New Rule - what does it mean?

[alant]

I think Statman has it right.

Previously the rule was that a request to play again started a new turn and therefore the ball on was a red or the next colour if all reds had been potted.
The new rule states that "the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement". The key word here is choice, If a player pots a red and then with a choice of colour on fouls a ball preparing to make the next stroke his opponent can choose to make him play a colour or another red (or Yellow if no more reds).
As a qualified referee, my problem is what to do if the opponent simply says 'play again'.
Should we assume he has not exercised his choice and a new turn is started as before?
What if the player then plays a red and the opponent claims a foul stating that he meant him to play a colour?
Alternatively what if the player then plays a colour and the opponent claims a foul stating that he meant him to play a red.?

Basically if the opponent has a choice as to what ball is on then this must be made clear to the referee and the offending player.
As referees we are not meant to give any indication that a player is about to make a foul stroke or give any advice or opinion on points affecting play but surely for the referee to state, in these circumstances, "ball on is red" would not be advice but simply communicating the opponents choice?

[DawRef]

My brain hurts.

[HemiRR]

Unlikely that this would be the intention of the rule as this would be a hasher penalty than a regular foul & miss

eg1 player pots red & is snookered on all colours & attempts to hit yellow by using a long spider rest - foul & miss called player is put back; player again attempts yellow and another foul & miss is called. On the 3rd attempt the player decides that the shot is too difficult and chooses a different escape and nominates the green. This is perfectly within the rules.

eg2 player pots red & is snookered on all colours & attempts to hit yellow by using a long spider rest- foul & miss called player is put back; player again nominates yellow but touches a red when placing long spider rest. Under the new rule the non-offender chooses to have the offender attempt the same on ball (ie any colour) If you are correct then the player could not choose a different colour, the same as they could have in eg1. This would create an anomolous application of the rules and and would in effect be a harsher penalty.

[The Statman]

Unlikely that this would be the intention of the rule as this would be a hasher penalty than a regular foul & miss

eg1 player pots red & is snookered on all colours & attempts to hit yellow by using a long spider rest - foul & miss called player is put back; player again attempts yellow and another foul & miss is called. On the 3rd attempt the player decides that the shot is too difficult and chooses a different escape and nominates the green. This is perfectly within the rules.

eg2 player pots red & is snookered on all colours & attempts to hit yellow by using a long spider rest- foul & miss called player is put back; player again nominates yellow but touches a red when placing long spider rest. Under the new rule the non-offender chooses to have the offender attempt the same on ball (ie any colour) If you are correct then the player could not choose a different colour, the same as they could have in eg1. This would create an anomolous application of the rules and and would in effect be a harsher penalty.

I don't think it's saying that.

I think it's saying that the non-offender can choose whether the offender goes for the same as before (i.e. a colour, of the offender's choice) - i.e. similar to if a miss was called and it was replaced - or to go for a red - i.e. similar to if the miss had not been taken and the player was just asked to 'play again' as after any foul.

[Souwester]

Yes, Statman is right. the *non-offender* has the choice, if he puts the offender back in, of the offender still having a choice of colour *or* play at a red (or yellow if he had potted the last red with his previous lawful stroke).

The interpretation *is* correct because it has come from the horse's mouth - the author of the new rules (Alan Chamberlain)!

[alant]

Souwester,

OK, you, Statman and I agree on the interpretation of the new rule and Alan Chamberlain confirms it. Good.

But I still have the problem of how the referee should act (see my previous post).

[Souwester]

It's a difficult one, and I think there probably has to be some leniency until players become familiar with the new rule.

I think I'd be tempted to ask the non-offender if he wishes the offender to continue (ie still have choice of colour) or play again (ie go for the ball on as it would be at the start of a new turn, as it would normally be when a player says 'play again'). However, having just written that it's made me realise that the default option for saying 'play again' should be to go for the ball on, because the foul has technically ended the offender's turn and by being asked to play again that is a new turn.

The non-offender has the new option of asking him to continue as if the foul had not been committed, with his usual choice of colours to play at, and it is his downfall if he doesn't know that he has that option of saying 'continue with a colour'. You wouldn't coach the player in other options he didn't know about (like being able to snooker behind black as free ball when only pink and black are left) so why give him any indication that he has further options?

I suppose the real question is, does 'play again' make it clear enough what's intended. I think most players know what it has always meant, and if a non-offender wanted to exercise his new option he needs to say something more specific.

[alant]

I agree that the referee should not give any advice to the offenders opponent as to his options, this has always been the case. But the offender has the right to be told what decision his opponent has made, (he may have been at the other end of the table when the referee was told for instance).
On reflection, I think when this situation occurs when I am refereeing I will state which ball I believe to be on before the offender plays his next shot.

Actually that raises another question. Can the opponent change his mind which ball is on? He cannot withdraw the request to play again but nothing is mentioned about choosing the ball on.