A refereeing dilemma

[The Statman]

A player tries to play a thin safety off the pack, but misses the pack entirely and on the way back nudges the blue. The referee immediately - corectly - calls Foul and a Miss.

He then correctly waits until the balls have stopped moving before announcing the penalty and also sees that a Free Ball had almost certainly been left.

However, after the initial call of Foul, the opponent has said "Back, please" and that is a decision which cannot be rescinded. There is a strong likelihood that he would have preferred to take a free ball if he had waited for it to be awarded.

Would you, as the referee:
- not even check for the free ball because the player has already indicated that he wants the balls replaced (his tough luck for not waiting)
- check and award the Free Ball and then look to the opponent to indicate what he wants to do (he should have the full facts available before being invited to decide)?
- or some other course of action?

[Souwester]

Personally I would not react to his request, but check for the free ball and announce it if appropriate and then look to/ask him for his choice. I think a decision on whether a free ball situation exists has to be made before the player can finally decide what should happen next. Can you imagine the criticism the referee would get if this was a televised match and he failed to call a free ball?

[The Statman]

Personally I would not react to his request, but check for the free ball and announce it if appropriate and then look to/ask him for his choice. I think a decision on whether a free ball situation exists has to be made before the player can finally decide what should happen next. Can you imagine the criticism the referee would get if this was a televised match and he failed to call a free ball?

That's what I thought, and I certainly avoid making eye contact with the oncoming player until after the shot is completed and the decision (free ball) made.

However, if the player has loudly said "Back please", can you imagine the criticism if the referee appeared to be allowing the player to change his mind?

I believe the Rules are now worded such that a Miss replacement, as with 'play again' cannot now be rescinded once made?

[Souwester]

I believe the Rules are now worded such that a Miss replacement, as with 'play again' cannot now be rescinded once made?

Indeed:

13. Play Again
Once a player has requested an opponent to play again after a foul or requested the replacement of ball(s) after a Foul and a Miss, such request cannot be withdrawn. The offender, having been asked to play again, is entitled to:
(a) change his mind as to:
(i) which stroke he will play; and
(ii) which ball on he will attempt to hit;
(b) score points for any ball or balls he may pot.

[Souwester]

I suppose it's getting into semantics...

Has the offender's turn ended before the referee has announced 'free ball'? After all, S2 r6 now states:

6. Stroke
(a) A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue.
(b) A stroke is fair when no infringement of Rule is made.
(c) A stroke is not completed until:
(i) all balls have come to rest;
(ii) the striker has stood up, in readiness for a succeeding stroke, or leaving the table;
(iii) any equipment being used by the striker has been removed from a hazardous position; and
(iv) the referee has called any score relevant to the stroke.
(d) A stroke may be made directly or indirectly, thus:
(i) a stroke is direct when the cue-ball strikes an object ball without first striking a cushion;
(ii) a stroke is indirect when the cue-ball strikes one or more cushions before striking an object ball.
(e) Following the final stroke of the opponent’s turn, if an incoming player plays a stroke/strikes the cue-ball before the balls have come to rest, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker, and his visit to the table shall end.

And of course, S2 r5 now makes it clear that the striker remains so until completion of the final stroke of his turn.

5. Striker and Turn
The person about to play or in play is the striker and remains so until the final stroke, or foul, of his turn is complete and the referee is satisfied that he has finally left the table. If a non-striker comes to the table, out of turn, he shall be considered as the striker for any foul he may commit before leaving the table. When the referee is satisfied that the above conditions have been met, the incoming striker’s turn begins. His turn and his right to play another stroke ends when:
(a) he fails to score from a stroke; or
(b) he commits a foul; or
(c) he requests the opponent to play again after his opponent has committed a foul.

I think I would argue that it calling of 'free ball' is part of the announcement of the scores. Indeed I would normally check for a free ball before announcing the score, and make the call 'Joe Bloggs 23, John Smith 4, free ball' as one statement. Therefore, I would argue that as it's not the offender's turn until after I've called 'free ball' he is not in a position to make any decision as to what happens next: only the striker can do that (inferred from s2 r5(c)).

I stand by my original statement.

[The Statman]

Thanks, Souwester - for what it's worth, I agree with you - but I can envisage Willie Thorne getting right uppity in the commentary box! (Or if he was the offender!)

[Souwester]

Let's expand on the initial scenario. the cue ball has missed the reds, but is still moving when the non-offender shouts 'back please'. Is that a valid request?

Now what if the cue ball goes on to either knock another colour in a pocket or goes in off? In that case quite clearly the offender's turn had not ended when the request was made, but has he made a valid request?

[The Statman]

Let's expand on the initial scenario. the cue ball has missed the reds, but is still moving when the non-offender shouts 'back please'. Is that a valid request?

Now what if the cue ball goes on to either knock another colour in a pocket or goes in off? In that case quite clearly the offender's turn had not ended when the request was made, but has he made a valid request?

True, but the Miss will correctly already have been called by the referee when the blue is struck, and the player has audibly responded to the Miss call by asking for replacement. The Miss call is not going to become wrong.

(It would be different if no ball is struck, in which case the referee cannot call foul until the cueball has stopped moving. But it becomes a Foul - and thus a Miss - as soon as a non-ball-on is struck.)

[APK]

I am in full agreement here.
I would definitely wait until I had checked for a free ball, called the score and then looked to the incoming player for his reaction.
All the Rules quoted are excellent markers and, if all else fails, there's always good old trusty Rule 5.a)ii).

[deant1982]

It depends on 2 factors as to which I think would be appropriate.

Scenario 1 - the white has clipped the blue, but the white (or other balls) had not come to rest when the referee announced Foul and a miss and the non striker asked for the return of the balls to their previous position. If this is the case, the balls should not be replaced until the referee has completed his announcement (including freeball), as it was not the non strikers turn so cannot request the replacement whilst it was still the strikers turn. (non striker has got very lucky, and can decide whether to have the balls replaced or take the free ball).

Scenario 2 - The white clips the blue, and all balls come to rest whilst the referee is announcing foul and a miss. The non striker then becomes the striker and requests the return of the balls before the referee has announced the penalty or freeball. In this scenario, (I personally, think) the balls should be replaced, irrespective of if it was a freeball or not. The non striker cannot recind his request for replacement as it had become his turn, so is out of luck.

Depending on which scenario it was from the above regarding whether the white (or other object ball) was moving or not at the time depends on which route I would have taken.

That is my interpretention of the rules that I would have stuck by...

[Souwester]

But s2 r5 says the striker remains so until the final stroke of his turn of his turn is completed, and s6 says the stroke is not complete until the referee has called the score (or presumably announced the penalty). Therefore, even in your second scenario the non-offender is not the striker when he makes his call.

[deant1982]

My interpretation of the rules is that the referee has announced foul (and a miss) when all balls have come to rest. This ends the strikers turn. The penalty announcement (and subsequent awarding of a free ball) are secondary. If all balls are stationary and the referee has called foul, this ends the strikers turn immediately, there for the non striker (who asked for the replacement) became live upon the balls coming to rest. The calling of a score or penalty does not end they strikers turn, the calling of a foul does. It is his own fault for not waiting for the referee or official to announce free ball, and the penalty can be announced at any point after the strikers turn ends, and before the new striker plays his stroke.

That is how I understand the rules, and would have called accordingly, but it is one that is open to debate, and alternative interpretation.

[The Statman]

... The calling of a score or penalty does not end they strikers turn, the calling of a foul does.

No, I think you are wrong there.

The Rules state that the referee shall immediately call foul as soon as an infringement occurs. He will then wait until completion of the stroke before announcing the penalty (of course, in case a higher value foul should subsequently occur which will affect the value of the penalty).

That is why I worded the initial scenario in the way that I did. It would have been different if no ball were hit by the cue-ball, because it is not a foul until the white has stopped moving.

[Souwester]

My interpretation of the rules is that the referee has announced foul (and a miss) when all balls have come to rest. This ends the strikers turn. The penalty announcement (and subsequent awarding of a free ball) are secondary. If all balls are stationary and the referee has called foul, this ends the strikers turn immediately, there for the non striker (who asked for the replacement) became live upon the balls coming to rest. The calling of a score or penalty does not end they strikers turn, the calling of a foul does. It is his own fault for not waiting for the referee or official to announce free ball, and the penalty can be announced at any point after the strikers turn ends, and before the new striker plays his stroke.

No, that's not the case. To repeat part of the rule I've already quoted:

(c) A stroke is not completed until:
...
and
(iv) the referee has called any score relevant to the stroke.

And a striker remains so until completion of the last stroke of his turn.

Whilst the calling of a penalty of a score or penalty does not end a player's turn, a player's turn cannot end until he has done so!

[deant1982]

No, I think you are wrong there.

The Rules state that the referee shall immediately call foul as soon as an infringement occurs. He will then wait until completion of the stroke before announcing the penalty (of course, in case a higher value foul should subsequently occur which will affect the value of the penalty).

That is why I worded the initial scenario in the way that I did. It would have been different if no ball were hit by the cue-ball, because it is not a foul until the white has stopped moving.

Well, you live and learn. I was not aware of that, although I still stand by what I said for scenario 2. If all balls ahd come to rest whilst the referee called foul (and a miss), there was no reason for the referee to announce the penalty at the same time as the strikers turn is over. (Balls have stopped moving, so no higher point foul to be conceeded) Penalty should be announced. Free ball call is secondary in comparison and would need to be checked (unless blatently obvious) so cannot be advised at the same time as the foul/penalty call.

I may be wrong as I said, but I would call and stand by that decision in a match every time, until I was informed differently by a certified official. It is my interpretation of the ruling.