Foul and a Miss question

[poolqjunkie]

Just a quick question:
I was snookered behind a colour ball and I was on a red. It is a very difficult snooker. I missed and a "foul and a miss" was called.
When attempting to make contact I accidentally touched another colour with my hand, and it opened up a path to the red directly--does this "foul" (touching a ball with my hand) exempts me from the "foul and a miss" call, hence only two options of a "foul" are avaliable to my opponent--namely, make me shot again or take the shot himself and shoot from where the cue ball lies--while the balls can no longer be replaced to their original positions?

[Souwester]

If you look at S3 rule 14 there is this paragraph, which has some relevance to the situation:

(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.

This paragraph specifically applies to situations where the player is NOT snookered, implying that it doesn't where a snooker exists, so yes, simply a foul would be called.

I am led to believe, though, that the wording of this paragraph is subject to change by the professionals, in light of the discussion following Jan Verhaas's handling of the Ronnie O'Sullivan incident last year. Hopefully the new WPBSA Rules & Referees committee will confirm something in the near future.

I would add, though, that if the referee thought the player deliberately fouled he should warn him for ungentlemanly conduct.

[nrage]

Interesting.. for the new wording, I would think simply removing the part which reads:

"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"

would make it a rule which then applies to both snookered and non-snookered foul and miss, followed by non-stroke fouls situations.

[Souwester]

I think that's what the professional referees have done, which makes sense.

[poolqjunkie]

Can someone please tell me about this incident with Ronnie O-Sullivan, I have heard of it (it involves him touching the black ball,right?) but do not really know exactly what happened.
Any video link? Thank you.

[blackballgame]

Can someone please tell me about this incident with Ronnie O-Sullivan, I have heard of it (it involves him touching the black ball,right?) but do not really know exactly what happened.
Any video link? Thank you.

This might be what you are looking for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX8OJ...eature=related

[poolqjunkie]

This might be what you are looking for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX8OJ...eature=related

Thank you very much for taking the time to find this, this is a very similiar situation to the one I had in mind.

It was very strange to see the ref moving the balls after John Higgins got to the table. Is he allowed to do that? Does that mean he had the ball positions wrong when he placed them for Ronnioe to shoot? That was a very weird situation. I have read about that but did not khow weird it is until I see it. Thank you.

[blackballgame]

Thank you very much for taking the time to find this, this is a very similiar situation to the one I had in mind.

It was very strange to see the ref moving the balls after John Higgins got to the table. Is he allowed to do that? Does that mean he had the ball positions wrong when he placed them for Ronnioe to shoot? That was a very weird situation. I have read about that but did not khow weird it is until I see it. Thank you.

I believe that the cueball moved slightly which made it possibly for John to pot that red. But he could'nt pot it if the cueball and red where touching which they should have been, When the ref spotted it he made sure they where touching

[DawRef]

It was very strange to see the ref moving the balls after John Higgins got to the table. Is he allowed to do that?

When Ronnie first pocketed the red, the cue-ball ended up touching another red. This is NOT a touching ball. The referee will check to see if the balls are toching in case he has to replace the cue-ball. If either player had asked the ref if they were touching he would have told them. After each attempt at hitting a colour, when John Higgins asked for the ball to be replaced, the referee had to ensure that the cue-ball was touching the red.
When Ronnie then fouled a ball with his sleeve, his turn ended. He had not played a stroke, so he could not be called for a Foul and Miss (John Virgo take note). Therefore, when John asked Ronnie to play again, he was on a red not a colour (you may have noticed that when John came to the table, Jan told him 'touching ball').
It is an unusual situation, but is adequately covered in the rules.

[lennon11]

selby v walden at 4-3 had an instance when walden was snookered behind the yellow,he flicked the yellow with his cue,when attempting to hit a red,surely this should be a "foul" not "foul & a miss"???.

[Souwester]

But he actually played a stroke, the cue ball failing to hit the red.

[poolqjunkie]

When Ronnie first pocketed the red, the cue-ball ended up touching another red. This is NOT a touching ball. The referee will check to see if the balls are toching in case he has to replace the cue-ball. If either player had asked the ref if they were touching he would have told them. After each attempt at hitting a colour, when John Higgins asked for the ball to be replaced, the referee had to ensure that the cue-ball was touching the red.
When Ronnie then fouled a ball with his sleeve, his turn ended. He had not played a stroke, so he could not be called for a Foul and Miss (John Virgo take note). Therefore, when John asked Ronnie to play again, he was on a red not a colour (you may have noticed that when John came to the table, Jan told him 'touching ball').
It is an unusual situation, but is adequately covered in the rules.

Yes, I do understand that. However, after John came to the table and was looking at the pot, the ref said "touching ball" and John said something back (probably to point out that the balls were not touching) and the ref then moved the balls to make sure they were touching.
This suggested to me that when he replaced the ball for Ronnie to shoot, he was indeed not placing them correctly because they were not touching.
And my question was if the ref made a mistake replacing the balls when it was Ronnie's turn to shoot, after Ronnie has fouled, and it was John who had come to the table, is the ref still allowed to move the balls to where he should have placed?
For example, if the ref tries to place the black on the spot but it is not exactly on the spot, a couple shots later, he realizes that, can he just come to the table to put it back to where he feels he should have?

[DawRef]

And my question was if the ref made a mistake replacing the balls when it was Ronnie's turn to shoot, after Ronnie has fouled, and it was John who had come to the table, is the ref still allowed to move the balls to where he should have placed?

I don't think the referee made a mistake. It could have been that the cue-ball rolled off slightly.

Section 3 Rule 9(g):

"If a stationary object ball, not touching the cue-ball when examined by the referee, is later seen to be in contact wth the cue-ball before a stroke has been made, the balls shall be repositioned by the referee to his satisfaction."

It goes without saying (IMHO) that the opposite is also true, i.e. if the cue-ball was touching before and isnt later, then the referee has every right to reposition the ball, which in the case in question, he did.

[Souwester]

I don't think the referee made a mistake. It could have been that the cue-ball rolled off slightly.

Section 3 Rule 9(g):

"If a stationary object ball, not touching the cue-ball when examined by the referee, is later seen to be in contact wth the cue-ball before a stroke has been made, the balls shall be repositioned by the referee to his satisfaction."

It goes without saying (IMHO) that the opposite is also true, i.e. if the cue-ball was touching before and isnt later, then the referee has every right to reposition the ball, which in the case in question, he did.

There has been debate about whether the opposite is actually true, and there is a fine distinction between the two scenarios.

In the scenario covered by the rules, if the cue ball is/should not be touching the red, then the player can play that red and cause it to move, fair stroke.

If, however, the referee calls a touching ball, and then a gap is noticed, would you, as a referee, allow him to play and move the red? Surely not: you'd expect him to play away from the red without moving it.

Now where balls NOT on are concerned, it is a different scenario again, and I think it would have to come down to application of:

SECTION 5 – THE OFFICIALS

1. The Referee
(a) The referee shall
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play,
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by Rule,


I gather, though, that Rule 9 is another rule being looked at for possible revision.

[poolqjunkie]

I don't think the referee made a mistake. It could have been that the cue-ball rolled off slightly.

Section 3 Rule 9(g):

"If a stationary object ball, not touching the cue-ball when examined by the referee, is later seen to be in contact wth the cue-ball before a stroke has been made, the balls shall be repositioned by the referee to his satisfaction."

It goes without saying (IMHO) that the opposite is also true, i.e. if the cue-ball was touching before and isnt later, then the referee has every right to reposition the ball, which in the case in question, he did.

Thank you.

But would you agree that it is debatable whether the red did roll off, or that it was not placed properly in the first place?

Edit: Part of my post deleted because after reading the rules and responses again and I have realized my question has been answered. Thank you very much.