7 point penalty

[Hondo]

Playing a doubles match, the opponent picks a ball up out of the rack and places it to see if he has a free ball after a foul. I called a foul and penalty of 7 points and an argument ensued. I told him that the rules stated that a penalty of 7 points was to be awarded if the striker "uses any ball off the table for any purpose" and the following rule also stated that a 7 point penalty was also awarded for the striker "uses any object to measure gaps or distances". The match ended in a bad atmosphere - but I am sure I did the right thing.
Now wondered if I did?

[Souwester]

Yes, that's exactly what the rules say. I assume there was no independent referee. If whoever of your pair had not declared a free ball, and the player thought he had one, then he should have asked 'the referee' to double-check the position. It is NOT down to the striker to check, and as you point out, it is a foul if he does so in the way indicated.

[Hondo]

No we were reffing the match between us, but it was a pairs competition. I did not declare a free ball as it appeared to me that the incoming striker could strike both extreme edges of the ball on, although one side was rather tight. In the end I borrowed a rules book from behind the bar - but even seeing it in black and white the opponents were not totally convinced. Shame really as it was a good match - the safety play from both sides was top drawer.
Thanks for the confirmation - makes me feel a bit better about it all

[lennon11]

No we were reffing the match between us, but it was a pairs competition. I did not declare a free ball as it appeared to me that the incoming striker could strike both extreme edges of the ball on, although one side was rather tight. In the end I borrowed a rules book from behind the bar - but even seeing it in black and white the opponents were not totally convinced. Shame really as it was a good match - the safety play from both sides was top drawer.
Thanks for the confirmation - makes me feel a bit better about it all

So in the absence of an independant ref you would rather penalize your opponent 7 points (sticking strictly to the rule book)than let him double check if it was a free ball?.......yeah I'd feel better about that too!!.....spirit of the game and all that eh.

[Souwester]

So in the absence of an independant ref you would rather penalize your opponent 7 points (sticking strictly to the rule book)than let him double check if it was a free ball?.......yeah I'd feel better about that too!!.....spirit of the game and all that eh.

When there is no independent referee in any kind of matches, the 'referee; should try to be impartial, but it is obviously going to be difficult. The striker, though, should abide by the decision of the 'referee'.

It's certainly not unheard of in these situations for an independent person to be asked to adjudicate, but the striker certainly shouldn't just take it upon himself to check for a free ball. He could at least ask his opponent first if he could check for himself. However, that's not really in the spirit of the game. In other cases the striker will have to obide by the decision of his opponent: calls of push shots, jumping balls and which of two balls was hit first are not things that can be decided retorspectively. When there is no official referee you really do need to accept the ruling of your opponent.

[lennon11]

When there is no independent referee in any kind of matches, the 'referee; should try to be impartial, but it is obviously going to be difficult. The striker, though, should abide by the decision of the 'referee'.

It's certainly not unheard of in these situations for an independent person to be asked to adjudicate, but the striker certainly shouldn't just take it upon himself to check for a free ball. He could at least ask his opponent first if he could check for himself. However, that's not really in the spirit of the game. In other cases the striker will have to obide by the decision of his opponent: calls of push shots, jumping balls and which of two balls was hit first are not things that can be decided retorspectively. When there is no official referee you really do need to accept the ruling of your opponent.

I agree with all you've said,but just think getting the right call / proving youve made the right call should be more important.

[The Statman]

Yes, that's exactly what the rules say. I assume there was no independent referee. If whoever of your pair had not declared a free ball, and the player thought he had one, then he should have asked 'the referee' to double-check the position. It is NOT down to the striker to check, and as you point out, it is a foul if he does so in the way indicated.

Ironically, after the foul has been committed, he may well continue to check it because, now that the foul has been called against him, he is now the referee and you are the striker - so he'll want to make sure that he hasn't left you a free ball!

[ste bed]

if there was a foul and a free ball was on but unsure as in the 1st post i would always let my opponent check and would expect the same if there was no ref to decide. how are you going to know if it is or isnt unless you put another ball next to the ball on to see if it is a free ball or not. its not as if he was using the ball to is advantage he genuinely wanted to know if the free ball was on or not know wonder the match ended in a bad atmosphere.