Angled after a foul

[wanderer]

However, if the balls were situated as in my first post, I wouldn't be able to advise you as far as I'm aware since I can't offer advice regarding the rules, and the onus would be on you to know that you cannot be snookered by the cushion so a free ball cannot be called. I do feel it would be ok though for me to say "I didn't declare a free ball". Seems a bit pedantic really in the cold light of day but maybe on of the more experienced refs can comment, if they haven't already (I'm not the quickest typist).

Actually in hindsight I think my last paragraph was rubbish. I wouldn't have to offer rule advice and could simply say "no" if you asked. A simple answer to a simple question.

[poolqjunkie]

If I ask you is it a free ball I believe as a ref you need to give me a yes and no answer, is that correct? And if I do not agree or understand your decision, I could ask you why, dont I?
When two players are playing without a thrid person appointed as the ref it is my understanding that the non striker is the ref according to the rules.
For example, in a regular free ball situation if I as a player believe I can see both edges of the ball but you as the ref said no, we can place a ball there and find out together, right?
Anyway, in this incidence unless the blue ball was right in front of the hole most people would ask the fouling player to shoot again.
If I elect to shoot but I did not hear a free ball being called, I would not assume.
But if I believe it is a free ball and you say no, I would politely ask you why. I believe I am within my right to do so. If you just say "no" and walk away then I would ask someone else to come over the examine the situation and explain to me why it is not a free ball. You dont have to explain the rule but when asked you should out of courtesy explain the ground for your ruling, in my opinion.
If I was the ref and the player said "blue" I would say I never call a free ball. I think it is only the right thing to do.
This situation is very odd, and different ref might rule differently so it warrants an explaination to the player.
Just saying "no" and then offer no further explaination is not what a ref on TV would act I believe.

[Souwester]

If I ask you is it a free ball I believe as a ref you need to give me a yes and no answer, is that correct? And if I do not agree or understand your decision, I could ask you why, dont I?
When two players are playing without a thrid person appointed as the ref it is my understanding that the non striker is the ref according to the rules.
For example, in a regular free ball situation if I as a player believe I can see both edges of the ball but you as the ref said no, we can place a ball there and find out together, right?
Anyway, in this incidence unless the blue ball was right in front of the hole most people would ask the fouling player to shoot again.
If I elect to shoot but I did not hear a free ball being called, I would not assume.
But if I believe it is a free ball and you say no, I would politely ask you why. I believe I am within my right to do so. If you just say "no" and walk away then I would ask someone else to come over the examine the situation and explain to me why it is not a free ball. You dont have to explain the rule but when asked you should out of courtesy explain the ground for your ruling, in my opinion.
If I was the ref and the player said "blue" I would say I never call a free ball. I think it is only the right thing to do.
This situation is very odd, and different ref might rule differently so it warrants an explaination to the player.
Just saying "no" and then offer no further explaination is not what a ref on TV would act I believe.

If a player asks me if he has a free ball I would probably state "I did not call a free ball".

Yes, the rules do provide for the non-striker to act as the referee in social games.

S3 r19 (c) When there is no referee, such as in a social game, the opposing player or side will be regarded as such for the purpose of these Rules.

If a player doesn't understand any decision I make during a match, then I will offer to explain the rules and the circumstances fully at the end of the match, but I won't get into a protracted discussion during the course of the match. However, if *both* players are unsure of the rules in a particular situation then I would briefly explain to them both.

[poolqjunkie]

If a player asks me if he has a free ball I would probably state "I did not call a free ball".

Yes, the rules do provide for the non-striker to act as the referee in social games.

S3 r19 (c) When there is no referee, such as in a social game, the opposing player or side will be regarded as such for the purpose of these Rules.

If a player doesn't understand any decision I make during a match, then I will offer to explain the rules and the circumstances fully at the end of the match, but I won't get into a protracted discussion during the course of the match. However, if *both* players are unsure of the rules in a particular situation then I would briefly explain to them both.

Thank you.

I was just confused as I have seen players asked the ref before why a call was made (such as foul but not foul and a miss...etc) and the ref would briefly explained it--and sometimes even changed his ruling--during a match.

As sometimes a ref(especially when the ref is not a pro ref but one appointed in a league game) might make a mistake if he would only go over his decision after the match doesn't that put the players at an unfair position when the ref has indeed made a mistake?

What is the official rule of asking the ref to explain his ruling in the middle of a game? If I do not agree with the call (e.g. the player has fouled but the ref did not call it, or if the player has not fouled but a wrong call was made, or if it should not be a free ball b ut the ref said it was, or vice versa...etc), is there anything I can do before the next shot?

My first reaction to this situation was exactly like Terry Davidson's. I believed one cannot be snookered by the cushion so I would (if I was a ref) call a free ball. If I am a ref when this situation arises and I make the call of a free ball and the player disagrees with me, I would not mind to go over the rule book to make sure I have made the right call before the next shot as I think it is only fair (and that is the only point of being a ref--to be fair, right?) that I do not make any mistake and give one player an unfair advantage. If one player knows I am wrong but remains silent because he knows my call would benefit him, that will not stop me from trying to find out the correct rule to apply instead of waiting until after the match when nothing could really be done as the match is then over.

I am not sure if this is the right procedure to follow, just staying this is what I would do.

[wanderer]

Sorry poolqjunkie, I probably shouldn't have replied to your earlier post as since it was so brief I wasn't really sure which previous comment you were referring to.

As Souwester points out, S3 rule 19(c) does provide for the opposing player to be regarded as the referee, so I stand corrected. Realistically though I can't imagine a social opponent ever fully adopting the role of the referee by not being able to "give advice or opinion" as neither player would be expected to be an expert on the rules.

Anyway, in this incidence unless the blue ball was right in front of the hole most people would ask the fouling player to shoot again.

It seems to me now that you were referring to my first post, so yes, I was implying the blue was hanging over the green pocket.

If I was the ref and the player said "blue" I would say I never call a free ball. I think it is only the right thing to do.

This was really the main point of my initial post. Could I as a referee really say this, as I would be preventing the player from playing a foul and this would contravene S5 rule 1(b)(ii) "give any indication that a player is about to make a foul stroke". I don't think that within the laws of the game I could comment, unless maybe asked specifically if I had called a free ball (if for example the player wasn't sure what he had heard in a noisy room) or if maybe the player had asked if I had heard his nomination (as Souwester suggested earlier) and I would only be able to say "yes I heard you" but couldn't actually tell him that he wasn't able to nominate in this scenario.

As you say, it is a very odd situation, and that's why I thought it may make a good talking point.

[wanderer]

What is the official rule of asking the ref to explain his ruling in the middle of a game? If I do not agree with the call (e.g. the player has fouled but the ref did not call it, or if the player has not fouled but a wrong call was made, or if it should not be a free ball b ut the ref said it was, or vice versa...etc), is there anything I can do before the next shot?

My first reaction to this situation was exactly like Terry Davidson's. I believed one cannot be snookered by the cushion so I would (if I was a ref) call a free ball. If I am a ref when this situation arises and I make the call of a free ball and the player disagrees with me, I would not mind to go over the rule book to make sure I have made the right call before the next shot as I think it is only fair (and that is the only point of being a ref--to be fair, right?) that I do not make any mistake and give one player an unfair advantage. If one player knows I am wrong but remains silent because he knows my call would benefit him, that will not stop me from trying to find out the correct rule to apply instead of waiting until after the match when nothing could really be done as the match is then over.

I am not sure if this is the right procedure to follow, just staying this is what I would do.

I had thought about this a lot before making my original post and I had come to the conclusion that playing in a lower league as I do, and with noboby being a rules expert, if the player had got down and simply played the blue assuming it to be a free-ball I would call foul 5 points (no free ball as we don't use the free ball rule unless somebody could hit it full ball). If, however, he had nominated blue I would have remained silent until after the shot and then asked play to be stopped for a few seconds while i consulted with both captains to explain my understanding of the rule and ensure an amicable resolution from both sides (given I'd have been a ref from the home side). If agreement couldn't be reached I would say that as the referee I am the sole judge of fair play and therefore I'd impose a 5 point foul. If either home or away team disagreed with me they would then be free to take it to the league officials for a ruling (but that could get really messy if they decided I was wrong).

I'm not saying this approach would be right or wrong but I think it would be my course of action.

[poolqjunkie]

This was really the main point of my initial post. Could I as a referee really say this, as I would be preventing the player from playing a foul and this would contravene S5 rule 1(b)(ii) "give any indication that a player is about to make a foul stroke". I don't think that within the laws of the game I could comment, unless maybe asked specifically if I had called a free ball (if for example the player wasn't sure what he had heard in a noisy room) or if maybe the player had asked if I had heard his nomination (as Souwester suggested earlier) and I would only be able to say "yes I heard you" but couldn't actually tell him that he wasn't able to nominate in this scenario.

As you say, it is a very odd situation, and that's why I thought it may make a good talking point.

Yes, I can see your point more clearly. It is indeed a tricky situation.
Now, if I say blue and you say, "I did not call a free ball" it would be like telling a player "you should be playing a colour, not a red" so I agree with your point and I stand corrected. I am glad you have raised this point so I will not make this mistake in the future, thank you.
I agree you are right that you need to stay quiet when he gets down and shoot the blue.
However, if he looks at you, and say, " this is a free ball, right?" I suppose you really cannot just ignore him.
What if he asks you "why didn't you call a free ball, I believe it should be a free ball.." then what are you as a ref supposed to do? You are not there to explain the rules but as I asked in my previous post should a ref briefly explain the ground of his ruling when asked by the players, especially when a common agreement cannot be reached?
Once again, thanks for the wonderful topic and I would like to hear what others think. Thanks

[wanderer]

However, if he looks at you, and say, " this is a free ball, right?" I suppose you really cannot just ignore him.

That is another good question, especially seeing as most lower league refs (using the loosest term), who are in fact nothing more than normal players standing in to mark the scoreboard, don't really know the rules either and I really don't know what I should do in that situation for definite. I feel that I would have to say "I didn't call a free ball" and leave him to draw his own conclusions, as otherwise I would be drawn into the angled/snookered debate, although I'm sure most "amateur refs" would get into a discussion about it as they wouldn't know the rule in the first place.

I have actually posed my original question to six local league players so far that I know are capable players and who have been in the game for years (one has managed a 135 break) yet they all said the cushion-brown-yellow scenario was a free ball and they would have called it so if refereeing. So I guess in most frames it would have gone un-noticed as both ref and player was oblivious to the rules.

Whilst the rules are drafted to apply to both amateur and pro players alike it really is only when the top quality refs become involved that things like this become common knowledge.

[poolqjunkie]

That is another good question, especially seeing as most lower league refs (using the loosest term), who are in fact nothing more than normal players standing in to mark the scoreboard, don't really know the rules either and I really don't know what I should do in that situation for definite. I feel that I would have to say "I didn't call a free ball" and leave him to draw his own conclusions, as otherwise I would be drawn into the angled/snookered debate, although I'm sure most "amateur refs" would get into a discussion about it as they wouldn't know the rule in the first place.

I have actually posed my original question to six local league players so far that I know are capable players and who have been in the game for years (one has managed a 135 break) yet they all said the cushion-brown-yellow scenario was a free ball and they would have called it so if refereeing. So I guess in most frames it would have gone un-noticed as both ref and player was oblivious to the rules.

Whilst the rules are drafted to apply to both amateur and pro players alike it really is only when the top quality refs become involved that things like this become common knowledge.

If I did not read this thread I would have thought that as one cannot be snookered by a cushion it is a free ball for sure, too. So, thanks for bringing this up. Knowledge is power and it is good to learn something new.
If you say, ' I did not call a free ball" he may ask "why not, it is free ball, right?" ..
Your response sort of implies that it is in your opinion as the ref not a free ball so in a way you are kind of indirectly suggesting to him if he shoots a free ball he will foul. So, in a way, once he asked you, and you try to answer him, he probably will not take the blue...but he may ask you why because he probably believes it should be a free ball.
What would a ref on TV do say if he did not call a free ball and one of the players asked him why...will he try to explain it or will he say I will explain this after the match. And if it is the latter, is that supposed to be the end of the discussion? Can the player challenge the decision and ask the head ref for a second opinion if he feels that he should be awarded a free ball?

[The Statman]

To me, the wording of the rules do agree with what The Statman and Souwester have said.

On the surface of it, it seems that the rules are on the one hand ignoring the obstructing cushion and then on the next taking it into account, and that probably seems unfair/wrong to many people. I am personally on the fence about how fair/unfair it might be.

On the one hand you could say; If the cushion cannot "snooker" you then surely it should be ignored when determining whether you're "snookered". (This is basically what I think Terry and others are suggesting)

On the other; If you cannot physically play the white directly into the obstructing ball, then it's clearly not actually obstructing you, something else (the cushion) is. (This is what the current rules reflect I believe).

So, which is a more fair way of ruling it? I am on the fence.

Yes. But I guess it would seem odd to say you are snookered (and can have a free ball) because the brown is in the way, when in fact you can't hit the brown!


The subparagraph at the end of the rule, saying "If the curved face of the cushion is a closer obstruction than a ball not on, to the cue-ball, then it is not a free ball" makes it very clear.

All this talk of "ignoring the cushion" is a bit misplaced. It is taken into account but it is not a situation which results in a free ball.

[Souwester]

As I've said before, if a player asks for an explanation for any decision I make as referee, then I would always say that I'll explain fully after the match, because by doing so during the match could mean that his new knowledge stops him from committing a further foul.

It is definitely a no-no to get a rule book out during a match and start poring over it to demonstrate why you've made your decision.

If a player persistently asks for an explanation I would firmly ask him to continue with the match. It is perhaps worth quoting the first part of section 4 of the rules, because if the player refuses to accept the decision and continue playing he can be warned and possibly lose the frame.

SECTION 4 THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
(a) In the event of:
(i) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the selection of a stroke; or
(ii) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(iii) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to ungentlemanly conduct; or
(iv) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(v) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(vi) award the frame to his opponent; or
(vii) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious, award the game to his opponent.

I think in all my years of refereeing I have only warned a player in these circumstances just once. That as probably about 15 years ago now. There were plenty of reds on the table with one sitting a hair's breadth away from the black which was on its spot. The player potted a (different) red then the black, then another red, and when he came to play the black he found the red was now touching it. He complained vehemently that the red should not be touching the black. I repeatedly stated that they had not been touching when I last spotted the black and finally warned him that he'd lose the frame if he didn't continue, which he then did.

[nrage]

Yes. But I guess it would seem odd to say you are snookered (and can have a free ball) because the brown is in the way, when in fact you can't hit the brown!

I just said that "On the other; ..."

The subparagraph at the end of the rule, saying "If the curved face of the cushion is a closer obstruction than a ball not on, to the cue-ball, then it is not a free ball" makes it very clear.

I said that too "To me, the wording of the rules do agree with what The Statman and Souwester have said."..

All this talk of "ignoring the cushion" is a bit misplaced. It is taken into account but it is not a situation which results in a free ball.

You're right. You would have to actually ignore the cushion to say the brown was snookering you, because it can only snooker you if the cushion is not there (being ignored).

I think the "ignore the cushion" thought/idea comes from the rule which states the cushion cannot snooker you, upon reading that you might think "ignore the cushion when deciding if there is a snooker" and thus this discussion is born. But, the rule doesn't actually tell you to ignore the cushion, in fact quite the opposite.

But, that's probably where the idea comes from I guess.

[The Statman]

nrage - Yes, I was actually agreeing with you!

[nrage]

nrage - Yes, I was actually agreeing with you!

LOL, oh, right, sorry.