Tweet
Hi, the snooker table in my local club has dimples where the balls are spotted,in a recent match the white came to rest agaist the black which was on its spot, the white moved the black lest than a mm. The player had just potted the pink so now had to play a red. The trouble was we could all see although he was clearly playing away from the black, the black was resting on the white and as soon as he played away the black rolled back on to its spot..... So foul or not ?
-
-
No foul if he was clearly playing away from the black and he then touched a red. -
Funny enough thats what we said but his captain said it was a foul, after discussing it for 10mins, we took the foul as it seemed rude not to !!!!
Comment
-
The rules state that if the movement was caused by other than the player, then it will not be called a push shot.
As long as the player played away, in a fashion that should NOT have caused the black to move but for the defect of the table, then you have to say that he has played away fairly. Be sure he hasn't touched the black with his cue, though, although that would usually cause the ball to roll backwards rather than forwards into the divot.Comment
-
Talking about divots, if a colours' spot has a divot and the white comes to rest close enough to it after the said colour has been potted, so that the colour clearly goes on it's spot but the divot makes it roll off a few millimetres so that it touches the white, where is the colour spotted considering that all other spots are occupied and the colour in question must not be touching another ball when spotted.Comment
-
If I was refereeing, I would put it as close to the correct position as possible. I would ensure to be fair to the striker, so that if a ball should be pottable past the spotted ball, it is still pottable with the same amount of leeway. Likewise if it is not pottable, make sure that it is still not pottable. There may of course be other balls that might come into play in later turns, but I think you can only realistically consider the next shot to be played, because the player will have attempted position based on where the ball should spot. Future positional shots can be based on where the ball is put.Originally Posted by vmax4steve View Post
Having said all that, if I was the official match referee, I would have checked the spots for divots before the match started and, if there was a problem such as this, I would have mentioned it to the players before they started, telling them exactly what I'd do.
In all cases, the ball would be placed NOT touching another ball.
It is one of those situations where you just have to use commonsense to come up with your own solution. It is of course not covered by Rule, the Rules assume that the table is sound.Comment
-
More specifically, s3 rule 8 deals with 'Touching Ball' and says:Originally Posted by The Statman View Post
(f) If the referee is satisfied that any movement of a touching ball at the moment of striking was not caused by the striker, he will not call a foul.
Also, it may be relevant to remind readers of the following section:
(g) If a stationary object ball, not touching the cue-ball when examined by the referee, is later seen to be in contact with the cue-ball before a stroke has been made, the balls shall be repositioned by the referee to his satisfaction.
This covers movement of 'stationary' balls caused by imperfections in the table, vibrations, or indeed the striker's hand pulling the cloth as he cues, etc.Comment
-
I think you're wrong on this occasion Statman. It's the same rule as if all spots are occupied. If there is a divot and the colour won't stay on it's spot without rolling into another ball, then it is deemed as though it won't spot. In this instance you would have to put the colour as close to it's own spot as possible, between that spot and the nearest part of the top cushion. Otherwise you have incorrectly spotted the colour.Originally Posted by The Statman View Post
If this results in the player now being snookered, then i'm afraid it's bad luck.Comment
-
I somehow missed Statman's reply earlier, and would agree with you Best1966. I think it's generally accepted by referees that if any imperfections in the spots prevent a ball from being spotted then you apply the normal rules for spotting when a ball's own spot is occupied.
It is imperative, though, that any imperfections are identified before a match starts so that players can be made aware of how balls will spot and can take this into account in their shot selection/execution.Comment
-
Well, the Rule concerning the spot being unavailable is Section 3 Rule 7(d), which begins:Originally Posted by best1966 View Post
"If a colour has to be spotted and its own spot is occupied, it shall be spotted on the highest value... "
The word 'occupied' being in italics denotes that it is a defined term, so we turn to Section 2 Rule 17 to find out that the spot is said to be occupied if a ball cannot be placed on it without that ball touching another ball.
Well, it is not another ball that prevents the colour from being placed on the spot. If it rolls into a divot and lands touching a ball, then it is not "placed on the spot but touching a ball", it is "placed somewhere close to its spot" which is not the same thing.
I would suggest that it CAN be placed on its spot without touching a ball; it just won't stay where it is placed because of the poor table.
What about the other way around: you check the spot and it is covered by the edge of another ball, but you know that if it had been vacant, it would have rolled into a divot which is clear. I don't believe you would spot it in the divot! But if there had been no ball close by and you had not had to check, that is exactly where it would have ended up.
I think there is a strong suggestion that the situation has not been covered adequately by rule, and am acting in the interests of fair play to make sure that neither player is advantaged or disadvantaged by a defect of the table.
I may be wrong, but I believe justifiably so!Comment
Comment