"Coaching" a player during a frame.

[barracuda911]

I have received a letter in which a player has made mention of his opponent's team mate giving advice while the frame is in progress.

Of course this is not condoned, but can anyone shed any light as to how this can be dealt with? Any ruling I need to quote so this type of behavior can be taken care of when and where it happens in the future?

I was thinking, ungentlemanly conduct.

?? thoughts....

[bongo]

We have had some small problems with this in our snooker league in Plymouth. A team mate is not allowed to coach a player when they are at the table. There is actually a rule for this:

Snooker

12. Penalties
All fouls will incur a penalty of four points unless a higher one is indicated in paragraph (a) to (d) below. Penalties are:
(a) value of the ball on by
(i) striking the cue-ball more than once,
(ii) striking when both feet are off the floor,
(iii) playing out of turn,
(iv) playing improperly from in-hand, including at the opening stroke,
(v) causing the cue-ball to miss all object balls,
(vi) causing the cue-ball to enter a pocket,
(vii) playing a snooker behind a free ball,
(viii) playing a jump shot,
(ix) playing with a non-standard cue, or
(x) conferring with a partner contrary to Section 3 Rule 17(e).

And in English billiards

14. Fouls
The following acts are fouls:
(a) striking a ball other than the cue-ball,
(b) striking the cue-ball more than once,
(c) striking when both feet are off the floor,
(d) playing out of turn
(e) playing improperly from in-hand, including at the opening stroke,
(f) striking when any ball is not at rest,
(g) playing a jump shot,
(h) making a push stroke,
(i) causing a ball to be forced off the table,
(j) making more than fifteen consecutive hazards,
(k) making more than seventy-five consecutive cannons,
(l) touching a ball or ball marker in play, other than in the lawful execution of a stroke,
(m) striking before the referee has completed the spotting of a ball,
(n) causing the cue-ball to miss all object balls, other than as provided for in Rule 16 below,
(o) conferring with a partner contrary to Rule 17 below,
(p) playing with a non-standard cue, and
(r) running a coup.

The problem is, not everybody knows there is rule against it, some people would not want to punish a player from the other team when they were the referee if they were coaching their team mate. Most people are friends with each other, even from other teams, and would not want to punish a player at the table because he is being coached. And most people do not take their snooker seriously that they don't even care, or notice that coaching is happening during the game.

[The Doctor]

No coaching allowed during a frame or match except at intervals.

[bongo]

No coaching allowed during a frame or match except at intervals.

In Four-handed snooker coaching is actually allowed at certain times, and it includes this rule in the rules I quoted above. But with 'normal' snooker with two players playing at the table (even though there may be other players around) which is the format we are talking about, coaching is not allowed by anybody else. If somebody else shouts out what shot to play and the striker did not actually do anything then the striker can't really be punished and the spectator should be removed but in doubles (Four-handed snooker) if one player from the team says what shot to play and the other player from the team does not respond, the team can still be fouled.

17. Four-handed Snooker
(a) In a four-handed game each side shall open alternate frames and the order of play shall be determined at the start of each frame and, when so determined, must be maintained throughout that frame.
(b) Players may change the order of play at the start of each new frame.
(c) If a foul is committed and a request to play again is made, the player who committed the foul plays again, even if the foul was made out of turn, and the original order of play is maintained such that the offender's partner may lose a turn.
(d) When a frame ends in a tie Section 3 Rule 4 applies. If a re-spotted Black is necessary the pair who play the first stroke have the choice of which player will make that stroke. The order of play must then continue as in the frame.
(e) Partners may confer during a frame but not
(i) whilst one is the striker and at the table, nor
(ii) after the first stroke of the striker's turn until the break ends.

17. Four-handed Billiards
(a) The side to make the first stroke is decided by the winner of the stringing, as per Section 3 Rule 2. The order of play is then determined by the next player after which the order must remain unchanged throughout the game.
(b) Partners may confer during a game but not
(i) whilst one is the striker and at the table, nor
(ii) after the first stroke of the striker's turn until the break ends.

[The Statman]

Yes that was my gut reaction. The Rule is specifically concerned with partners in a game of doubles. They are free to confer – even to agree which shot to play – but not once one of the players has approached the table and then until his turn ends.

I see no reason why the Rule cannot be extended to include teammates who are not playing in that frame, though. It has to be understood that the players cannot then confer at any time during play, rather than just when that player is at the table.

A footnote to this, though, is that if you are going to police it purely by the written rule of the game, then you have to also allow the Rule that, once the next shot is played, the foul is condoned.

Rather more appropriate might be if the league imposed some penalty or warning for the misdemeanour, extending to forfeiture or disqualification if the League felt it appropriate. Thinking of another scenario which might not be covered by the Rules of the Game but may be in Tournament Regulations, might be something like dress code. You cannot penalise it according to the Rules of the Game because no foul has occurred. The League will want to have some Regulations to cover such things, if it wants to outlaw them.

[lk8]

I have received a letter in which a player has made mention of his opponent's team mate giving advice while the frame is in progress.

Of course this is not condoned, but can anyone shed any light as to how this can be dealt with? Any ruling I need to quote so this type of behavior can be taken care of when and where it happens in the future?

I was thinking, ungentlemanly conduct.

?? thoughts....

there is no rules in the snooker rules to cover "coaching" and/or "conferring" with the spectators or teammates, the only rules are when the game is played with a partner, so any rules to deal with such situation will need to be done through the snooker league's constitution, if such rule aren't drawn out yet, then that would mean coaching by the team mates or spectators can't be penalised....

[barracuda911]

I was thinking about relating the "infraction" to section 4, 1 conduct, (a) (ii) or (iii).
(i) any conduct by a player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair, or
(ii) any other conduct by a player which otherwise amounts to ungentlemanly conduct.

However, how can you foul a player for being at the table when his teammate blurts out what to do?
The 'advice' may sway the player (at the table) to play a different shot, but who is to say that he wasn't considering playing that shot anyway? Or he may not listen to the advice anyway.

It is such a tricky situation.
I think our association will have to deal with each case on its merits. (should another case like this arise).

[bongo]

However, how can you foul a player for being at the table when his teammate blurts out what to do?

See my post above.

Rather more appropriate might be if the league imposed some penalty or warning for the misdemeanour, extending to forfeiture or disqualification if the League felt it appropriate.

Snooker leagues of course need to be serious. There are lots of players, like me who play seriously and many other much better then me who play seriously and the rules need to be strict enough so that serious players are encouraged to play in it, however the difficulty is that not every player is playing seriously. By that I mean they do play to a good level and they do want to win but mainly a league night would be about socialising with friends and having a few drinks, whereas the more serious players would concentrate on the game more. A league, if it wants to be successful, needs to have both of these types of players, there aren't enough 'serious' players to make a league. If the rules are too harsh, such as not allowing players to talk to team mates when playing, then they may well say that they will quit playing in the league. Of course, if the non-striker is talking to a team mate who isn't playing at that time and it disturbs the striker then that is wrong but in my opinion there isn't anything wrong with talking to a team mate when you are not at the table as long as it doesn't disturb the striker and doesn't give you an advantage in any way, such as knowing what shot to play when you come back to the table. Snooker leagues are a thing to enjoy and it is about socialising with friends, as much as it is competitive, so you can't cut anything like that out. But at the end of the day, coaching during a frame should be penalised, but not extended so you can't even talk to anybody (providing that you don't disturb the striker).

[The Statman]

Bongo, I agree with you. However, it can sometimes be the case that not doing anything can cause problems as well. I have just completed my first year as secretary of my local league and it is interesting to see what goes on.
For example, a third-division team signed up, midseason, a player who was easily top-of-division 2 standard, who within a couple of weeks set a high break of 78 and it did cause irritiation to exactly the kind of people you're talking about - lower standard players for whom a Thursday is more about a social, enjoyable game than a win-at-all-costs scenario.

THis is probably worse than a player receiving advice over a particular shot from a teammate. But, as stated in the opening post, the League has received a letter of complaint and it would be wrong if it were not discussed at a league meeting, even if the conclusion was that there is not a lot that can be done about it.

[bongo]

it would be wrong if it were not discussed at a league meeting, even if the conclusion was that there is not a lot that can be done about it.

Can't you move them into a higher, more suitable division next season?

[The Statman]

Can't you move them into a higher, more suitable division next season?

Yes of course, but that doesn't prevent three quarters of the season just gone in which some teams have felt hard done by.

[DawRef]

In the late John Street's book, he has referrred to 'conferring' in the rules regarding doubles (Section 3 Rule 17(e)(i) and (ii)), but it can also be applied to singles as well. The text is as follows:

"The fact that partners may confer during a frame is obvious and when they are sat or standing together while a player from the other side is at the table, they more than likely will have a quiet word with each other. They may not confer during their side's turn, once the player has approached the table. The (new) striker may confer before he goes to the table but he must not leave the table once there for the purpose of conferring, nor may he confer from his position at the table. By using the words [B]'partners'[B] and 'confer', there is a strong suggestion that both players need to be included in a dialogue for a breach of Rules to occur. What if the non-striker of the partnership says something to his colleague at the table but receives no reply? Is this 'unfair conduct' or are they deemed to have 'conferred'? - in which case are they penalised under Section 3 Rule 12(a)(x) in spite of the fact that the striker , who is the one who will be fouled, has not said a word? A clue to this was given in our comentary after Rue 15 in this Section where it was said that the striker's partner was regarded as an extension of the striker. If the striker's partner should say anything which could prompt the striker's course of action, it is like passing a comment during 'a starter for ten' on BBC's Univerity Challenge and is ruled as 'conferring' - a foul with the penalty of the ball on (seven if on a colour ofchoice as yet not nominated, other than a free ball). It largely depends on what is said, of course. The striker at the table may be faced with a difficult snooker and, to break the tension, asks, 'Any ideas?' of no one in particular, not expecting a reply. If his partner were to say in response,'Yes. Tuck himup!' (an obvious joke meaning, 'yes, snooker him!' when the problem at hand is how to get near the ball on) then no action should be taken. Snooker without some humour would not be the enjoyable game it is. But if the striker were shaping up to play at a Red at the far end of the table and received the unsolicited advice from his partner to 'look behind you' - where an easier Red was available, a foul should be called. Drawing attention to any ball or any option available is always an infingement of Rule if the information comes from the striker's partner. A simple comment of 'Who's next?' from the striker's partner can be suggestive of 'Don't go for the pot - snooker him behind that colour!' and should be penalised.
The matter of conference between partners in four-handed play extends to team events, where the striker must not be advised by any member of his team while he is at the table, etc. as above. If advice is offered by a spectator, the striker cannot be punished but the spectator can be warned and, if necessary, removed."