New Rule - what does it mean?

[wanderer]

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!

No. Very confusing.

To summarise my ramblings into hopefully one coherent thread. Feel free to disagree if you are reading the rule differently ....

"(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) Regardless of whether the non-offender elects to play himself or puts the offender back in, any Red, where Red was the ball on;

(ii) Regardless of whether the non-offender elects to play himself or puts the offender back in, the colour on where all the Reds were off the table

(iii) If the non-offender chooses to put the offender back in, a colour of the offender’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted

(iv) If the non-offender elects to play the next shot himself, the option of playing the next Red or Yellow when there are no Reds remaining.


It's a strange rule in that it isn't really stating what should happen, merely what the "ball on" could be in different scenarios.

[Souwester]

I think we'll have to agree to differ about (iv), because surely if the non-offender chooses to play himself, his options are simply covered by (i) and (ii): (iv) is not giving him any further options and in that context would be entirely superfluous. If there is one or more red on the table he can play whichever red he chooses, if there isn't a red left then he has to play at the colour on, which may or may not be the yellow.

[wanderer]

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.

Didn't read this post properly first time around. The wording is again ambiguous but to me means ....... If the striker is preparing to take a shot after being put back in by his opponent to play again, but makes a foul before making a stroke, then the opponent shall have the choices ............ etc ..........etc

[Souwester]

Didn't read this post properly first time around. The wording is again ambiguous but to me means ....... If the striker is preparing to take a shot after being put back in by his opponent to play again, but makes a foul before making a stroke, then the opponent shall have the choices ............ etc ..........etc

Hmmm, that's a new slant. But I interpret it thus...

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, is then 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:...

A very interesting discussion that could go on forever...

[wanderer]

I think we'll have to agree to differ about (iv), because surely if the non-offender chooses to play himself, his options are simply covered by (i) and (ii): (iv) is not giving him any further options and in that context would be entirely superfluous. If there is one or more red on the table he can play whichever red he chooses, if there isn't a red left then he has to play at the colour on, which may or may not be the yellow.

Except that if the non-offender chose to play again it would be classed as the next turn at the table so he would be playing the next red. Bit pedantic I know.

Also, I think that the yellow is the only colour that this rule would apply to as it allows for the fact that the last red could be pocketed during the foul and would stay off the table so yellow would be the new ball on. If red and yellow were pocketed during the foul the yellow would be replaced and still be the new ball on. If the non-offender elects to play again he can never obviously be on a colour unless only the colours remain.

[Souwester]

Except that if the non-offender chose to play again it would be classed as the next turn at the table so he would be playing the next red. Bit pedantic I know.

Also, I think that the yellow is the only colour that this rule would apply to as it allows for the fact that the last red could be pocketed during the foul and would stay off the table so yellow would be the new ball on. If red and yellow were pocketed during the foul the yellow would be replaced and still be the new ball on. If the non-offender elects to play again he can never obviously be on a colour unless only the colours remain.

I can see your point, but to me 'next' implies the following one in a defined sequence. Having said that, the use of 'next' seems a bit strange even in my interpretation of the rule.

[wanderer]

Hmmm, that's a new slant. But I interpret it thus...

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, is then 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:...

A very interesting discussion that could go on forever...

Surely could so I'll keep quiet for a while now :-) All I'd say is it you read my summary post on the assumption that the offender was already playing again when making the foul it all seems to make sense.

[The Statman]

I think I do understand but I think it is clumsily worded.

I think, if the ball on was red, then it had to be a red (of the striker's choice) when he is put in again (what else can it be?)
When a colour after reds have gone, then again it has to be the relevant colour (again, what else can it be?)
The choice of the non-offender comes in when the offender had been playing colour after a red. In THIS case, the non-offender can choose whether the offender should play
- a colour of his choice (as in, when a Miss is called, having the balls replaced) [but not WHICH colour - the words 'striker's choice' are still there]
OR
- the next red (or if no red remains, the yellow) (as in, just asking him to play again after a foul)

The only material difference is that the ball(s) disturbed can be [Edit:] REPLACED [not removed as I wrote initially].

I think it would be better worded like this, assuming my interpretation is correct:

(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 ball on shall be the following:
- (i) where Red was the ball on, any red;
- (ii) where all the Reds were off the table, the colour on; or
- (iii) where the ball on was a colour after a red, the non-offender's choice of either:
----- A colour of the striker’s choice; or
----- 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.

[wanderer]

(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 ball on shall be the following:
- (i) where Red was the ball on, any red;
- (ii) where all the Reds were off the table, the colour on; or
- (iii) where the ball on was a colour after a red, the non-offender's choice of either:
----- A colour of the striker’s choice; or
----- 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.

Statman,

I know I said I'd stay quiet for a while a few posts back but I just can't see that the rules would allow the non-offender to specify his opponent's next shot in this way. Surely there is no other snooker rule that allows this.

I agree with everyone that the wording should be improved on this rule but if, as I think, the rule was brought in to prevent a similar O'Sullivan scenario (in which he fouled whilst already in the process of playing again after two misses), then I really do think that
"(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:" means the striker fouled whilst already playing again. I think that parts (iii) and (iv) of the rule are effectively specifying what the ball on would be if either the non-offender decided to play the next shot or instead put his opponent back in for a second time.

To me this could be remedied by simply removing the comma between "stroke" and "if" as highlighted.

[Terry Davidson]

See how confusing this is (and I am)?

Statman:

In your interpretation immediately above, under (iii) if we use the example of Ronnie vs Higgins, Ronnie has potted a red and is snookered (by remaining reds) on all colours and misses a colour (green I think it was) - so 'F&M'). Higgins has Ronnie play from the original position again with the balls replaced. So (iiia) means now Ronnie can elect another colour (same as it always was).

BUT under (iiib) what you're saying the rule means is that after Ronnie fouled the ball with his hand, the non-offender (Higgins) can have Ronnie play a red if Higgins chooses (not much sense there is there?) or under (iiia)have Ronnie shoot again for a colour of Ronnie's choice.

That's the main change I guess, in that after potting a red and then fouling with his hand, Higgins has the choice to have Ronnie shoot the next red (which would make sense if Ronnie was frozen on the black or something and snookered on all reds). Looks like Allan C was trying to cover every outcome of fouling with the hand when on a series of F&Ms.

Have I got that right?

Terry

[wanderer]

Guys have a look at Section 3 Rule 14(d).

(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, and the striker fouls any ball, including the cue-ball while preparing to play a stroke, a miss will not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate penalty will be imposed and the ball on shall be the same as prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table; or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted;
and
(iv) the next player may elect to play the stroke himself or ask the offender to play again from the position left; or
(v) the next player may ask the referee to replace all balls moved to their original position and have the offender play again from there; and
(vi) if the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls, any warning concerning the possible awarding of the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.

It seems that the Rule 11 we are discussing is merely stating what the ball on would be in each of these scenarios.

[Souwester]

See how confusing this is (and I am)?

Statman:

In your interpretation immediately above, under (iii) if we use the example of Ronnie vs Higgins, Ronnie has potted a red and is snookered (by remaining reds) on all colours and misses a colour (green I think it was) - so 'F&M'). Higgins has Ronnie play from the original position again with the balls replaced. So (iiia) means now Ronnie can elect another colour (same as it always was).

BUT under (iiib) what you're saying the rule means is that after Ronnie fouled the ball with his hand, the non-offender (Higgins) can have Ronnie play a red if Higgins chooses (not much sense there is there?) or under (iiia)have Ronnie shoot again for a colour of Ronnie's choice.

That's the main change I guess, in that after potting a red and then fouling with his hand, Higgins has the choice to have Ronnie shoot the next red (which would make sense if Ronnie was frozen on the black or something and snookered on all reds). Looks like Allan C was trying to cover every outcome of fouling with the hand when on a series of F&Ms.

Have I got that right?

Terry

Just to confuse matters, the wording in my original post relates to fouls in general, but this is the wording that (still) exists in relation to the F&M rule:

(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, and the striker fouls any ball, including the cue-ball while preparing to play a stroke, a miss will not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate penalty will be imposed and the ball on shall be the same as prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table; or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted;
and
(iv) the next player may elect to play the stroke himself or ask the offender to play again from the position left; or
(v) the next player may ask the referee to replace all balls moved to their original position and have the offender play again from there; and
(vi) if the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls, any warning concerning the possible awarding of the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.

No mention of what we have in s3 r11(i)(iv)!

[Souwester]

Sorry, Wanderer, hadn't refreshed my page before my last post!

[The Statman]

I think I do understand but I think it is clumsily worded.

I think, if the ball on was red, then it had to be a red (of the striker's choice) when he is put in again (what else can it be?)
When a colour after reds have gone, then again it has to be the relevant colour (again, what else can it be?)
The choice of the non-offender comes in when the offender had been playing colour after a red. In THIS case, the non-offender can choose whether the offender should play
- a colour of his choice (as in, when a Miss is called, having the balls replaced) [but not WHICH colour - the words 'striker's choice' are still there]
OR
- the next red (or if no red remains, the yellow) (as in, just asking him to play again after a foul)

The only material difference is that the ball(s) disturbed can be [Edit:] REPLACED [not removed as I wrote initially].

I think it would be better worded like this, assuming my interpretation is correct:

(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 ball on shall be the following:
- (i) where Red was the ball on, any red;
- (ii) where all the Reds were off the table, the colour on; or
- (iii) where the ball on was a colour after a red, the non-offender's choice of either:
----- A colour of the striker’s choice; or
----- 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.

Statman,

I know I said I'd stay quiet for a while a few posts back but I just can't see that the rules would allow the non-offender to specify his opponent's next shot in this way. Surely there is no other snooker rule that allows this.

I agree with everyone that the wording should be improved on this rule but if, as I think, the rule was brought in to prevent a similar O'Sullivan scenario (in which he fouled whilst already in the process of playing again after two misses), then I really do think that
"(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:" means the striker fouled whilst already playing again. I think that parts (iii) and (iv) of the rule are effectively specifying what the ball on would be if either the non-offender decided to play the next shot or instead put his opponent back in for a second time.

To me this could be remedied by simply removing the comma between "stroke" and "if" as highlighted.

Yes it is mightily confusing and worded very badly whatever is intended!

Specifically replying to your paragraph which I have highlighted in red:

If the "new" part of the rule is essentially saying that the ball(s) disturbed can be replaced, and the offender made to attempt the same shot from the same position (i.e. degree of difficulty because of hamper), then the offender is going to have to make his intentions clear, as to whether he is invoking the new rule (re-place the obstruction and play the shot again) in which case the ball on would be as it was before - colour after red; or whether he is merely putting the offender in again - which has always been an option - in which case the ball on would be the natural ball on when coming to the table for the opening shot of a turn.

I am likening it to a position where you have potted a red and, as you play your colour (let's say pink) you feather the white - which is a stroke and therefore a Miss - but the cue-ball moves so marginally that it rocks back into its original position.

I, as the oncoming player, have three options - play it myself; put you in again; or have the balls replaced and you take the stroke again.

Since the cue-ball has not moved, it is a very important distinction whether I have the ball 'replaced' - which means you have to go for a colour, or simply ask you to 'play again' (option after any foul) in which case you're going for a red.

I think all this rule (as I interpret it) achieves is to say that at any time if you nudge a ball while cueing up, it can be replaced and you can have the shot again.

[Souwester]

I've had this response from the EASB, which apparently has come from Alan Chamberlain in response to my enquiry.

Should the striker commit a foul after succesfully potting a Red, the non-striker has the option of requesting him to play a Red OR if it was the last (15th) Red, then the non-striker has the option of requesting the offender to play the Yellow - these are in addition to his other normal options.

So this confirms the final interpretation I made. After a foul, the non-offender is now given the option of whether the offender has a choice of colours (as per normal) or whether he is now required to play the next red (or yellow) instead.