Nominating free ball ?

[The Statman]

so were the present rules in place when the ref called a foul on Cliff Thorburn vs Alex Higgins when the ref declared a foul because he didn't hear Thorburn declare the green ...

Yes the rule was in place, but I think the point was that John Smyth had asked him to declare but had not heard the reply.

[Souwester]

Is this the same with naming a colour after a red has been potted because I've come across the same argument before when they've been told after potting a red you have to nominate your colour regardless? so is it the same? If it's obvious, you don't have to name the colour?

To quote my previous responses on this thread...

#3: "According to the rules. you nominate by indication (pointing with cue or finger etc) OR declaration (verbal statement). By and large players nominate their shot by indication, and only when it is unclear do they declare, and in these situations the referee should always ask the player to declare."

#11: "No! It's only a foul if you fail to declare your nominated ball if asked by the referee. The referee (or your opponent where there is no independent referee) should, however, ask you to declare if he is uncertain of your nomination by indication. A referee can never call a foul if you haven't declared a different ball. It is, though, common sense for a player to declare his nominated ball (whether after potting a red, or when he has a free ball) if the nomination by indication could be ambiguous."

[allanr5]

You know Souwester "The Idiots Guide" isn't a bad idea it doesn't cost a lot to make a book these days and if someone could put these rules into everyday laymans terms with examples etc.it would sell even perhaps just a downloadable PDF file for a nominal fee I know I'd buy one seriously it might turn out to be a good source of play money I think with your reputation on this site as the resident rule expert its a great idea just food for thought Cheers

[tommygunner1309]

You know Souwester "The Idiots Guide" isn't a bad idea it doesn't cost a lot to make a book these days and if someone could put these rules into everyday laymans terms with examples etc.it would sell even perhaps just a downloadable PDF file for a nominal fee I know I'd buy one seriously it might turn out to be a good source of play money I think with your reputation on this site as the resident rule expert its a great idea just food for thought Cheers

allanr5 - the nominated ball rule states;

(a) a nominated ball is the object ball which the striker declares, or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee, he undertakes to hit with the first impact of the cue-ball.
(b) If requested by the referee, the striker must declare which ball he is on.

In my rules book (see earlier post on this thread) the SRA explanatory notes on the opposite page explain this in plain english. i.e.

2.12 'Indicates to the satisfaction of the Referee' is particularly important when awarding penalty points etc. An obvious example is when a player is clearly aiming at the Blue, but hasn't said so, and fouls the Yellow. The penalty is five points, not seven. The inclusion of 'when snookered' in 3.10.d.v. should not affect 2.12.a. Although technically 'snookered' as per 2.17., the striker may be able to see enough of a ball on to pot it quite easily and will therefore 'indicate to the satisfaction of the Referee' as normal. The requirement to declare one's selected ball on only applies after the striker has potted a Red or free ball nominated as a Red and all colours are totally obstructed by balls not on, i.e. other Reds. (3.10.d.v. rule is the 7 point penalty when the striker 'fails to declare which ball he is on WHEN SNOOKERED or when requested to do so by the referee.)

As you can see, the explanatory notes explain the rules in a down to earth easy to understand manner - a bit like an idiots' guide. I don't know if these books are available for purchase but I am reffing a pro am this sunday with Derek Budde as TD so if you would like me to I could make some enquiries for you to see how the land lies. Souwester may well know of a similar rules book with explanatory notes and I am sure he would be only too happy to let us all know if there is one.

[Souwester]

allanr5 - the nominated ball rule states;

(a) a nominated ball is the object ball which the striker declares, or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee, he undertakes to hit with the first impact of the cue-ball.
(b) If requested by the referee, the striker must declare which ball he is on.

In my rules book (see earlier post on this thread) the SRA explanatory notes on the opposite page explain this in plain english. i.e.

2.12 'Indicates to the satisfaction of the Referee' is particularly important when awarding penalty points etc. An obvious example is when a player is clearly aiming at the Blue, but hasn't said so, and fouls the Yellow. The penalty is five points, not seven. The inclusion of 'when snookered' in 3.10.d.v. should not affect 2.12.a. Although technically 'snookered' as per 2.17., the striker may be able to see enough of a ball on to pot it quite easily and will therefore 'indicate to the satisfaction of the Referee' as normal. The requirement to declare one's selected ball on only applies after the striker has potted a Red or free ball nominated as a Red and all colours are totally obstructed by balls not on, i.e. other Reds. (3.10.d.v. rule is the 7 point penalty when the striker 'fails to declare which ball he is on WHEN SNOOKERED or when requested to do so by the referee.)

As you can see, the explanatory notes explain the rules in a down to earth easy to understand manner - a bit like an idiots' guide. I don't know if these books are available for purchase but I am reffing a pro am this sunday with Derek Budde as TD so if you would like me to I could make some enquiries for you to see how the land lies. Souwester may well know of a similar rules book with explanatory notes and I am sure he would be only too happy to let us all know if there is one.

The Sussex Referees Association's manual to which you refer is indeed excellent. However, it's focus is more clearly explaining the rules to referees, and I feel that it still doesn't make some things simple enough for the average simpleton player to fully grasp. Certainly there are times that I've look to the SRA manual and not found a satisfactory explanation of what I'm looking for. The SRA is available for anyone to purchase though.

The late John Street and Peter Rook also wrote a book (with a plain green cover) which tried to go into more depth, and way back there was a very useful Australian book. Rook revised the green book a couple fo years or so ago, and I expect it might still be available (it was available through the EASB online shop at one stage - not sure if it still is).

My first comment about writing an Idiots' Guide, was somewhat tongue in cheek, but just maybe there's scope for something aimed at players rather than referees who will already have a fairly good understanding of the rules. Players will, in the main, be starting from a much lower base point.

[tommygunner1309]

My first comment about writing an Idiots' Guide, was somewhat tongue in cheek, but just maybe there's scope for something aimed at players rather than referees who will already have a fairly good understanding of the rules. Players will, in the main, be starting from a much lower base point.

Many a tongue in cheek comment comes up with a great idea - and I think you are dead right that a rules book written with the ordinary player in mind is excellent. Written by an experienced ref like yourself, you would be aware of all the pitfalls of confusing explanations. (Actually, I am retired now - perhaps I should start on a draught and send it to you for perusal and correction :-)) )

[allanr5]

Two excellent responses guys and yeah all joking aside I think you would be providing a great service to your average player ! I read the rules cover to cover last night and it started to hurt the 'ol melon some stuff is is so straight forward and other stuff like free ball rules, the miss rule, and how certain rules change depending on types of scoring chosen and doubles matches, also how things are one way and then they change when your down to pink and black, another humdinger is respotting the pink when all the spots are occupied and there's no room between the the pink spot and the top custion it talks about a line now across the table behind the pink spot but now your dealing with where its supposed to placed on this imaginary line do you keep moving to the left or the right till you find room I don't know but I know now why refs have to be trained and certified and then there's the whole train the trainer aspect its like being a frigging lawyer I think there's a genuine need for a quick reference guide where the deciphering has been done and one shown with examples of what you you would do in these circumstances Thanks rob

[nrage]

Many a tongue in cheek comment comes up with a great idea - and I think you are dead right that a rules book written with the ordinary player in mind is excellent. Written by an experienced ref like yourself, you would be aware of all the pitfalls of confusing explanations. (Actually, I am retired now - perhaps I should start on a draught and send it to you for perusal and correction :-)) )

What might work quite well is a flow chart style diagram for the more complicated stuff so that a player can just answer simple yes/no questions and find his way to the correct ruling for his given situation.

[DawRef]

flow chart style diagram for the more complicated stuff

I have both the SRA and John Street's books, and would often refer to them. However, I think it would be quite difficult to have a flowchart for every 'complicated' rule. What would you define as 'complicated'? There is already a useful flowchart for the F & M rule. Spotting the colours, IMHO, seems quite logical. And how often have you seen the situation where all the space between the pink spot and top cushion is occupied, so that the pink will not spot?
With the current re-write of the rules, I suspect that both of these excellent books need to be re-written. In the case of the SRA, it just needs replacement of the relevant sheets.
If you have any specific questions on rules, I suspect you'll find the answer on this forum (good luck in your search) or else ask your local qualified referee/examiner.

[nrage]

err.. I have no problems with the official rules myself. Tho, the flow chart you're referring to sounds pretty much like what I was suggesting - and I had that rule in mind when I suggested it

I was just responding to a suggestion someone else made that the rules could be made clearer for your average Joe who hasn't really ever read them. Sort of a quick reference card for the tricky bits.

[allanr5]

It seems asking questions often ends up with comments that aren't exactly in the spirit of the intent of this forum which is primarily to learn I'll leave it at that, just keep in mind there's other subjects not related to snooker where others could rip these people to shreds in there fields of of expertise I enjoyed the spirit of this thread initially but I'm NO SIMPLETON nor is anyone else we're just trying to learn and have a little fun and hopefully comradarie with snooker

[mooneyy]

allanr5, I tried to find the one comment you are talking about, but honestly can't find it. Could you please fill me in about it?

[allanr5]

Check #35 It was a high level comment not specificially directed at myself but at us average players at large the person is now banned I don't know if that comment had anything to do with it or not kind of sad he had alot of knowledge but should of been a bit more tactfull I suppose

[DeanH]

Hi allanr5, I was also a bit confused by your previous posting like mooneyy, and have now looked back at #35.
I have read it several times now and still do not see any derogatory remark - high or low level - just another comment about the various books available.
If the term "Idiot's guide" is what you are referring to, I am also an average player and do not take offence at that term being used to colloquially refer to a standard off-the-shelf series of books that cover many subjects.
In a later posting somewhere else, Souwester called it a "Player's Guide".
Unfortunately Souwester (an esteemed referee of many years standing I believe) requested the removal of his account from this forum after a major bust up with Ferret. The term banned must be used by the system so not to destroy previous posts and threads. And I am sure this request was nothing at all to do with this thread.
Hope this helps
all the best
ciao

[mooneyy]

Indeed... absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

I'm an average player as well, although I can say that I have a fairly good knowledge of the rules. But nearly all players I know personally (although I don't know too many) would find a 'Player's guide' quite useful, even if it was called 'Idiot's guide'.

I am absolutely sure that Souwester meant no offence whatsoever.