Clarification regarding miscue causing a) white to jump b) to miss the object ball

[Camio]

Hello guys,

As the title says, I'm looking for clarification regarding 2 things, 2 very specific things. I'd like to have awnsers from refs (if possible) as I know a few members of this forum are refs.

I'm not looking for awnser like "rule states that regarding the jump shot" or stuff like that. I'm looking for something more specific, which includes "intent" by the striker.

The first thing I'm looking for clarification for is this: say the white's on the brown spot, a red is on the blue spot and a red on the pink spot. The striker tries to hit the red on the blue spot, using draw to bring back the cueball to the baulk cushion. In trying to do so, he does a miscue which causes the cueball to jump over that red sitting on the blue spot, falls back on the cloth past the 1st red (which is on the blue spot) and then hits the red on the pink spot.

In this case, the intention of the striker wasnt to make a jump shot and the jump shot is the result of a miscue so in that specific case, thats not a foul of 4, right?

I recall seeing something similar to this on the Pro Tour in the last 12 months or so (could've been the 2010 UK Champ I think) and the ref didnt called a foul, despite the opposing player and the 2 commentators who tought a foul was supposed to be called on that shot.

I assumed a foul wasnt called because the striker never "intended" to make a jump shot, therefore, since he still hit a red first (ball on), the shot was deemed legal.

The second scenario I'd like clarification with is this: ball is near the baulk cushion, about 6 inches off the cushion, between the green and brown, with 15 reds scattered around the pink, black and blue spot, with a tough path to get back in baulk (kinda like after about 8-10 safety shots have been played at the start of a frame).

Instead of playing a thin contact off a red to bring the white back to baulk (which would be hard to do due to the numbers of red scattered), the striker tries to hit a red near the blue spot and draw the white back to baulk. Keep in mind he's about 6 inches off the baulk cushion so he has to raise the butt of his cue a bit. In doing so, he miscues and fails to hit a red despite seeing a few of them full ball).

The ref doesnt call F&M. I clearly recall this happening vs Stephen Hendry and he was surprised a F&M wasnt called, as were the commentators. Hendry then seemed to have asked the ref why no F&M was called.

1 commentator then said, after a few minutes of discussion, that since the intent of the striker wasnt to miscue, that it isnt a F&M.

If anyone recalls seeing these things happening, would be nice to have some feedback. If any certified ref's reading this post, it'd be nice to have your feedback.

I'd like some clarification on this because at the moment, few guys in a league I play in would like some light shed on this.

Thanks guys.

[The Statman]

Hello guys,

As the title says, I'm looking for clarification regarding 2 things, 2 very specific things. I'd like to have awnsers from refs (if possible) as I know a few members of this forum are refs.

I'm not looking for awnser like "rule states that regarding the jump shot" or stuff like that. I'm looking for something more specific, which includes "intent" by the striker.

The first thing I'm looking for clarification for is this: say the white's on the brown spot, a red is on the blue spot and a red on the pink spot. The striker tries to hit the red on the blue spot, using draw to bring back the cueball to the baulk cushion. In trying to do so, he does a miscue which causes the cueball to jump over that red sitting on the blue spot, falls back on the cloth past the 1st red (which is on the blue spot) and then hits the red on the pink spot.

In this case, the intention of the striker wasnt to make a jump shot and the jump shot is the result of a miscue so in that specific case, thats not a foul of 4, right?
...

Still a foul, I'm afraid. He has played a jump shot and - deliberate or not - that's a foul.

If you think about it, virtually every foul is unintentional. "I didn't mean to cannon the black in at an unforeseeable angle, therefore it's not a foul, right?" is the equivalent of what you are saying.

The second scenario I'd like clarification with is this: ball is near the baulk cushion, about 6 inches off the cushion, between the green and brown, with 15 reds scattered around the pink, black and blue spot, with a tough path to get back in baulk (kinda like after about 8-10 safety shots have been played at the start of a frame).

Instead of playing a thin contact off a red to bring the white back to baulk (which would be hard to do due to the numbers of red scattered), the striker tries to hit a red near the blue spot and draw the white back to baulk. Keep in mind he's about 6 inches off the baulk cushion so he has to raise the butt of his cue a bit. In doing so, he miscues and fails to hit a red despite seeing a few of them full ball).

The ref doesnt call F&M. I clearly recall this happening vs Stephen Hendry and he was surprised a F&M wasnt called, as were the commentators. Hendry then seemed to have asked the ref why no F&M was called.

1 commentator then said, after a few minutes of discussion, that since the intent of the striker wasnt to miscue, that it isnt a F&M.

If anyone recalls seeing these things happening, would be nice to have some feedback. If any certified ref's reading this post, it'd be nice to have your feedback.

I'd like some clarification on this because at the moment, few guys in a league I play in would like some light shed on this.

Thanks guys.

I agree with the commentators and Hendry, who seemed to be surprised a Miss wasn't called. It should have been, assuming the cue-ball was struck with the tip of the cue - which it sounds like it was.

[Camio]

Thanks for the awnsers. I know the rules very well which is why I was surprised, as was Taylor commentating on 1 occurance and Virgo (I think) on the other.

Basically, as for the first example, the fact the cueball jumped due to a miscue seemed to have been the explanation for not calling it a foul shot, a reg jump shot, that one would play by raising the butt of the cue (the normal way of playing a jump shot).

Eirain Williams used to have a site/forum where we could ask qs directly to him and he'd awnser, a site he no longer has. I'm guessing the only option to ask a few refs now will be via Twitter or Facebook?

I dunno of any refs atm who has a site/forum like Eirian Williams used to have.

[Terry Davidson]

There is another occasion where the rule has been changed regarding this. If a player wants to break the pack when shooting the black and he digs down, makes first contact with the black and pots it but the cueball jumps over a red at the edge of the pack and falls into the middle of the pack this is not considered a foul as the first contact was with the intended object ball.

In both your cases the intended object ball was not hit and in case one the cueball jumped over it so that would be a foul. In the second case no red was hit so it has to be a foul and a miss. I lost a frame in the Canadians as I had two F&M and then mis-cued off the cushion on the third attempt and did not make contact with a red.

Terry

[The Statman]

There is another occasion where the rule has been changed regarding this. If a player wants to break the pack when shooting the black and he digs down, makes first contact with the black and pots it but the cueball jumps over a red at the edge of the pack and falls into the middle of the pack this is not considered a foul as the first contact was with the intended object ball...

Yes, but not quite. I don't think the "intended" object ball comes into it as such, just that after the cue-ball has struck any object ball, subsequent jumps are not taken into account. (Of course, if the ball first struck is not the ball on, it will be a foul anyway, but not for a jump shot!)

[deant1982]

To OP,

Both are fouls.
1, he intended to play the first red, and jumped over an object ball. foul stroke. It doesn't matter if he hit another red, he jumped an object ball.
2, Although it would be a harsh decision, I think at high level, f+m should be called. It is one thing to miscue in a local league 5 game, but a professional should have a cue action that is so good that they do not miscue, that is why they are professionals. The referee must be of an opinion that the striker made an attempt within his ability to hit the object ball in order to not call f+m. A professional snooker player shouldn't miscue, so hasn't in my opinion.

And Terry, that is a harsh one to lose the frame on, but I do understand where the referee was coming from.

[Camio]

Regarding what Terry said (white jumps into the pack and break it after contacting the black) is sometimes done and has been legal, which is fine.

Basically, what it appears to be at first (the call of these 2 refs on these 2 situations) was that they both did "judgement calls" based on "intent", a part the rules do cover.

However, in both cases, I was a bit surprised of the ruling.

Thanks for your awnsers guys.

[Souwester]

Apart from the Miss rule which talks about endeavouring to hit a ball on, the rules do not mention intent of the striker. Whether the striker intended to jump a ball is irrelevant. If the shot is a 'jump shot' as defined inn the rules then it is foul, regardless of the player's intent.

Again, if the criteria for calling Foul and a Miss are met, as defined in the rules, then F&M will be called, regardless of whether it was a miscue or not.

[Souwester]

And Terry, that is a harsh one to lose the frame on, but I do understand where the referee was coming from.

It is harsh, but is has to be counted as a Miss. There are plenty of players who can deliberately miscue, and if on a warning after two misses, they could easily deliberately miscue to get the cue ball safe if they didn't think they could play a legal and safe shot on the ball on. The Miss rule was brought in, in its present form, simply because there were a number of players who would play convincing looking shots to deliberately miss the object balls to get the cue ball safe.

[DawRef]

Virgo (I think) on the other.

I've just had to read this bit again.... VIRGO agreeing on a rule????????????????????????????????

[Souwester]

I've just had to read this bit again.... VIRGO agreeing on a rule????????????????????????????????

Miracles do happen from time to time.

[Camio]

I've just had to read this bit again.... VIRGO agreeing on a rule????????????????????????????????

Actually, you got that wrong.

Taylor, on one instance, and Virgo (I think), on the other one, didnt agreed with the ruling made by the ref.

[poolqjunkie]

I am not a ref. I am just wondering if you could please show us a link of the incident you stated?
I am surprised that a miss was not called after a miscue.

[Camio]

I dont have a link. I do recall tho seeing those 2 situations occuring in matches I've watched few weeks/months ago from snooker videos I got (full matches, tournament, tv coverage) from various events on the Main Tour.

I seem to recall both situations occured in the UK Champ 2010 for some reason. I also think Higgins was involved in the 1st situation and Hendry in the 2nd, in both cases, them being the opposing player, so not the striker in either cases.

I've really got tons of snooker videos from various events/tournaments so digging to find both is basically an impossible task.

I've sent emails to Michaela Tabb and also directly to WSA so I'll see what they say. Eirian Williams used to have a site/forum where we could ask him questions but his site's offline since a few years now.

[best1966]

Eirain Williams used to have a site/forum where we could ask qs directly to him and he'd awnser, a site he no longer has. I'm guessing the only option to ask a few refs now will be via Twitter or Facebook?

I dunno of any refs atm who has a site/forum like Eirian Williams used to have.

Why don't you try and contact Jan Verhaas or Brendan Moore on Facebook or Twitter. I've asked them both questions in the past and they have both responded quickly, i'm sure they would be able to help you.