Ok a new silly scenario question.

[chasmmi]

Bobby is playing a frame of snooker against Jimmy. Bobby comes to the table and makes a 68 break before breaking down and playing safe.

There are 6 reds left when Jimmy comes to the table. He makes his break and begins to clear up taking a selection of different colours with reds, the refereeing calling the break all the way. He begins to clear the colours and after potting the blue the referee calls 56, he then pots the pink. It is only now that the referee realises that the break is actually 60 and not 62 and that he made a scoring mistake quite early on into the break.

Therefore Jimmy is 8 down with the black on the table. Bobbly claims he has won because Jimmy cannot win the frame.

Jimmy however claims he was accepting the referees scoring as correct nd so did not consder the need for snookers or taking higher value colours wth the final reds. He demands the frame be replayed as it wasnt his fault he is in the situation.


So who wins? Is it a rerack for the referee mistake, or should jimmy be following score too and its his own fault?

[Robert602]

I think Jimmy is right to accept the referee as correct, and if the error was made a number of shots ago it can't be taken back. Jimmy would win the frame (providing he pots the black).

[Cessy143]

Just give the frame to Jimmy

[DawRef]

Silly scenario

Unfortunately, Jimmy cannot demand a re-rack.
As soon as the referee had called the wrong score, the marker (if there was one) should have called 'Check' , or Jimmy correct him. The referee would then have corrected the call.
As he didn't (correct his call), as soon as Jimmy played his next stroke, the 'mistaken call' is condoned and the break continued.
This is similar to if a player commits a foul and the referee or opponent doesn't notice it. As soon as the next stroke is played it is condoned.
Unfortunate. But that is the answer.
I think this happened to Alex Higgins. If memory serves me correctly, Alex potted the yellow and instead of adding '2' to the break, the referee added '1'. It didn't matter as Alex had won the frame anyway, but I think he lost out on the highest break prize.

[The Statman]

If the referee is certain that the scoring was wrong (rather than there being a foul, which would be condoned as soon as the next shot was played), he must alter the score he calls and allow the black ball to decide the frame.

Further, take this scenario:

You come to the table, and you're 29 behind with one red left. Your easiest positional shot is for the yellow, and you realise that the 30 clearance will win you the frame so that is what you play.

You pot the red and then the yellow but, in the heat of the momoent, the referee fails to spot is, momentarily thinking it is the yellow being played as the first of the six colours. Similarly, in the heat of the moment you do not notice his error and continue on the green, and when you pot the blue you check the scoreboard and realise you cannot win the frame!

You realise what happened, and the referee is certain that you were indeed 29 behind when you came to the table, so the mistake must have been played.

In this instance, it would be quite correct for the referee to spot the yellow – the player would make the clearance ...-green-brown-blue-yellow-pink-black.

[RaNeN]

WOW!! You get silly ideas!!!! They are always fun to know!

[Ginger Freak]

If the referee is certain that the scoring was wrong (rather than there being a foul, which would be condoned as soon as the next shot was played), he must alter the score he calls and allow the black ball to decide the frame.

So would the score read 68-67 to Bobby (despite losing the frame), or 68-69 to Jimmy?

Seems a bit unfair on Bobby, since if the ref had done his job right in the first place, Jimmy would have had to take a different colour at some point or play for a Snooker, making it more likely for Bobby to be allowed back to the table to finish things off...

[The Statman]

Well, whatever the score SHOULD be, that is what the score should be amended to.

If he finds himself 8 behind instead of 6, then he's lost the frame, and need not play the black.

If it had been the other way round, so that Jimmy's break was actually 62 and not 60 as the ref had called, then the score would be adjusted so that he was only 6 behind rather than 8, which is the correct thing to do if everyone is certain that the error was made and the break should indeed have been 62.

He cannot be disadvantaged by the referee's failure to add up correctly and giving him two points fewer than his break really was; neither can he be given an advantage if the break is announced too high by the referee – as long as, when the error is noticed, there is 100% certainty in the referee's mind that he had indeed made the error.

[Bookman]

OK a new silly scenario

In a face-to-face with DawRef on Monday he told me about this thread. These are my thoughts on it :-
I don’t think the Rules themselves will provide an answer. There are conflicting ethics but the tone of the question suggests that it was the ref who brought his mistake to the attention of the players – probably not a wise thing to do.



1) From the ’95 revision, the Rules set out to generally protect players from referee error, e.g it no longer made playing with a ball on the wrong spot the responsibility of the player (and therefore a foul).



2) On the other hand, when a colour is found to be off the table – basically another refereeing error, it is respotted ‘when discovered’ and the error, effectively, made good.



3) Thirdly, once the tip of the cue has made contact with the cue ball, any previous foul (3.11.c.) is condoned.



So, ‘1’ says Jimmy shouldn’t suffer, ‘2’ says a mistake can be put right and ‘3’ says anything that’s gone before is too late to consider. Neither deals with the specific problem and the principles disagree with one another. The new 5.1.c. doesn’t help so, for me, the only option is to invoke 5.1.a.ii. and create a solution that both players will accept.



The first step is to establish that all three people involved are satisfied that the scoring error DID occur. If they AREN’T, I’d say the scores stand and Jimmy can win with the Black. In fact, unless the break was an easy one to remember stroke by stroke, e.g. all one colour etc., I’m very doubtful whether, between them, they’ll be able to categorically decide what actually happened. I’m a great exponent of creating ‘what ifs’ to exercise the snooker brain, however far fetched they may be, but one always has to bear in mind the reality of the situation when all’s said and done.



If they ARE sure, I’d feel a restart could be unfair to Bobby because it would cancel out his 68 break but, equally, Jimmy’s made 56 (54) before the Pink so they may agree that’s the best option. If not, my alternative proposal would be to re-create the position prior to the Pink – or, perhaps, the Blue and Brown - being played so that Jimmy has the chance to lay snookers. If memories don’t provide accurate placings for each ball, they could go on their spots and the cue ball in hand.



So, to sum up, as far as the Rules go, I’d say the only help they provide is ‘see what you can do’ under 5.1.a.ii. Anything cooked up under that Rule requires the agreement of BOTH players and, if that can’t be achieved, I’d revert to 3.11.c. and say any original error is condoned.

[The Statman]

Yes indeed. That scenario I mentioned where the yellow had innocently been potted only once (after the final red) instead of twice, and that meant the player could no longer win the frame, it has officially been stated that the ball should come back when its absence was noticed, so the break could be made with the colours in the wrong order.

So I think a similar line should be applied here. Although the rules state that a foul is condoned as soon as the next stroke is played, it says nothing about where there was no suggestion that a foul was wrongly called or not called, but the referee simply mis-added the score.

Imagine if the referee had accientally called "121" instead of "122" after the yellow when the player was making a maximum, and the player did not realise till after he'd potted the green. (Or the referee realised when the green went in that "124" must be wrong.) I think nobody would seriously suggest that no adjustment could be made and the maximum would not be allowed to stand!

No, while a foul might be condoned after the next shot, a certain scoring error should always be corrected.

The other day, I was refereeing our league match and the opponent's team's player was 19 behind with pink and black on the table. My player fouled and hit the black. I called 7 but accidentally only added 6 to his score. Anyway the balls were safe, so a long safety exchange took place and when he had a chance, our opponent looked at the scoreboard just to make sure he wouldn't lose the frame if he potted the pink. He noticed the difference of 13 and mentioned to me that is should be 12 (i.e. he could win without the re-spot). I agreed that the foul had been 7, and we all agreed that the difference had been 19 when the foul took place. So I adjusted the score so that the difference was 12.

I don't think there is any other course of action that could be deemed 'correct'.

[chasmmi]

Slightly off topic but I know when Wally West was making his 155 break he actually double checked with the referee if his maths was correct when he potted the final black before the colours and the ref called 124. He was so focused on the break he had no idea how high it was.

That's kind of why i asked the original question because i thought it would be had if a player not only has to focus on his game but also double check the referee is correct (Although of course a refs mistakes are very few and far between).

[Joe99]

It may sound paradoxical, but if a situation is not covered by the rules, it is covered by the rules...

According to Section 5, the Referee shall "be free to make a decision in the interest of fair-play for any situation not adequately covered by these Rules"

Based on this, I would suggest that the Referee has the authority to make a decision in the circumstances described and that whatever he decides, that ruling will be binding and must be accepted by both players in a gentlemanly fashion.

[Bookman]

As Joe99 says, there is, as I originally said, provision in Section 5 for the ref to sort out anything not covered by The Rules BUT in all cases, particularly when the problem might be the result of his own error, fairness and the spirit of the game should be taken into account in reaching a decision.
In the case quoted, the error was discovered at a crucial point of the game when the verdict would effectively award the frame to one player or the other. Either would be unfair to the loser but, whereas The Statman's example of spotting an absent Yellow is endorsed by a printed Rule (3.7.c.), any solution to THIS situation is purely a matter of opinion - hence this thread.
In most cases, it would be virtually impossible to mentally reconstruct a break of 56 (unless it was, e.g., a run of eight Red+Pinks) but, IF both players agree a mistake has occurred, either a mutually acceptable re-start OR Blue, Pink and Black on their spots with the Cue Ball in hand (to give a potential for snookers) would represent possible solutions within the ethics of the game.