rules questions

[toupihiggins]

Hi,

This happened to me while refereeing in a local league. Player A made a foul by pocketing the cue ball. I awarded foul and a penalty of 4 points for player B but then player B took the cue ball from the pocket. I only gave him a warning for touching a ball off table as I know that only the referee can do that except the case in which the cue ball is in hand. Should I have also called a foul and award 4 points for player A?

Also, what will happen if a player takes a red ball from the pocket and puts it on the table? Since the red ball is not in play I can't apply rule 3.10.b.VI since the ball is not in play.

3.10.b.vi :touching a ball or ball marker in play, other than in the lawful
execution of a stroke;

Will the rule 3:10:d,(i) apply here?

uses a ball off the table for any purpose;

And if the player takes a ball from one pocket and puts it into another pocket?

Thanks,
Liviu

[Souwester]

This happened to me while refereeing in a local league. Player A made a foul by pocketing the cue ball. I awarded foul and a penalty of 4 points for player B but then player B took the cue ball from the pocket. I only gave him a warning for touching a ball off table as I know that only the referee can do that except the case in which the cue ball is in hand. Should I have also called a foul and award 4 points for player A?

It is not a foul. The cue ball is in hand from the time it enters the pocket until it is played fairly from in hand (unless a foul is committed whilst it is on the table). See Section 2 of the rules:

9. In-hand
(a) The cue-ball is in-hand:
(i) before the start of each frame;
(ii) when it has entered a pocket;
(iii) when it has been forced off the table; or
(iv) when the black is spotted in the event of tied scores.
(b) The cue-ball remains in-hand until:
(i) it is played fairly from in-hand; or
(ii) a foul is committed whilst the ball is on the table.
(c) The striker is said to be in-hand when the cue-ball is in-hand as above.

However, the player should be *ADVISED* to leave the retrieval of balls from pockets to the referee.

With regard to your second point, then, yes, the player *could* be fouled for using a ball off the table for *ANY* purpose. You don't say why he's putting it on the table. If he's simply done it so that he can retrieve the cue ball which might have been stuck in the pocket, then I wouldn't call a foul, but simply warn him not to retrieve balls but to leave it to the ref.

There's nothing wrong with a player moving reds between pockets, but presumably he'd only be doing that to ensure they don't fill, but you should be keeping an eye on that and doing it as referee!

[TooMuchSide]

I have a question, unrelated to that above.

If a player is 32-35 points ahead and there is only one red left, and he fouls whilst potting that red, either by mistake, or deliberately, then the other player gets awarded 4 points, but he cannot be awarded a miss, and the red cannot be replaced, so he is now 28 behind with 27 left!
Can anyone see a flaw with this scenario?To me, there should be a rule whereby in such a situation, the red is brought back into play.
Thoughts?

[jrc750]

Yep, cruel one that, and worth doing on purpose, sorry i mean by accident

[TooMuchSide]

Yep, cruel one that, and worth doing on purpose, sorry i mean by accident

Yip.Imagine the guy needing the snooker hangs the last red over the green bag, and achieves a good snooker behind the yellow.His opponent has a choice;either attempt to get out the snooker and risk not doing so, maybe incurring a miss and a foul, or deliberately playing the yellow or brown onto the red as a plant!!!
All that he would be punished is 4 points.Surely this is wrong?

[perpetualboredom]

That would be some accident..!

[jrc750]

No you can't make it that deliberate, you would/should get a stern warning, and in fact i would demand the frame if done to me in that way !!

[perpetualboredom]

Loss of frame in our league for sure..

[TooMuchSide]

Loss of frame in our league for sure..

Yes, but why have this grey area?Why not change the rules?

[perpetualboredom]

Surely would just be a "miss" and put them back?
Pretty sure local leagues would have some rule about ungentlemanly conduct and award the frame - the striker would probably lose some teeth too.

[steveflanuk]

I would say that this is covered in the rules under Section 4 (Players) Rule 1 (Conduct)

(a) In the event of:
...
(ii) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(iii) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to ungentlemanly conduct; or
...
the referee shall either:
...
(vi) award the frame to his opponent; or
...

And I would say that you scenario qualifies comes under (ii) or (iii) - frame against the offending player. Some may argue (assuming it's a match more than 1 frame) that the offending player should lose the match, but by awarding the frame, any other occurrence under this rule will automatically give the match to the offending player's opponent, as in:

(c) If a referee has awarded a frame to a Player’s opponent pursuant to the above provisions, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above by the Player concerned, the referee must award the game to the Player’s opponent.

[The Statman]

I have a question, unrelated to that above.

If a player is 32-35 points ahead and there is only one red left, and he fouls whilst potting that red, either by mistake, or deliberately, then the other player gets awarded 4 points, but he cannot be awarded a miss, and the red cannot be replaced, so he is now 28 behind with 27 left!
Can anyone see a flaw with this scenario?To me, there should be a rule whereby in such a situation, the red is brought back into play.
Thoughts?

Yep, cruel one that, and worth doing on purpose, sorry i mean by accident

Yes but in fact it would almost certainly not be worth doing on purpose, if you look at the alternatives:

Pocket the last red and run in-off, your opponent is 28 behind, 27 on the table and it's his turn.
Pot the last red without going in-off, your opponent is 32 behind, 27 on the table and it's still your turn with a potential colour to follow.

So in fact, your opponent hasn't suffered as much disadvantage by the foul.

Having said that, there are occasions where you could remove the last red from play and it be to your advantage. For example, just hammering the ball so the red goes off the table would do it.

Rather than try to invent somewhere to 're-spot' the red in cases like this, I think the most straightforward way of solving it would be that in any foul where a red comes out of play, the penalty is eight points per red removed. I can't see any logical reason not to at least trial this idea.

[bally969]

referee mistake

A player canot be penalized for a mistake by the referee, ie wrongly spotted colours,[sec 3 7a] but [sec 3 3i] states if a ball rebounds onto the table due to an over loaded pocket it won't count. Surely this is a mistake by the reff, for not clearing the pocket,? trivial but worth a thought.

[The Statman]

A player canot be penalized for a mistake by the referee, ie wrongly spotted colours,[sec 3 7a] but [sec 3 3i] states if a ball rebounds onto the table due to an over loaded pocket it won't count. Surely this is a mistake by the reff, for not clearing the pocket,? trivial but worth a thought.

No - strange as it may seem, it is the player's responsibility to see that the pocket is clear of obstruction. The referee should and almost always does clear the pocket but cannot be held to account if this happens.