Rules question - "non verbal" nomination of ball on

[Joe99]

Thanks to all those who replied to my original question. The general consensus seems to be that it is a 7 point penalty which I guess emphasises that to protect his interests, it is the players responsibility to be sure that his nominations are unambiguous.

I wonder what people make of this situation.

Suppose a player has potted a red and left the cue ball very close to the pack with the only possible shot being on the black. However the reds are positioned such that the player will have to use spider and getting it into position on the table will be a very delicate operation.

Could a crafty player take out some "insurance" by declaring to the referee "I nominate the yellow" (even though the yellow is impossible to hit)? This way he will only suffer a 4 point penalty if he disturbs a red while positioning the rest. Having successfully positioned the rest, he now says to the referee "I now wish to nominate the black".

Would this be "ungentlemanly conduct"?

[The Statman]

...

Would this be "ungentlemanly conduct"?

Indeed. You could get to the situation where everybody shouts out 'yellow' every time he pots a red!

[DawRef]

High Joe99 and The Statman

It is not 'Ungentlemanly Conduct'.

As soon as Player A fouled the red with the rest, the referee would call "Foul. Four Points Player B (assuming Player A had nominated Yellow - here we go again)." Player A's turn would immediately end. When Player B comes to the table he has the choice of playing the next stroke himself (at a red) or letting Player A play the next stroke - at a red, not a colour. (Both are assumed that no free ball had been called).

If in playing for the yellow, player A had made his stroke and then fouled the red whilst removing the rest (and not hit the yellow), the referee would have called "Foul and Miss. Player B 4". In this case, Player B would have had a third option to have the balls replaced and Player A play again from the original position (still assuming no free ball had been called). Player A would then be in the same situation as he started and could nominate any colour of his choosing.

Hope this is clear.

[Robert602]

High Joe99 and The Statman

It is not 'Ungentlemanly Conduct'.

Just to be clear, you're saying it's perfectly allowable for a player to nominate yellow immediately after potting every red, just to cover himself against possible 7 point penalties for clumsiness? (Before obviously nominating the desired colour when down and ready to go for it).

To me, that's effectively lying to the ref as the player never had any intention of going for the yellow. Surely ungentlemanly conduct or some other penalty?

[The Statman]

I think DawRef was misinterpreting the question, as I did at first. What he thought was that he nominated yellow, played and missed, and when the balls were replaced he changed his call to black. All fine, of course, and in no way ungentlemanly.

However, the questioner was saying that when he potted a red he called 'Yellow' just while he manoeuvred the spider or whatever (so that if he fouled it would be 4 points) and then nominate black, his intended ball all along, just before playing.

However, in practice I doubt that the giving away of 4 compared with 7, is much odds to the player. He would lose his turn as soon as he fouled, whichever. Unless, of course, he was 30 behind with one red left!

[Dave B]

I think the referee would have to be certain that the player is clearly going to play the black by the position of the rest and assuming he then changes his call from yellow to black warn the player that this is not acceptable practice. However if the player could play the yellow by just missing the black with extreme side on the cue ball then you have to give the benefit of the doubt.

Do you lay awake at night thinking these up!

[DawRef]

Sorry. I do not mean to be abrupt. I'm only trying to answer the question as briefly as possible.
Perhaps, as The Staman stated, I misinterpreted the question. Just to clarify, as soon as a player commits any foul, he loses his turn. Therefore, if the incoming player asks him to play again, he has to play the ball on.
In this case, once the player has fouled, the ball on now becomes the red, so if he did play the black, the ref would call foul and miss with a penalty of 7.

Dave B - did you mean black to yellow? Also, the referee is not allowed to warn a player he is about to commit a foul.

I'm getting tired and going to bed. Probably have to add more comments tomorrow.
Everybody sleep well

[Dave B]

I agree the referee cannot warn the player that he/she is about to foul. I was saying that the warning should take place after the shot or at the end of a break.

I meant yellow to black as this would indicate to the ref that the alteration has taken place. But you would have to be certain that when the original call of yellow was made that there was not some sort of elaborate shot that could acheive this.

[The Statman]

Indeed.

Just to clarify the question, it is about the player, intending to play the black, nominating the yellow knowing that he has a precarious situation to negotiate – if he fouls the spider of course foul 4 – so that once he has the spider without fouling he can change his call to black – which was his intention all along – to play his shot.

This is very borderline to ungentlemanly conduct and I would be very minded to warn the player that I did not consider it so. Even so, a warning such as a repeat performance would lose him the frame/match would be unlikely to take effect since the situation would be unlikely to recur!

[chasmmi]

Ok then (I like picky never going to happen scenarios):

Player a nominates the Black and it is a shot which requires standing on the tip of one foot and fantastic balance. Unfortuantely he lacks this and stumbles, realising he is about to plaough into the green he shouts green before connecting and has thusly changed his nomination.

Can he do that?

[RaNeN]

Ok then (I like picky never going to happen scenarios):

Player a nominates the Black and it is a shot which requires standing on the tip of one foot and fantastic balance. Unfortuantely he lacks this and stumbles, realising he is about to plaough into the green he shouts green before connecting and has thusly changed his nomination.

Can he do that?

HAHAHA .....He must have saved 3 points!!!!!!

[Dave B]

The only way this could be allowed would be if the green was in the same area of the table as the black.

If the green was not near as the player is about to fall on it then as the previous question this would boarderline on ungentlemanly conduct and deserve a warning. I would still call foul 7 and a miss as the player would clearly not be playing at the green.

[DawRef]

non verbal......blah..blah

Once a player has potted a red, he is entitled to go for any colour of his choosing (Sec 3, 3(f)(i) & (ii)). The way I have interpreted the question (rightly or wrongly) is that the player has told the referee he is going for the yellow. He then fouls a red (with the rest) and then says to the ref "Oops. I'll now go for the black".
As I said above, once he had fouled the red, his turn ended (Sec 3, 3(h)). If he then plays at the black (because it is now easier), he has hit the cue ball twice and would be penalised a further 7 points for hitting the black (Sec 3, 12(a)(i).
I hope this has further clarified the situation (I doubt it).

[Robert602]

Once a player has potted a red, he is entitled to go for any colour of his choosing (Sec 3, 3(f)(i) & (ii)). The way I have interpreted the question (rightly or wrongly) is that the player has told the referee he is going for the yellow. He then fouls a red (with the rest) and then says to the ref "Oops. I'll now go for the black".
As I said above, once he had fouled the red, his turn ended (Sec 3, 3(h)). If he then plays at the black (because it is now easier), he has hit the cue ball twice and would be penalised a further 7 points for hitting the black (Sec 3, 12(a)(i).
I hope this has further clarified the situation (I doubt it).

That's not quite what we're getting at.

Imagine a player buries the white in the pack after potting a red and can only see the black, he wants to just roll into it and leave the white on the black cushion for safety, but he needs to get the extended spider and whatnot into place to bridge over the pack. Realising that it's quite likely he could foul a red while getting the kit out, he temporarily nominates yellow (that way if he fouls it's only 4 away, not 7). If he manages to set himself up without fouling he changes his nomination to black and plays it legally.

The question is, in your assessment, is it ungentlemanly to nominate the yellow not because you intend to play it but simply to avoid risking extra penalty points. I'm pretty confident this one isn't explicitly spelt out in the rule book, but the other refs here seem to be in consensus that it merits at least a warning if it's obvious.

Hope that's clear

[DawRef]

I can see where you're coming from, but I still don't think it is Ungentlemanly Conduct (I'd give the player credit for his ingenuity). The player is quite entitled to change his mind.
What if the player was very inexperienced. He has a relatively easy colour to pot, but knows if he misses the pot, he sets up his opponent. He decides to go for a different colour, knowing that if he misses that, then the cue ball is relatively safe. He does this a number of times during the frame. Going by what has been stated, and getting warned by the ref, he'd probably give up the game!!
I think its more frustrating than anything else.