Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Query regards a player making 2 fouls.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Query regards a player making 2 fouls.

    Can someone clarify this for me.

    Last night one of our team was playing a match, his opponent went in off so fouls 4. But rather than allowing the referee to retrieve the white he picks it out of the pocket and rolls it up the table buts cannons it into the pink ball. The referee places the pink back where it was and awards a foul 6, but does not count the foul 4 for the in off.

    Is this correct? Our player thinks it should be both i.e. 2 fouls totalling 10 points.

    Any help is appreciated.

    Cheers
    Andy

  • #2
    Hmmm. An interesting one. The cue-ball has been pocketed so it is then out of play. The player has then caused the pink to move but not as part of a separate 'turn' arguably. (Such as, if he'd left the table, been asked to play again, and then touched the pink.)

    Therefore I think I agree with the referee's actions; it was not a separate turn or shot and the higher of the two penalties applies.

    I'm trying to convinve myself one way or the other whether the referee should have replaced the pink or left it where it landed. I cannot pinpoint in the rules any grounds to replace the pink, though it seems logical enough.

    [Edit:] I would also, as referee, have politely warned the player to leave all retrievals of the balls to me!

    Comment


    • #3
      Cheers for the quick response.
      Yeah I guess you are right it would be classed as still being his turn even though the white has gone off table because the referee has not returned the ball to the table yet. Presuming that when he does then the other players turn starts.

      As for returning the pink, the cynical side of me might think it had been done deliberately to improve the pinks position on the table?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally Posted by Mitch147 View Post
        Cheers for the quick response.
        Yeah I guess you are right it would be classed as still being his turn even though the white has gone off table because the referee has not returned the ball to the table yet. Presuming that when he does then the other players turn starts.

        As for returning the pink, the cynical side of me might think it had been done deliberately to improve the pinks position on the table?
        Well yes, hence my hesitancy. Otherwise there'd be nothing (apart from the points) to stop any player at any time just rolling a ball to where he chooses!

        The player's turn ends as soon as the final stroke of his turn has ended AND the referee is satisfied that he has left the table. If he is rolling the cue-ball on it, then he has clearly not left the table! His opponent's turn then starts.

        Comment


        • #5
          In the new rules there is now this paragraph at section 3 Rule 3:

          (i) If the striker fails to pot a ball, he must leave the table without undue delay. In the event that he should commit any foul before, or while leaving the table, he will be penalised as provided for in Section 3 Rule 10. The next stroke is then played from where the cue-ball comes to rest, or from in-hand if the cue-ball is off the table, except when the cue-ball is replaced in accordance with Section 3 Rule 14(d).

          This seems to imply that the next player should play from where balls come to rest: ie that the pink should not be replaced and that the cue ball is not to be treated as in hand, even if it comes to rest in the D.

          As Statman has said, the player should be warned not to take balls out of the pockets, and if the referee considered the action of moving the pink to have been done deliberately, then the player should also be warned for ungentlemanly conduct.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally Posted by Souwester View Post
            In the new rules there is now this paragraph at section 3 Rule 3:

            (i) If the striker fails to pot a ball, he must leave the table without undue delay. In the event that he should commit any foul before, or while leaving the table, he will be penalised as provided for in Section 3 Rule 10. The next stroke is then played from where the cue-ball comes to rest, or from in-hand if the cue-ball is off the table, except when the cue-ball is replaced in accordance with Section 3 Rule 14(d).

            This seems to imply that the next player should play from where balls come to rest: ie that the pink should not be replaced and that the cue ball is not to be treated as in hand, even if it comes to rest in the D.

            As Statman has said, the player should be warned not to take balls out of the pockets, and if the referee considered the action of moving the pink to have been done deliberately, then the player should also be warned for ungentlemanly conduct.
            Thanks, Souwester. I had not seen the exact wording of that new Rule.

            So does this mean, in this case, that the oncoming player would play from where the cue-ball rested after the opponent had rolled it and moved the pink?

            The cue-ball became out of play when it entered the pocket and would normally only have come back into play when the oncoming player played from the 'D' or fouled while it was on the table. Here, the 'other' (outgoing) player has caused the foul so the cue-ball is maybe not deemed in play - but then, that would suggest the pink should also be replaced!

            If we think the player could have 'deliberately' gained an advantage in terms of where he moved the pink, he could certainly have got a big advantage in terms of the cue-ball no longer being in hand for his opponent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally Posted by The Statman View Post
              Thanks, Souwester. I had not seen the exact wording of that new Rule.

              So does this mean, in this case, that the oncoming player would play from where the cue-ball rested after the opponent had rolled it and moved the pink?

              The cue-ball became out of play when it entered the pocket and would normally only have come back into play when the oncoming player played from the 'D' or fouled while it was on the table. Here, the 'other' (outgoing) player has caused the foul so the cue-ball is maybe not deemed in play - but then, that would suggest the pink should also be replaced!

              If we think the player could have 'deliberately' gained an advantage in terms of where he moved the pink, he could certainly have got a big advantage in terms of the cue-ball no longer being in hand for his opponent.
              My view is that the new wording indicates that the balls should be played from where they have come to rest.

              The cue ball is *not* in hand: the definition of in-hand has not changed (S2 R9), and that states:
              (b) The cue-ball remains in-hand until:
              (i) it is played fairly from in-hand; or
              (ii) a foul is committed whilst the ball is on the table.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes that's what I thought the conclusion was. Thanks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Cheers for this info lads.
                  Can now report back to the team with cocky confidence now !!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just looked thru the rules and i agree with Souwester. After the initial 'in-off' foul the cueball is 'in hand' until the player rolls the cueball onto the table and caused a foul on the pink. The cueball is now inplay from wherever it stopped. The pink should not have been replaced.
                    Not sure the rules are as decisive when it comes to the penalty though?
                    Rule 12
                    (d) A penalty of seven points is incurred if the striker
                    (i) uses a ball off the table for any purpose,

                    Wouldnt this rule apply? im interested in peoples thoughts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally Posted by T.C. View Post
                      Just looked thru the rules and i agree with Souwester. After the initial 'in-off' foul the cueball is 'in hand' until the player rolls the cueball onto the table and caused a foul on the pink. The cueball is now inplay from wherever it stopped. The pink should not have been replaced.
                      Not sure the rules are as decisive when it comes to the penalty though?
                      Rule 12
                      (d) A penalty of seven points is incurred if the striker
                      (i) uses a ball off the table for any purpose,

                      Wouldnt this rule apply? im interested in peoples thoughts.
                      Hmm an interesting one. However, if the nudge of the pink was seen to be accidental, I don't think you could say the ball off the table was "used" for any purpose in that context.

                      The Rule is written so you can't take a dead ball from a pocket to see if a gap is wide enough or if a colour will spot. I don't think it is applicable in this scenario.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Do you remember in the World Comp this year (I think) Graeme Dott played a shot and the white was heading into the green corner pocket but Graeme caught the white with his hand from the top opening of the pocket and placed it on the table?
                        Very similar scenario to an extent, I cannot remember the exact outcome, foul 4 and ball in hand I think. And the ref said that the "white had not left the playing surface".
                        No other balls where effected by the handling but in the OP scenario, I would have thought the pink would have been replaced to its original position to negate any positive or negative change in its position, and white as ball in hand.
                        What if, the oncoming-player coming on asked for the white to be replaced and the outgoing-player to play again? I am sure the pink would have been re-positioned, no?
                        Up the TSF! :snooker:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally Posted by DeanH View Post
                          Do you remember in the World Comp this year (I think) Graeme Dott played a shot and the white was heading into the green corner pocket but Graeme caught the white with his hand from the top opening of the pocket and placed it on the table?
                          Very similar scenario to an extent, I cannot remember the exact outcome, foul 4 and ball in hand I think. And the ref said that the "white had not left the playing surface".
                          No other balls where effected by the handling but in the OP scenario, I would have thought the pink would have been replaced to its original position to negate any positive or negative change in its position, and white as ball in hand.
                          What if, the oncoming-player coming on asked for the white to be replaced and the outgoing-player to play again? I am sure the pink would have been re-positioned, no?
                          It was discussed to death on here! But you misrecall it slightly. He put his knuckles in the pocket so instead of the cue-ball going in, it rebounded back into the table and was obviously a foul 4 (would have been anyway, for the in-off that would have occurred).

                          Because the cue-ball had never gone out of play, Mark Selby should have played it from where it landed. Alan Chamberlain's big giveaway, if Selby had cottoned onto it, was that he didn't pick up the cue-ball, give it a quick wipe and place it against the cushion for Selby to take. Selby failed to notice this – I noticed it; I was in the third row – and as soon as he picked it up Chamberlain called foul. Because he had lifted the white, it was then out of play so Dott's turn was from the D.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally Posted by The Statman View Post
                            It was discussed to death on here! But you misrecall it slightly. He put his knuckles in the pocket so instead of the cue-ball going in, it rebounded back into the table and was obviously a foul 4 (would have been anyway, for the in-off that would have occurred).

                            Because the cue-ball had never gone out of play, Mark Selby should have played it from where it landed. Alan Chamberlain's big giveaway, if Selby had cottoned onto it, was that he didn't pick up the cue-ball, give it a quick wipe and place it against the cushion for Selby to take. Selby failed to notice this – I noticed it; I was in the third row – and as soon as he picked it up Chamberlain called foul. Because he had lifted the white, it was then out of play so Dott's turn was from the D.
                            I remember now, yep the knuckle out of the top of the pocket opening, and Shelby "losing" his turn. cheers for that.
                            Up the TSF! :snooker:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally Posted by DeanH View Post
                              What if, the oncoming-player coming on asked for the white to be replaced and the outgoing-player to play again? I am sure the pink would have been re-positioned, no?
                              Well the balls could be replaced only if a Miss had been called; a Miss could be called only if the player had not hit the ball on.

                              Since the only information we have is that it was an in-off foul, we must assume that contact was made with the correct ball, so replaying the shot is not an option.

                              But yes, if it had been a Miss and replacement requested, all balls would have been replaced to their original position and, of course, the same player would have played the shot again.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X