Foul and a Miss question

[The Statman]

I am almost certain the red and/or white rolled off.

Have you ever tried replacing the cue-ball to a position where it was touching another ball? It is sometimes very difficult to replace them so that they are touching; it is even sometimes necessary to move the object ball a smidgen because the touching scenario is not possible to attain. (Probably because the cue may have been struck downwards creating a bigger divot in the cloth which the white will then sit in when replaced.)

[poolqjunkie]

I am almost certain the red and/or white rolled off.

Have you ever tried replacing the cue-ball to a position where it was touching another ball? It is sometimes very difficult to replace them so that they are touching; it is even sometimes necessary to move the object ball a smidgen because the touching scenario is not possible to attain. (Probably because the cue may have been struck downwards creating a bigger divot in the cloth which the white will then sit in when replaced.)

Thank you, I never thought about that part about the divot.

[alant]

Souwester quotes the rules and then “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 suggest that this could not have been the intention when the rule was written and one should instead refer to Section 5 Rule 1

(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 the Rule.

I would make the same ruling whether snookered or not as I believe Jan Verhass should have done.

[The Statman]

alant

Yes arguably you are right.

The specific scenario which caused the problem in the Higgins-O'Sullivan situation was that O'Sullivan was on a colour-after-red.

In any other circumstances (99% of the time), both parties would have been on the same ball, whether it was O'Sullivan replaced, O'Sullivan put in again, or Higgins electing to play the shot himself. In these circumstances the foul would have no significance because, as no balls were moved, there would be nothing to replace.

And that, of course, is why the Rule specifically mentions if the player is not snookered - because it is explaining that the three-Misses-and-out situation would still be in effect. When snookered, this does not apply anyway.

The Rule has simply failed to recognised the possibility that a player could be going for a colour-after-red and thus this exceptional situation is not really covered.

(In any case, Higgins still had the advantage of touching ball and only needed to play a similar shot to the one O'Sullivan was attempting - Higgins did not need to be concerned with the yellow being hit (he was on a red and touching one) and the safety shot was thus a very easy one.)

[alant]

Statman

In the Higgins/O’Sullivan incident you are right because Ronnie did not move the ball.

But going back to the original question of this thread which was not a colour after red situation, the player was snookered and a ball was moved clearing the path to the red. In this situation the non offending player should have the right to replace the balls.

As a referee I would make that decision for the reasons previously stated and I hope the rules are changed to clarify this.

[poolqjunkie]

Yes, you are right it was a bit different from the O'Sullivan-Higgins situation.
So, may I ask you are basing on which rule to insist on replacing the balls exactly? Is that the one about ensuring fair play?
But the rule clearly stated that the foul and a miss rule would not apply here, and even top ref (as in the case of the O'Sullivan-Higgins situation) tends to concurr that the balls should be left un re-placed.

[alant]

As stated in my first post, the rules do not specifically cover the situation where the player is snookered and the referee is “free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by the Rule.” (Section 5 Rule 1. a.ii).

I believe that Jan Verhaas admitted afterwards that he could have invoked this rule.