New Rule - what does it mean?

[Souwester]

I still haven't found the time to read the new rule book from cover to cover, but in looking to answer another question (for the TSF forum) over the weekend, I came across this new rule in Section 3 Rule 11 - Fouls

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, if requested by his opponent to play again, the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) The colour on where all the Reds were off the table; or either
(iii) A colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted; or
(iv) The option of playing the next Red or Yellow when there are no Reds remaining.
Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender.

In particular I'm puzzled by part (iv).

Now in both new and old rules, the F&M rule state the options, if someone is put back into play, as being (i) (ii) and (iii) as above. Easy enough to understand.

This new rule is giving the options if the striker is hampered or snookered, so what further options is it providing? I've spoken to two very senior English tutors and neither has yet given a satisfactory explanation, so I'm awaiting a response from Alan Chamberlain as the man who was author of these new rules.

My initial thoughts are around the use, twice, of the word 'opponent' in the first few lines. The second use would seem to indicate that the *non-offender* has the choice of what the offender's ball on shall be if he puts him back into play. Obviously (i) and (ii) are self-evident, but it seems that the rule is now saying that if the offender had potted a red and was on a (any) colour when he fouled, the *non-offender* can choose whether the offender should now still have the choice of colour or make him go for a red or the yellow (if he had just potted the last red when he fouled).

Does anyone have a different interpretation?

[vmax4steve]

My interpretation is that the offender can be made to play the exact same ball that he intended to play when he committed the foul ie: will not be allowed to change his mind over which ball he wants to play unless the non offender agrees.

[Souwester]

But surely sub-section (i) says *any* red, so he can choose to play a different red to the one he intended playing before (assuming he's on a red, of course). In any case, if there are several reds in the same general direction then it's going to be impossible to stiplulate and enforce the player goes for exactly the same ball as before.

[montoya10]

I'm confused by sub-section (iii). It looks to me as if the offender chooses the color to which he would like to play for.
Sub-section (iv), however, states that, the non-offender will decide whether his opponent should play the next red or yellow if there are no reds left on the table. I'm not sure who's dictating the way, though.

[Souwester]

I'm confused by sub-section (iii). It looks to me as if the offender chooses the color to which he would like to play for.
Sub-section (iv), however, states that, the non-offender will decide whether his opponent should play the next red or yellow if there are no reds left on the table. I'm not sure who's dictating the way, though.

As I see it the non-offender can either give the offender the choice of which colour to play (ie (iii)) (if he was on a colour before fouling) or dictate that, instead, he should play the next red (or the yellow if his last red had been potted before the foul)(under part (iv)).

That's quite a significant change to the rules, should that be the case. One of the guys I spoke to had been involved in some consultation on the rules and knew nothing of it!

[wanderer]

I think I understand the rule but the wording is very confusing.

This rule has presumably been changed to account for the Ronnie O'Sullivan situation where having been snookered after potting a red and being called twice for a miss on a colour he accidentally brushed a red on his third attempt. The ref could then not call a third miss as Ronnie hadn't played a stroke. It was simply a foul and the balls couldn't be replaced. Therefore if put in again by his opponent (John Higgins I think?) Ronnie would now be on a red according to the rules, so he effectively gained an advantage by the foul.

I think the statement that "the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement" is a bit misleading, as the use of the word "namely" implies that there is no choice for the non-offender between i), ii), iii) or iv). I think that what it really means is that the non-offender has the choice of:

a) "Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender" and the offender made to play again, otherwise;

b)The balls remain as they lie (which may mean that the original ball could no longer be played as it could have been potted for example).



If the balls remain as they lie then the offender is the one who has the choices:

i) has the choice of playing any of the reds if red was the ball on (all red are effectively the same so the offender can change his mind),
ii) plays the same colour as previously if only the colours were left (if only five balls were remaining then the offender would have no choice but to play at the green again,
iii) any colour if he'd previously potted a red and fouled when on a colour (this allows for the Ronnie situation and also lets the offender change his mind on which colour to go for),
iv) a different red (if the original had been pocketed during the foul) or the yellow (if the last red had been pocketed by the foul).


I'm pretty sure that this is what the rule is trying to convey but I don't think it achieves it very clearly.

[Souwester]

I certainly think you're right that the ROS/Higgins incident prompted the inclusion of this rule, but I'm still not convinced about who has what options.

In your paraphrasing of (iv) the first part would not be needed because of course it is covered by (i).

It's the use of 'either' at the end of sub-section (ii) that confuses the issue and seems to indicate that (iii) and (iv) are applicable when the offender had previously potted a red and was on a colour when he fouled. This seems to suggest that:

- if he was on a red when he fouled, he'll still be on a red;
- if he was down to the colours, the next colour in sequence will be on;
- if he had potted a red and was on a colour, then he'll *either* be on a colour of his choice, or a red (or yellow if no reds on table).

It may well be my paraphrasing of the third point that's at fault, but it doesn't make sense if the *offender* has these options. To me, it only makes sense if the non-offender can dictate which is the ball on (which would tie in with the second use of 'opponent' in the opening lines - ie to let the offender have the choice of colour, or make him go for another red (or a yellow if he had just potted the last red).

[wanderer]

In your paraphrasing of (iv) the first part would not be needed because of course it is covered by (i).

I thought that my self at first but I suppose (i) means that the offender could play any red, ie the same red as before or a different one, whereas (iv) means the next red (as the original red been been pocketed during the foul).

It's the use of 'either' at the end of sub-section (ii) that confuses the issue and seems to indicate that (iii) and (iv) are applicable when the offender had previously potted a red and was on a colour when he fouled. This seems to suggest that:

- if he was on a red when he fouled, he'll still be on a red;
- if he was down to the colours, the next colour in sequence will be on;
- if he had potted a red and was on a colour, then he'll *either* be on a colour of his choice, or a red (or yellow if no reds on table).

I understand your point more clearly now. Yes, the word "either" does seem confusing and as you say implies what you have written in the part of the quote above I've put in bold if there was only one player allowed to play next, but the rule of "ball on" has to allow for the fact that the next shot could be played by either player depending on whether the offender is put back in again.

So, parts (iii) and (iv) seems to allow for a colour to be the ball on if the offender is asked to play again, or a red (yellow if no reds on table) if the non-offender elects to play as the balls lie. The word "option" in part (iv) lends strength to his interpretation as it would be the non-offender's option to play the next shot himself and take a red.

[Souwester]

So, parts (iii) and (iv) seems to allow for a colour to be the ball on if the offender is asked to play again, or a red (yellow if no reds on table) if the non-offender elects to play as the balls lie. The word "option" in part (iv) lends strength to his interpretation as it would be the non-offender's option to play the next shot himself and take a red.

But the whole section (i) is relating to an offender is asked to play again:

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, if requested by his opponent to play again, the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement, namely:...

So, I'm not sure that your interpretation is correct. It seems only relevant to the offender playing again.

[Souwester]

I'm glad I started this topic, since it has proven that I'm not the only one who is having difficulty understanding what is meant. God help the poor buggers for whom English is not the first language!

I look forward to receiving the official interpretation of what this rule means.

[wanderer]

In your paraphrasing of (iv) the first part would not be needed because of course it is covered by (i).

Actually ignore the first comment in my last post re the above as I had an epiphany moment half way through writing that post that led me to be able to clarify your main point in the second part and didn't go back to check the rest of my post made sense.

Having understood what parts (iii) and (iv) actually mean part (i) makes more sense now.

(i) allows for the offender to be put back in and to play any red
(iv) allows for the non-offender to take the shot and therefore play the "next" red.

This is a very hard to read rule but I suppose all it is trying to achieve is to allow the ball on to be defined after a foul for many different scenarios using a single rule.

[wanderer]

You're right as was typing out another post as you replied :-)

[Souwester]

I remember the pre 1995 rule book, and obviously well-versed in the 1995 rules, but I don't think I've ever struggled so much with a rule as I am with this one! And I thought this new version was supposed to clear up a lot of the ambiguity of the 1995 rules!

[Terry Davidson]

Souwester:

I hope you can get Alan C to explain this one a little more clearly and then pass that on to the rest of us, as I am totally confused by the (iv) and (v) and I do get called upon to referee matches quite frequently and would hate to make a mistake!

Terry

[Souwester]

Souwester:

I hope you can get Alan C to explain this one a little more clearly and then pass that on to the rest of us, as I am totally confused by the (iv) and (v) and I do get called upon to referee matches quite frequently and would hate to make a mistake!

Terry

That might be difficult, because there isn't a (v) ;-)

Of course, I'll post AC's clarification when received.