somehow unfair to the 2nd player to have the shooter's ball on remain a colour.

[Martin76]

If "...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,..." hadn't been in there (in subparagraph (d)), my argument would hold up, and I don't think there would have been any anomalies... I don't think...

As it is, I'm back into thinking there is sort of a loophole here.

(And I also definitely do not think Ronnie fouled on purpose in any way, just to preempt any accusations to the contrary.)

[Martin76]

Here's the complete subparagraph (d) by the way...

(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.

[bigbreak]

IMO section (d) only applies when the cue ball is not snookered.

It looks to me that the ref applied 11(a)

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.

It's then up to John to decide what to do, make him play again or play the shot himself.

Nothing to do with misses

[Monique]

Subparagraph (d) continued: 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.

Doesn't (ii) above solve it?

By the balls being replaced it implies the offender is replaying the original shot in accordance to subparagraph (a): ...from the original position, in which latter case the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on,
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table, or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.

So, in the actual situation, Ronnie only gets a foul, but Higgins can STILL ask to have the balls replaced and having Ronnie playing from the original position. So it is only a foul, but since it is committed under these specific circumstances, the options for Higgins are the same as if it had been a foul and a miss.

exactly, and that's why any suggestion of cheating is ridiculous. Ronnie had nothing to gain, on the contrary. Penalty was higher and John still had the option to put him back in.

[Martin76]

I think you're right, bigbreak, but that means that there is a loophole in the rules for a dishonest player to expoit. If a dishonest player finds himself in Ronnie's situation he can foul on purpose, without making it too obviuos, and getting away with only 4-7 more points lost and potentially leaving his opponent in a more awkward position than if he'd played the blue.
Then again, the better option even for a dishonest player in that situation is probably just to go for the blue with some power and hoping for the best, since Higgins really were left with a golden opportunity to put Ronnie in a tough spot close to the baulk cushion and made a mess of it...

(Again, I am 100% sure Ronnie didn't foul on purpose.)

[Odrl]

I agree there is a possible exploit here, but how realistic is it really...?

In most cases, where you snookered yourself on every colour (which would probably mean that you are surrounded by reds), you'd be at least leaving something on if you committed a pre-stroke foul. So you'd need to make sure you wouldn't leave any reds on, and not leave an easy opportunity for your opponent to put you in trouble with a safety shot. So you'd need to be a pretty good actor to get away with it.

In my opinion, a pretty good solution to the whole problem would be to have the rule 3.14(d) apply to any situation, so that the opponent would always have the option to have the balls replaced, should the pre-stroke foul result in any significant changes on the table (or change the ball on, as in this case).

[Martin76]

In my opinion, a pretty good solution to the whole problem would be to have the rule 3.14(d) apply to any situation, so that the opponent would always have the option to have the balls replaced, should the pre-stroke foul result in any significant changes on the table (or change the ball on, as in this case).

As long as you mean "any situation after the balls have been replaced following a "foul and a miss"-call" I completely agree!

Have 3.14(d) read:
(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, 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.

That ought to work, wouldn't it?

Shall we submit this suggestion to the WPBSA?

[AndyG]

At last!

IMO section (d) only applies when the cue ball is not snookered.

It looks to me that the ref applied 11(a)

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.

It's then up to John to decide what to do, make him play again or play the shot himself.

Nothing to do with misses

Congratulations, bigbreak! Finally I understand why a MISS can only be called after a stroke -- you must apply rule 11(b) first in order to get to the miss rule; you cannot get there if you apply 11(a). And as you also point out 14d is irrelevant if you're snookered on all balls on.

I'll have to update my notes and apologise to Jan for ever doubting him!

[My separate complaint about 14b still holds though. We need to hold somebody in World Snooker to account and get some legal strength wording in these rules!]

[bigbreak]

I also do not think there is a loophole.

Any indication of deliberate abuse/cheating/gamesmanship etc. is well covered to allow the ref to deal with it.

[The Statman]

I agree there is a possible exploit here, but how realistic is it really...?

In most cases, where you snookered yourself on every colour (which would probably mean that you are surrounded by reds), you'd be at least leaving something on if you committed a pre-stroke foul. So you'd need to make sure you wouldn't leave any reds on, and not leave an easy opportunity for your opponent to put you in trouble with a safety shot. So you'd need to be a pretty good actor to get away with it.

In my opinion, a pretty good solution to the whole problem would be to have the rule 3.14(d) apply to any situation, so that the opponent would always have the option to have the balls replaced, should the pre-stroke foul result in any significant changes on the table (or change the ball on, as in this case).

As long as you mean "any situation after the balls have been replaced following a "foul and a miss"-call" I completely agree!

Have 3.14(d) read:
(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, 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.

That ought to work, wouldn't it?

Shall we submit this suggestion to the WPBSA?

Exactly. That's the loophole I've been trying to work out was there!

Once again, though, it would only ever crop up when the shot in question was a colour after a red.

There are three potential shots following a Miss call:
(a) The oncoming player elects to play himself;
(b) He puts the offender back in from there, as he can after any foul;
(c) He has the balls replaced and the offender plays the original stroke again.

In most scenarios the ball on will be the same in all three cases. It is only when on a colour after a red that there is any difference.

[DawRef]

So, reading all that has gone before (including my own posts), if a player pots a red and is snookered on ALL colours, if whilst preparing to play his stroke (after nominating a colour), he fouls a ball with his sleeve and is then asked to play the next stroke, he is then on a red NOT a colour. Correct? Even if it is his 4th or 5th attempt?
Yet if a player pots a red and then misses his intended colour twice (after foul and miss has been called) and is warned, if after being asked to play again, he then fouls a ball with his sleeve and is asked to play again, he is STILL on a colour. Why not a red?

[AndyG]

Perhaps we shouldn't really use the word "loophole" but instead "inconsistency". For me, rule 14d does indeed set out to be an exception, exactly as lk8 originally stated. However, the problem is that the rule it intends to be the exception to simply does not exist. I imagine the author of 14d simply did not appreciate the simple clarity of rule 11a. If he had he would either have not written 14d or else amended 11a/11b at the same time as he introduced it.

If Ronnie hadn't been completely snookered, Jan could have happily chosen his favourite rule out of 11a and 14d to apply! Instead, because Ronnie was completely snookered, rule 11a was all that was available and he made the correct choice.

The bottom line remains that these two rules 11 and 14 are not self-consistent and need to be rewritten. Common sense must prevail for snooker to be taken seriously.

[lk8]

we never in this thread suggested that Ronnie was delibrately trying to cheat by touching the black, BUT remember, when Jan approached Ronnie, because John wanted to have the balls replaced, then Ronnie said "but I didn't miss", this reaction from Ronnie is a bit fishy...
even if Ronnie didn't initially plan to cheat, but later on he realised he may be able to get away with it, the problem lies here! But who can blame him, it's the semi final of UK Championship

in the thread, I'm always trying to suggest that the rules have already got it covered, because firstly that the ref is allowed to call any other misses, and secondly because of the existence of 14d, means if the people that wrote the rules have oversighted that a foul can be made while preparing to play a shot when all you can see is a hairline of a ball-on (straight line to any part of any ball-on), and give the non-striker an option of replacing the balls, how is it possible they didn't oversight this could also happen when the striker is fully snookered? Why would have left this fully snookered scenario out? My answer is, they didn't! Even though it may not be 100% worded clearly...