What is the ruling on this please

[finabb]

Last night i was at a league cup match.
Player A nominated the green which he potted but he also potted the black; foul 7 points to player B. The referee only replaced the black onto the table and not the green. After about 4 shots by each player it was then noticed the green was not on the table.

What are the rules concerning this.
Thanks

[T.C.]

Green goes back on it's spot as soon as the mistake is noticed. No penalty to any players as it is a referees mistake.

[finabb]

Green goes back on it's spot as soon as the mistake is noticed. No penalty to any players as it is a referees mistake.

That's what we thought but the other team thought it might be a re-rack.

thanks

[The Statman]

Yes, that's right. Even if the brown had been potted in the mean time (or even blue or pink), the green will come back with no penalty.

This is a very unusual situation where the final colours could be potted out of order.

[flame]

are you sure Statman, wouldn't the green be missed after yellow was potted,surely it wouldn't arise,(brown after yellow)

[RGCirencester]

Say you took green as free ball potted green and yellow, yellow stays down and its quite concievable someone could forget the green.

[The Statman]

are you sure Statman, wouldn't the green be missed after yellow was potted,surely it wouldn't arise,(brown after yellow)

Ah. I was thinking we were already down to the green at the end of the game, but now see that he "nominated" the green.

Even so, my scenario is possible – just not in this instance!

[DawRef]

Say you took green as free ball potted green and yellow, yellow stays down and its quite concievable someone could forget the green.

Yes it is possible and you could end up with the situation of only having, green and black left! Though this would probably only be noticed if either player thought that the scores were wrong (e.g. one player calculating that if he pots the colours he can win by 1 point).

That's what we thought but the other team thought it might be a re-rack.

It is not a re-rack. he only time a re-rack will occur is if the referee thinks a stalemate is being approached. And that will be with the agreement of both players.

[Odrl]

Yes it is possible and you could end up with the situation of only having, green and black left!

Hm... let's say this unlikely scenario happens, and there are only the black and another colour on the table. Can you then snooker your opponent behind the black if you get a free ball?

[Souwester]

Hm... let's say this unlikely scenario happens, and there are only the black and another colour on the table. Can you then snooker your opponent behind the black if you get a free ball?

The rules are quite clear, and say that it is not a foul to snooker behind the black, when only PINK and BLACK remain on the table:

(b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should
(i) fail to hit the Nominated ball first, or first simultaneously with the ball on, or
(ii) be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball thus nominated, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.

In my opinion it would be a foul. After all, the player might have already taken advantage of snookering behind the black when pink and black were on the table, so by being able to do so when the green is then brought back onto the table would be having a second bite of the cherry.

[Souwester]

It is not a re-rack. he only time a re-rack will occur is if the referee thinks a stalemate is being approached. And that will be with the agreement of both players.

DawRef, you should know better! We never have re-racks in snooker: the balls are *RESET* if the frame has to be restarted.

[dantuck_7]

Hm... let's say this unlikely scenario happens, and there are only the black and another colour on the table. Can you then snooker your opponent behind the black if you get a free ball?

By this time it's all kicked off, can imagine drinks and chairs being thrown around... black and green left on the table!

[DawRef]

DawRef, you should know better! We never have re-racks in snooker: the balls are *RESET* if the frame has to be restarted

My apologies, Sou'wester. And yes, I should know better. However, try telling that to the TV commentators and 99.99999% of players.

[The Statman]

DawRef, you should know better! We never have re-racks in snooker: the balls are *RESET* if the frame has to be restarted.

Souwester, I admire your pedantry, but I think careful observation of the rulebook will confirm that re-set is no more a snooker term than re-rack. The word re-set is used, in the Stalemate rule, but it is not in italics. Therefore since 're-rack' is in such common usage, I see no reason to prefer 're-set' over it.

I notice that the scoreboard software used on the pro circuit gives 're-rack' as one of the options available to the marker!

[Souwester]

Souwester, I admire your pedantry, but I think careful observation of the rulebook will confirm that re-set is no more a snooker term than re-rack. The word re-set is used, in the Stalemate rule, but it is not in italics. Therefore since 're-rack' is in such common usage, I see no reason to prefer 're-set' over it.

I notice that the scoreboard software used on the pro circuit gives 're-rack' as one of the options available to the marker!

'Re-set' is indeed used in the Stalemate rule, but there is no mention anywhere in the rules of the phrase 're-rack'. All examiners and tutors operating under the European (EBSRA) referees scheme will instruct that 're-set' is always to be used, and never 're'rack'.