A foul break question.

[tommygunner1309]

Yes that sounds a bit of a shame. However, one good Swiss professional will do wonders for the sport. Luca Brecel has done wonders for Belgium. I would love to see snooker as a true world wide sport. I am a little too old to get heavily involved in refereeing or coaching, but I do enjoy the bits that I do.
And NO - I would not like to pay 20 euros for an hour - I think I would take up table tennis haha

[Souwester]

Yes Mooneyy that is correct. Strange as it may seem the frame is restarted. I got this wrong in my mock exam for referee and glad I did as it really stuck in my head when the time came.
BTW how is snooker in beautiful Switzerland? Is it becoming popular?

As it happens I raised this very question at last year's meeting of European tutors and examiners. Whilst the letter of the rules would indicate that the frame be restarted, the overwhelming consensus was that only the back should be spotted again, and re-start from there. The thirty or so delegates contained just two dissenters (the Welsh delegates).

When the frame gets to the stage of a respotted black, there seems absolutely no point in restarting the frame from the beginning, and the common sense override to the letter of the rules comes into play.

SECTION 5 THE OFFICIALS
1. The Referee
(a) The referee shall:
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play;
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by these Rules;

[Souwester]

What I was trying to say is: Just because I'm more than 7 points ahead with only the black ball remaining, that doesn't mean that the frame is automatically over. I can still play the black if I want. Of course the frame is over after my attempt on this black, no matter what.

The frame is automatically over, only if you claim it.


s1 DEFINITIONS
1. Frame
A frame of snooker comprises the period of the play from the start (see Section 3 Rule 3(c)), with all the balls set as described in Section 3 Rule 2, each player playing in turn until the frame is completed by:
(a) concession by any player during his turn;
(b) claim by the striker when; Black is the only object ball remaining on the table, aggregate points are not relevant, and there is a difference of more than seven points between the scores in his favour;
(c) the final pot or foul when; Black is the only object ball remaining on the table (see Section 3 Rule 4); or
(d) being awarded by

[tommygunner1309]

As it happens I raised this very question at last year's meeting of European tutors and examiners. Whilst the letter of the rules would indicate that the frame be restarted, the overwhelming consensus was that only the back should be spotted again, and re-start from there. The thirty or so delegates contained just two dissenters (the Welsh delegates).

When the frame gets to the stage of a respotted black, there seems absolutely no point in restarting the frame from the beginning, and the common sense override to the letter of the rules comes into play.

SECTION 5 THE OFFICIALS
1. The Referee
(a) The referee shall:
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play;
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by these Rules;

So, would the outcome mean that the black could be respotted as far as the governing body is concerned. I was told I was wrong when I answered that the black should be spotted, and was told that the frame should restart.
What would be the correct thing for me to do?

[Souwester]

So, would the outcome mean that the black could be respotted as far as the governing body is concerned. I was told I was wrong when I answered that the black should be spotted, and was told that the frame should restart.
What would be the correct thing for me to do?

As I say, if you follow the letter of the rule then your original examiner was correct, but you wouldn't be in the wrong to just restart the respotted black! The meeting comprised all the very senior examiners and tutors from the UK and Europe, and the overriding feeling was the common sense shoudl prevail and that the black is simply respotted again.

Another example of where the letter of the rule is regularly overridden. The rules provide for a penalty of seven points where a foul is committed before nominating a coloiur (after potting a red). However, in situations where it is evident that the player is aiming at, for example, one of the three baulk colours (having just got the long rest out), that any penalty is limited to four points. If it is patently obvious that the player was going to nominate a colour of lesser value of the balck, then the penalty would be reduced accordingly. That's a universally helf opinion amonmgst all examiners, but it is not what the rules state,

[Souwester]

I've been attending the annual European examiners and turors seminar for quite a few years now, and on numerous occasions there have been situations we've discussed where the participants are far from agreed on the answer! One that springs to mind is this:

Player A fouls and leaves Player B snookered on all the reds, so a 'Free Ball' is declared. Player B opts to take the free ball and nominates the pink hanging oiver the pocket. It was a very fine cut and he fails to make contact so a F&M is called. For whatever reason, Player A asks for the balls to be replaced. Does Player B still have a free ball?

The rules don't explicitly answer this question, and the heated debate at the meeting ended up in a near 50:50 vote! My argument is that the call of F&M effectively nullifies the previous shot, and the player is put back into exactly the same position he was previous time around, with exactly the same choices available to him. Over the four years or so since this was discussed, more and more examiners seem to be coming round to this way of thinking, but if this situation happened in a match, it really would be pot luck as to whether you would be allowed a free ball.

That then raises the question, that if the referee DOESN'T believe you now have a free ball, and you nominate the pink again, whether he should repeat the nomination, or stay silent until you foul!!!

[Souwester]

The important thing for referees to remember is that s5 does give them the freedom to make a decision when there is no clear cut answer in the rules. However, you need to be really conversant with the rules to know that there is no black and white answer, but you must be able to use the rules to justify the decision you make.

Some people see s5 as giving them carte blanche to make whatever decision they choose, but if you can come to a conclusion from the interaction of s1-3 rules, then that has got to take precedence over a subjective ruling made within the auspices of s5.

[tommygunner1309]

Its a pity that these two rules can not be clarified better. I understand what you are saying and I would not think a referee wrong if he did one thing or the other, but my concern is rather with the players. ie In a professional match, one player may be ok with what the ref does, but the other may argue that the letter of the rule should be followed. Luckily as a grade 3 I am not likely to be involved in this embarassing situation, and by the time I am eligible to apply for a grade 1 I will be too old - but I am just thinking of the embarrassment to the referee. Would it not be a good idea for all you examiner/tutors to get together and amend the rule one way or the other? To me, its seems a little odd that two matches could be totally different depending on which referee is on duty.
The penalty 7 rule is a little ambiguous as well. The words "In the interest of fair play" was drummed into me, but fair play to whom. If a player is aiming at the yellow, misses it by a millimetre comes off two cushions and rolls up and touches the blue could he not argue that that was the shot he was playing (if he hadn't declared) and his opponent could argue that it was obvious he was aiming at yellow. I know it says it is the refs discretion, but it is just another awkward situation that could be avoided if the rule was clearer.
Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill. I just want to get things right. Being considered competent is quit important.

[Souwester]

Its a pity that these two rules can not be clarified better. I understand what you are saying and I would not think a referee wrong if he did one thing or the other, but my concern is rather with the players. ie In a professional match, one player may be ok with what the ref does, but the other may argue that the letter of the rule should be followed. Luckily as a grade 3 I am not likely to be involved in this embarassing situation, and by the time I am eligible to apply for a grade 1 I will be too old - but I am just thinking of the embarrassment to the referee. Would it not be a good idea for all you examiner/tutors to get together and amend the rule one way or the other? To me, its seems a little odd that two matches could be totally different depending on which referee is on duty.
The penalty 7 rule is a little ambiguous as well. The words "In the interest of fair play" was drummed into me, but fair play to whom. If a player is aiming at the yellow, misses it by a millimetre comes off two cushions and rolls up and touches the blue could he not argue that that was the shot he was playing (if he hadn't declared) and his opponent could argue that it was obvious he was aiming at yellow. I know it says it is the refs discretion, but it is just another awkward situation that could be avoided if the rule was clearer.
Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill. I just want to get things right. Being considered competent is quit important.

In fairness the referees are more likely to know the rules better than the players. It's surprising just how many top pros don't know some fairly basic rules (like being able to snooker behind the black taken a s a fee ball when only pink and black remain). I remember Alex Higgins playing someone or other 20-0odd years ago and his opponent tried to trickly up behind a baulk colour. F&M was called because he fell short, so Alex asked for them to be replaced, thinking the player was now on the red. He was errm slightly miffed, when he then found himself snookered behin the perfectly weighted second attempt at trickling up to the baulk colour!

As I said in my last post, the referee must always be able to provide the logic behind his decision, if he doesn't think the siituation is clearly covered in the rules. Over the years we have seen pro players on tv asking for the TD/ Head Referee to adjudicate, but 99% of cases the referee's decision will be upheld.

WPBSA owns the copyright to the rules, and, therefore, bodies such as EASB (England), EBSA (Europe) or even IBSF (world amatueur governing body) cannot unilaterally change the rules that will over all games. There is an IBSF rules committee which will discuss situations and feedback to WPBSA but ultimately only they can change the rules.

I've been pressing for the EBSA deicions to be published so that at least it is easier for all European referees to apply the same decisions in the same circumstances. At the 2011 meeting, i think, it was agreed that the website would include all the queries and decision, but, to my knowledge this hasn't happened.

[tommygunner1309]

Thanks, maybe I should have a word with Alan Chamberlain. Must admit that I am enjoying these conversations though, and I am sure it will help me when I am working a local competition

[Souwester]

Thanks, maybe I should have a word with Alan Chamberlain. Must admit that I am enjoying these conversations though, and I am sure it will help me when I am working a local competition

Being in Brighton you're very lucky to have a local referee's association, and one which is very active in terms of meetings to discuss queries etc. Derek Budde is very knowledgeable, and is of course, a representative on the IBSF rules committee.

Whenever I'm with other referees, especially examiners and tutors, I always enjoy a good discussion about all sorts of obscure and usually hypothetical situations. Although the late great John Street would usually dismiss these as so improbable they will never happen, I'm sure that at club and league level they will happen somewhere, sometime.

As I've said previously there ARE suituations where there is no black and white answer, which is why a bank of questions and considered answers on the EBSA (European) website would be a real help for all refeees.

I've been on TSF for a few years now and I've thoroughly enjoyed the challenges it has provided in highlighting many new situations and really thinking about the rules to see how best to provide an authoritative answer. Hopefully most answers given will have the support of my peers!

Of course Alan Chamberlain was author of the new 2011 rules, so if you have access to him, you can't go far wrong!

[tommygunner1309]

Indeed this is so. I look forward to the evenings with the Brighton RA and Sussex RA and I will certainly put these points forward. Derek Budde was my tutor/examiner and a very knowledgeable man as you said. He is also very very helpful and his wealth of knowledge and experience is always worth listening to. TSF is also a great place to learn, and I look forward to hearing more from you and putting in my twopennorth - which hopefully will be somewhere near right, but I am sure you will correct me if I get something wrong.
Our next BRA and SRA meeting is on 18th Jan and I am looking forward to being a nuisance (:-)) with all my questions.

[Odrl]

I've been attending the annual European examiners and turors seminar for quite a few years now, and on numerous occasions there have been situations we've discussed where the participants are far from agreed on the answer! One that springs to mind is this:

Player A fouls and leaves Player B snookered on all the reds, so a 'Free Ball' is declared. Player B opts to take the free ball and nominates the pink hanging oiver the pocket. It was a very fine cut and he fails to make contact so a F&M is called. For whatever reason, Player A asks for the balls to be replaced. Does Player B still have a free ball?

The rules don't explicitly answer this question, and the heated debate at the meeting ended up in a near 50:50 vote! My argument is that the call of F&M effectively nullifies the previous shot, and the player is put back into exactly the same position he was previous time around, with exactly the same choices available to him. Over the four years or so since this was discussed, more and more examiners seem to be coming round to this way of thinking, but if this situation happened in a match, it really would be pot luck as to whether you would be allowed a free ball.

That then raises the question, that if the referee DOESN'T believe you now have a free ball, and you nominate the pink again, whether he should repeat the nomination, or stay silent until you foul!!!

How about this one then...

Player A is called for a F&M. Player B comes to the table and decides to play the shot himself. He also misses, so another F&M is called. Player A then decides to put the balls back...

Since Player B originally had the three options after a F&M, can he now have the balls replaced to an even earlier position and have Player A play again? :wink:

[tommygunner1309]

Mmmmm well at a guess I would say that the balls can only be replaced to their position AT THE LAST SHOT MADE - that is unless he carries some video equipment with him and is able to watch match of the day live

[Souwester]

How about this one then...

Player A is called for a F&M. Player B comes to the table and decides to play the shot himself. He also misses, so another F&M is called. Player A then decides to put the balls back...

Since Player B originally had the three options after a F&M, can he now have the balls replaced to an even earlier position and have Player A play again? :wink:

Hmm, this is another situation where I think the referee has to apply s5 and the spirit of s3 r13 which says that once a non-ofender has asked the offender to play again (after a foul or F&M) he cannot change his mind. In your example, the original non-offender has made a choice and has to stick with that.

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.