Opinion sought about situation under new rule wording

[The Statman]

I am looking at the new amendments to the Rules, and particularly this one which now makes clear that the non-striker can be penalised for any disturbance of the balls he may make:

“The person about to play or in play is the striker and remains so until the final stroke, or foul, of his turn is complete and the referee is satisfied that he has finally left the table. If a non-striker comes to the table, out of turn, he shall be considered as the striker for any foul he may commit before leaving the table. When the referee is satisfied that the above conditions have been met, the incoming striker’s turn begins. His turn and his right to play another stroke ends when: …”

However, this got me thinking with regard to the following scenario which was brought up here as a question a couple of years ago:

“Player A is 34 points in front and going for the last red. He is cueing over a ball and, on his backswing, touches it with the cue. The referee calls foul but the player continues and plays the stroke, knocking the red in.
The player is thus now 30 ahead with only 27 on the table.”
(thread here: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...n-for-referees )

At the time, I replied that, if it was literally on the final backswing and the player could not reasonably have had time to react to the referee’s call and prevent himself from playing the stroke, I would let it stand, just as if the foul had occurred after the cue-ball was struck (after all, the striker would gain no advantage by fouling compared with legally potting the red). But, if he wilfully carried on playing the stroke after the call of foul, I might be inclined to treat the actual stroke as ‘ball moved by other than striker’ because his turn ended immediately that the foul was called.

Now that the wording has been revised, I am rethinking that answer.

Perhaps – and let’s assume that the player had wilfully continued playing the stroke – he can now be “considered as the striker” (quote from rule above) for the actual striking of the ball and fouled a second time.

There are pros and cons here: In my original answer, because the balls were moved other than by the striker, although the player is not called for the foul, the balls are replaced and his opponent can face the potential pot that the offender just had. However, under my new suggested answer, the player can be fouled a second time (the first time for the cue touching the ball, the second time for being the non-striker disturbing the balls) but this therefore perhaps means that the balls cannot be replaced.

Now that the wording above considers the non-striker as the striker for any foul he may commit, presumably it can no longer come under ‘ball moved by other than striker’.

I’d be interested to know referees’ opinions on this!

[DawRef]

Hi Statman

Not got the new rule book yet.

I can see your point using the scenario you have quoted. In one case the striker still has the advantage in that he is 30 points in front with only 27 points on the table, and in the other, by going by the new ruling, the balls could be replaced, and his opponent would not need penalty points to win the frame.
As referees, we have to make that decision there and then. I would be surprised if a player came up to me and quoted the new rule and insisted on the balls being replaced. Personally, I would let the stroke stand, albeit to the detriment of the opponent.

[rongreen]

Excellent thread Statman, I'm no ref. but player B is obviously at a disadvantage, req. a snooker. If player A whilst cueing had touched the other ball on delivery rather than backswing then I could understand the stroke been completed, but on the backswing it could be construed as tactical, and as you point out played wilfully, therefore the balls should be replaced, but in the heat of the moment... Ref... Ref...

[The Statman]

One flaw in my original argument was the fact that the Rules used to be worded such that "on a call of foul, the striker's turn ends immediately" while elsewhere (and I know this has been discussed over and over) the player "remains the striker until the referee is satisfied he has left the table."

Now, the wording (which I quoted in the top post) says that he is the striker until "the final stroke, or foul, of his turn is complete and the referee is satisfied that he has left the table at the end of his turn."

That in itself gets rid of the previous inconsistency (or at least, I think it does), but on further considering this, he is then still the striker and the only thing you could do is penalise him the higher of the two fouls committed - the ball touched with the cue or the ball on/struck, whichever is the higher. Having said that, if he is still the striker, the hitting of the ball on, if he continued to do so, would not per se be foul.

One thing you cuold do is waarn for ungentlemanly conduct - which is all well and good but a warning does not stop Player B from needing snookers! If you were to award the frame straight away you would have to be sure that the player was acting wilfully, rather than simply didn't hear you call foul or was too far into the shot when it was called to prevent himself from delivering the cue.

So I think this is still a potential minefield not entirely backed up by rule, whichever tack the referee takes.

[DawRef]

I've just sent the link to this thread to a pro ref friend. Would be interesting to see his reply.

[Terry Davidson]

I too would like to see what a pro referee would call as I'm not certain myself (Class C referee) however as this type of case could come up more frequently than some of the odd questions we see here it might be valuable to know the 'correct' interpretation.

My own feeling is if the player who commits the foul initially (striker) was either on the delivery or well into the stroke and couldn't stop delivering the cue then just the one foul without the balls replaced, no score for potting the red.

However, if I felt he had plenty of time after the 'foul' call and I have quite a loud voice (for instance if it happened while he was feathering) then I would likely re-set the balls and call the second foul treated as a miss for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Terry

[magicman]

Surely the entire point of clarifying rules is to avoid uncertainty for ref's decisions. Both Terry and DawRef state they would, or at least might, let the stroke stand. As a player this would infuriate me. How can a foul be called, at which point you can win the game, and yet come to the table NOT being able to win the game? What sort of ruling is this? Utter nonsense in my opinion. You should never be able to foul to your advantage - hence the miss rule clarification due to the Ronnie and Higgins scenario last year.

[The Statman]

Surely the entire point of clarifying rules is to avoid uncertainty for ref's decisions. Both Terry and DawRef state they would, or at least might, let the stroke stand. As a player this would infuriate me. How can a foul be called, at which point you can win the game, and yet come to the table NOT being able to win the game? What sort of ruling is this? Utter nonsense in my opinion. You should never be able to foul to your advantage - hence the miss rule clarification due to the Ronnie and Higgins scenario last year.

Well true. But - elsewhere the rules do state that reds are never replaced even though a player may benefit from a foul.

Let's get one thing out of the water - when he comes to the table, there is absolutely no advantage in fouling when potting the last red when 34 in front. He can pot the red, giving him a lead of 35 plus potential colour, or he can foul it leaving him with a lead of 30, with just the colours left on.

Even when actually striking the cue-ball, if the red goes in he is still not gaining an advantage by fouling for exactly the same reason.

However, if he fouls before the ball is struck, which should end his turn, it would then be in his advantage to "accidentally" deliberately continue to play it. This then becomes the difference between 30-up-with-35-on and 30-up-with-27-on.

In the first two scenarios, it's just one of those things - but in the last, there really should be a mechanism for replacing the balls because the player was not entitled to play; it was not his turn.

[nrage]

I'm not very well versed in the rules, so I'm thinking at this from a slightly different direction...

The 'ideal' result in this situation, regardless of whether they remain the striker/or not and whether they in fact had time to pull his/her shot or not, is for them to be fairly penalised and for the next player to be at no 'more' disadvantage than prior to the foul.

So, what is a fair penalty for this? I think penalising them for touching the ball they're bridging over is fair, so 4 (or value of the ball) away.

If a red is potted at the same time, I say it has to be replaced (along with any others moved). Otherwise the next player will be at 'more' of a disadvantage than prior.

Do these two things, and we effectively treat the situation the same whether they follow through with the stroke/or not, intentionally/or not, it makes no difference.

If we can treat all variations the same then the player will have no incentive to cheat/gain advantage by continuing the stroke intentionally, so you remove the need for the referee to make a judgement call on that side of things and it just becomes simpler.

[The Statman]

I'm not very well versed in the rules, so I'm thinking at this from a slightly different direction...

The 'ideal' result in this situation, regardless of whether they remain the striker/or not and whether they in fact had time to pull his/her shot or not, is for them to be fairly penalised and for the next player to be at no 'more' disadvantage than prior to the foul.

So, what is a fair penalty for this? I think penalising them for touching the ball they're bridging over is fair, so 4 (or value of the ball) away.

If a red is potted at the same time, I say it has to be replaced (along with any others moved). Otherwise the next player will be at 'more' of a disadvantage than prior.

Do these two things, and we effectively treat the situation the same whether they follow through with the stroke/or not, intentionally/or not, it makes no difference.

If we can treat all variations the same then the player will have no incentive to cheat/gain advantage by continuing the stroke intentionally, so you remove the need for the referee to make a judgement call on that side of things and it just becomes simpler.

Quite. And the rules do not allow for this.

Looking at another situation, where the player is 34 in front on the last red, where he pulls off a magnificent pot but the cue-ball goes round the table and unluckily cannons the yellow in. There is no suggestion that this could be done deliberately (and, indeed, the striker is far better off if it hadn't become a foul). The Rules do specifically state that reds are never replaced even though a player may benefit from a foul. (There are the couple of exceptions, such as the red dropping in on its own from the edge of the pocket, or being replaced after a Miss.)

[Bigmeek]

Interesting thread. I've often wondered about "the final red" situation. When 34 ahead its gone through my head that I could pick the red up by hand and pop it in the pocket. Probably be deemed "ungentlemanly behaviour" and would result in frame being awarded to my opponent?

[nrage]

Quite. And the rules do not allow for this.

Looking at another situation, where the player is 34 in front on the last red, where he pulls off a magnificent pot but the cue-ball goes round the table and unluckily cannons the yellow in. There is no suggestion that this could be done deliberately (and, indeed, the striker is far better off if it hadn't become a foul). The Rules do specifically state that reds are never replaced even though a player may benefit from a foul. (There are the couple of exceptions, such as the red dropping in on its own from the edge of the pocket, or being replaced after a Miss.)

So, the difference between this example, and the other is the timing (and/or nature) of the foul itself. In the previous example the foul occurred "in the process" of potting the red, or rather the stroke itself fouled the bridged over ball, making the pot invalid I would suggest and necessitating ball replacement (lol). However, in this example you've just given the stroke itself is clean, but the end result (white entering a pocket) is a foul.

[The Statman]

Interesting thread. I've often wondered about "the final red" situation. When 34 ahead its gone through my head that I could pick the red up by hand and pop it in the pocket. Probably be deemed "ungentlemanly behaviour" and would result in frame being awarded to my opponent?

Well if I was the referee, that's exactly what I'd do. The thing is, that course of action is clearly wilful. In the original scenario it is less clear-cut because it could have been accidental, e.g. didn't hear referee call foul, or concentrating so hard didn't take it in, or was it too late to stop the shot from proceeding?

[Souwester]

I don't yet have my copy of the new rule book, but...

If, as the referee, I was convinced that the player deliberately continued to play his shot after I had called a foul, and that he had chance to cease his stroke, then I would consider that to be ungentlemanly conduct. I'd warn the player appropriately and replace the balls, allowing Player B to play from the position he *should* have had, in the interest of fair play, as allowed for in section 5.

[Souwester]

If I *wasn't* convinced that the player had deliberately continued when he could have stopped, then I'd let the stroke stand: it's simply a case of two fouls being committed in the same stroke. Imagine that the first foul is called as in the original scenario, but then as the player removes the rest from the table he disturbs the black. Surely you would only penalise the player seven points for the second foul, rather than two separate penalties? The important point in the new rules is that the referee has to be satisfied that the player has left the table for his turn to have ended, as well as the other criteria.