Question about colours

[Souwester]

It might also be helpful to quote the definition of a pot from Section 2:

7. Pot
A pot is when an object ball, after contact with another ball and without any infringement of these Rules, enters a pocket. Causing a ball to be potted is known as potting.

So if a ball on enters a pocket (pocketed) but during that stroke a foul is committed, then this is not a POT. The ball has not been POTTED and is, therefore, respotted.

[nevets]

The brown was correctly re-spotted then.

If you think about it, if your opponent needed snookers, and the colours were not re-spotted after a foul, you could in theory knock the colours off the table one at a time to win the frame!

[Welshsteve]

The brown was correctly re-spotted then.

If you think about it, if your opponent needed snookers, and the colours were not re-spotted after a foul, you could in theory knock the colours off the table one at a time to win the frame!

There is a theory that if you are winning by 32 points in a frame, and there is one red left, and therefore 35 left on the table. That if you could somehow knock the final red off the table, you would give four points to your opponent (for the foul), leaving you 28 ahead, but there would then only be 27 left so your opponent would then require snookers

In this situation I imagine there would be a case for ungentlemanly conduct perhaps

[Souwester]

There is potential to warn a player for ungentlemanly conduct, but the referee would have to use his discretion as to whether it was done deliberately or not.

Consider these two scenarios if you will, both with the striker 35 points ahead.

1. A colour is right on the lip of a top pocket with the last red immediately in front of it and touching it. Nothing but playing it absolutely dead weight will prevent the red from pushing the colour into the pocket. What is th shot most players will attempt to play? probably to play the red in such a way that there's a good chance it will follow the colour into the pocket. A foul has been committed, but the red will not be replaced, leaving the non-striker needing snookers.

2. Last red is hanging over centre pocket with a colour virtually touching it and lined up to pocket the red if the colour is hit (and potable from just about anywhere on the table except the current position) . Striker is on a colour and has landed very close to the colour near the red, but the other side of it from the red. The remaining colours are all awkwardly placed down the table from the red. Striker decides to play the colour he's almost touching in such a way that it is bound to canon the remaining red into the pocket. He's giving away penalty points but his opponent now needs snookers and the remaining colours are still all awkwardly placed.

Another scenario:

3. Striker is 14 points down with just pink and black left on the table. Pink is hanging right in the jaws of a corner pocket, with cue ball some distance away. Virtually any contact with the pink will pot it. Player decides the play the pink with pace, in such a way as the cue ball follows through. Yes, it is a foul, but the pink is respotted, and although now 20 points behind, he's still in with a shout of winning the frame if he can get a snooker or two.

Three deliberate fouls, but are they justifiable tactics or should the referee warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct?

[Welshsteve]

Interestign scenarios. I think the referee would have to make their own judgement.

I once won a frame in the league from 33 behind with pink and black left Opponent was clearing up, but went in off playing a showboating pink, (27 behind). I then got two snookers where he hit the black, potted pink and black for a re-spot. He put me in to "break off". I doubled black into green pocket true story!!

[sprogbasket]

Interesting point made by Souwester on deliberate fouls... I lost count in the 1980s of how many times Steve Davis managed to go in off a red into the corner pocket when therewas no easy safety shot available .

Of course in them days players were not so good or willing to take on long pots from baulk area.

Davis more often than not profitted by this bad luck !

[The Statman]

There is potential to warn a player for ungentlemanly conduct, but the referee would have to use his discretion as to whether it was done deliberately or not.

Consider these two scenarios if you will, both with the striker 35 points ahead.

1. A colour is right on the lip of a top pocket with the last red immediately in front of it and touching it. Nothing but playing it absolutely dead weight will prevent the red from pushing the colour into the pocket. What is th shot most players will attempt to play? probably to play the red in such a way that there's a good chance it will follow the colour into the pocket. A foul has been committed, but the red will not be replaced, leaving the non-striker needing snookers.

2. Last red is hanging over centre pocket with a colour virtually touching it and lined up to pocket the red if the colour is hit (and potable from just about anywhere on the table except the current position) . Striker is on a colour and has landed very close to the colour near the red, but the other side of it from the red. The remaining colours are all awkwardly placed down the table from the red. Striker decides to play the colour he's almost touching in such a way that it is bound to canon the remaining red into the pocket. He's giving away penalty points but his opponent now needs snookers and the remaining colours are still all awkwardly placed.

Another scenario:

3. Striker is 14 points down with just pink and black left on the table. Pink is hanging right in the jaws of a corner pocket, with cue ball some distance away. Virtually any contact with the pink will pot it. Player decides the play the pink with pace, in such a way as the cue ball follows through. Yes, it is a foul, but the pink is respotted, and although now 20 points behind, he's still in with a shout of winning the frame if he can get a snooker or two.

Three deliberate fouls, but are they justifiable tactics or should the referee warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct?

Yeah these are very interesting takes on 'deliberate' fouls resulting in your opponent needing snookers.

The usual one is where a player, say 32 in front, pockets the final red but the cue-ball proceeds to go in-off. This is almost always done by accident and is one of those things - I maintain that the player has not gained an advantage by the foul:

If the red was potted and the white did not go in-off, he would be 33 in front, with a shot at a colour, with only 27 on. The foul has left him only 28 in front with 27 on. So he has gained an advantage, but not because of the foul but rather because the red went in.

However, [b]Souwester[/i], the three scenarios you present are definitely shots which are, or could be, premeditated by the striker.

As regards the first two, the referee can only do anything if he is certain that it was deliberate. And let's suppose he was certain - he will give a warning, but this will have no bearing on the probable loss of the frame in question and as long as the player behaves himself in every other aspect, it is a situation which will not occur again in the match.

As regards the third, there has been a lot of argument over 30 years about the deliberate follow-through of the cue-ball to go in-off the final pink when the player needs snookers. I am sure I could find several examples in back issues of Snooker Scene but I'm a little drunk and it's 12:30 at night and I've got work in the morning so I won't. I think the consensus is that it is a #fair' shot, apart from the 6 points away, to keep the pink in play.

The problem here is that the rules only ever cover the actual course of the balls in the shot, without ever casting an eye on the player's shot selection. Of course, that in a 'Rules' sense is sensible because it is a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion as to the player's intentions. But it is difficult to see how a ruling can be based on the perceived intentions of a player when he could, with a bit of forethought, say "Well, no, actually what I was trying to do was this...this...this..."

It is a dangerous path to take because of the subjecitivity of the referee's decision.

Rahter like a player who sees no path back to baulk so instead plays the in-off into the top pocket. He's running a risk if he misjudges the shot and misses the in-off but as long as the white goes in he's probably ok. Don't know that there's much thast could be done to the rules to allay this aspect.