Jan Verhaas penalty "error" in the Higgins-Dott match - a question

[Bruce]

John Higgins was snookered on the reds with the cue ball very close to the brown. The cue ball hit the blue but, in playing the shot, Higgins had accidentally fouled the brown with his cue. Jan Verhaas initially awarded a 5-point penalty but then realised that it should have been a 4-point penalty as the foul on the brown had occurred first.

This made me wonder why the sequence of "foul events" within one shot should be so significant. Supposing Higgins had instead accidentally fouled the brown with his hand or his cue when he got up from the shot, i.e. after the cue ball had already hit the blue. What would the penalty have been in that case?

And what would happen if the two events occurred simultaneously (or it was unclear which one had occurred first)?

To my mind, in such a case, it would be more sensible to simply count the highest value of any "foul events" that may occur within a shot. I suspect that was in Jan Verhaas' mind in that situation anyway.

Comments?

[Odrl]

To my mind, in such a case, it would be more sensible to simply count the highest value of any "foul events" that may occur within a shot.

Yes, that's actually already the case. Verhaas correctly called a 5-point foul initially. It was later that he got confused and tried to correct a non-existant mistake.

[jrc750]

Yes, that's actually already the case. Verhaas correctly called a 5-point foul initially. It was later that he got confused and tried to correct a non-existant mistake.

No your wrong here, surely the foul on the brown occurred before white hit the blue so its only 4 point foul

[Souwester]

When more than one foul occurs within a turn, then the highest value penalty applies, so it should be a five point penalty.

As I understand this scenario it was not the cue ball that hit the brown but John's hand, so that is one foul. The first ball that the cue ball struck was the blue, which was not 'on' and would therefore be a five point penalty. A miss should have been called.

Imagine the case that red is the ball on. The cue ball misses the red and hits the blue... which then cannons into the black and causes that to enter a pocket. Again two fouls: the first is the first impact of the cue ball being with the blue, and then another ball not on enters a pocket. It's the higher value foul that counts as far as penalties are concerned not the first to occur.

S3 rule 12
(g) If more than one foul is committed in the same stroke, the highest value penalty shall be incurred.

[Bruce]

It ended up being a 4-point foul. Although Verhaas initially called it as a 5, the scorer scored it as 4. Verhaas noticed this a few shots later and halted play while he tried to get the score changed. But then it was pointed out to him that it was indeed only a 4-point penalty. Verhaas then realised that he had been mistaken and had to get the score changed back to the original score again. All very confusing (especially for the poor scorer).

But my question still stands. Is it really sensible for the penalty to be dependent on the actual sequence of foul events within the shot?

[jrc750]

Yeah but the blue didn't go in the pocket, so surely it's just like cannoning another ball, ie so what ?
If when snookered on a red, you hit say pink first but the white goes on to also hit the black, it's still only foul of 6, and not 7

[Bruce]

When more than one foul occurs within a turn, then the highest value penalty applies, so it should be a five point penalty.

As I understand this scenario it was not the cue ball that hit the brown but John's hand, so that is one foul. The first ball that the cue ball struck was the blue, which was not 'on' and would therefore be a five point penalty. A miss should have been called.

Imagine the case that red is the ball on. The cue ball misses the red and hits the blue... which then cannons into the black and causes that to enter a pocket. Again two fouls: the first is the first impact of the cue ball being with the blue, and then another ball not on enters a pocket. It's the higher value foul that counts as far as penalties are concerned not the first to occur.

S3 rule 12
(g) If more than one foul is committed in the same stroke, the highest value penalty shall be incurred.

So Verhaas was originally correct in calling it as a 5-point penalty! The poor man was being crucified by the commentators for making a mistake and he was right all along. It's surprising to me that the players don't seem to know these rules either. John Higgins kept quiet during the whole episode.

[Souwester]

Yeah but the blue didn't go in the pocket, so surely it's just like cannoning another ball, ie so what ?
If when snookered on a red, you hit say pink first but the white goes on to also hit the black, it's still only foul of 6, and not 7

The point is that the cue ball did not make contact with the brown but John's hand did. The first ball that the cue ball made contact with was the blue, therefore it *should* have been a five point penalty, as these are two distinct fouls: one being touching a ball in play, the other being the cue ball first making contact with a ball not on... so the highest penalty applies.

[Souwester]

But my question still stands. Is it really sensible for the penalty to be dependent on the actual sequence of foul events within the shot?

But that isn't (shouldn't be) the case: if more than one foul is committed in a stroke then the highest value penalty applies.

[Souwester]

So Verhaas was originally correct in calling it as a 5-point penalty! The poor man was being crucified by the commentators for making a mistake and he was right all along. It's surprising to me that the players don't seem to know these rules either. John Higgins kept quiet during the whole episode.

Yes, he was indeed correct in his first call!

[Souwester]

It never ceases to amaze me how poorly some very experienced top professional players actually know the rules. Time and time again they get caugfht out by not knowing the rules, sometimes quite basic points.

[Odrl]

It ended up being a 4-point foul. Although Verhaas initially called it as a 5, the scorer scored it as 4. Verhaas noticed this a few shots later and halted play while he tried to get the score changed. But then it was pointed out to him that it was indeed only a 4-point penalty. Verhaas then realised that he had been mistaken and had to get the score changed back to the original score again. All very confusing (especially for the poor scorer).

The way I saw the situation, this is what happened... Verhaas called a foul when Higgins touched the blue with his cue, then called 5 away when the cue ball ended up hitting the blue instead of a red. The scorer correctly put 5 points on and the play continued. After a couple of shots, Verhaas for some reason thought he had made a mistake, and went over it with the scorer again. He realized he initially called it correctly, and that the score was put on correctly as well, so there was no reason for him to stop the play in the first place. He apologized to Dott and play carried on.

[poolqjunkie]

If you are snookered on the red, and you hit a green, the cue ball then hit the black, is it a 4 point or 7 point foul?
What if the pink is then hit by the white and went into the pocket?

[Deepscrew]

clear as mud this issue then!!!

The foul is determined by which ball the WHITE hits first, hence in this case 5 points was correct.

Thats what Eirin Williams tweeted anyway.

[Neil Taperell]

If you are snookered on the red, and you hit a green, the cue ball then hit the black, is it a 4 point or 7 point foul? that would be 4 points , as only 1 foul has been committed . Unlike the Higgins foul , where 2 fouls in the one shot had been committed
What if the pink is then hit by the white and went into the pocket?

Very confusing ......i'm going to guess 6 points away ?