Snooker rule - foul & miss again

[MasterBreak147]

Ok back again with yet another snooker foul and miss blob

Green on spot brown on spot white behind brown near baulk line between yellow & brown half ball snookered on green, bends around it hits side cushion and hits brown...foul miss and replace please since no pot was on..

After the replacement of balls same scenario but this time when trying to bend around brown he strikes his tip into the brown after the swerve but the white this time HITS the green

We wasn't sure, He said no miss foul 4 only because he hit the actual ball on this time (green) but still he made a foul after striking the white...would he have made the contact on the green if he hadn't have moved the brown emm i guess not!

we asked a floating ref (so be it a very old one rusty even) he gave the impression he wasn't 100% but said NO MISS

now was this a miss or not please? just to say we played on with no miss and won the frame and match but still i personally thought it should have been a miss.

thanks

[Terry Davidson]

The foul on the brown would have ocurred first, before the miss on the green (which didn't happen). The referee (or opponent in this case) is required to call 'foul' as soon as the brown was hit, no matter what happened to the cueball and green afterwards.

So your floating ref was correct in this case.

Terry

[MasterBreak147]

Thanks Terry for clearing that up, but I've gotta say that's a shocking joke of a rule tbh

So basically if someone is snookered full ball they can aim straight at the nominated ball dart down the table push brown way with tip (foul) and hit the ball on, no miss is called and out of the pile of shizzla?

Bloody disgusting ruling that really

Cheers Terry

[Neil Taperell]

But that is then an intentional foul I believe , which in my book is cheating .

[warren132]

Here is a similar situation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU8__0e9Dek

hope this clears it up for everyone.

[MasterBreak147]

Cheers for link, yes Neil indeed and I'm not saying anyone would go and that but what I'm saying this ruling makes it a possibility ?

[hotpot]

Did,nt they change the rule after O.sullivan,s foul against higgins where he was in a miss scenario and accidentally touched a red with his hand . No miss was called much to Higgin,s surprise but i,m sure that incident was seen as a loophole and the rule was changed to stop it happening again .

[Terry Davidson]

masterbreak147:

In that case it would be an obvious intentional foul. You have to assume each player will conduct himself in a sportsmanlike manner (although I know there are cases where that doesn't happen, and I've seen a few).

I also believe hotpot is correct and they did change the rule after that incident between Ronnie and Higgins but in the incident first described here by Masterbreak147 the referee MUST call the 'foul' as soon as the brown was hit however depending on the referee and his thoughts on the matter, he may decide to reset the balls and call a 'foul and miss' since the actual foul happened before the green was hit and therefore the miss sequence continues.

I'll have to check the rulebook and see how it's worded as I have the latest edition. I wouldn't think this instance would come up very often.

Terry

[hotpot]

I remember much debate after that incident and it was recognised that there was a loophole to get your way out of a miss situation by fouling a ball . I think if youre in a miss situation now then any foul other than in off will still be called a miss and the balls replaced .

[david16]

Foul, 4 to the opponent, then you being put back in baulk where the ball landed up is not the right solution for a foul.

Why should the player who extracted the initial foul effectively gain no advantage.

[tommygunner1309]

Did,nt they change the rule after O.sullivan,s foul against higgins where he was in a miss scenario and accidentally touched a red with his hand . No miss was called much to Higgin,s surprise but i,m sure that incident was seen as a loophole and the rule was changed to stop it happening again .

Sect 3 14 (d) After the cue ball has been replaced under this rule, and the striker fouls any ball, including the cue ball while preparing to play a stroke a miss will not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate penalty will be imposed and the ball on shall be the same as prior to the last stroke made, namely;
(I) any red, where red was the ball on
(II)the colour on, where all reds were off the table; or
(III) a colour of the strikers choice, where the ball on was a colour after a red had been potted
and
(IV)the next player may elect to play the stroke himself or ask the offender to play again from the position left; or
(V)the next player may ask the referee to replace all balls moved to their original position and have the offender play again from there ; and
(vi) if the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls any warning concerning the possible awarding of the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.

It was rule (V) that was introduced or amended after the Ronnie/Higgins event, but may not answer the original question as a stroke is actually in progress, however the referee does have the option of Sect 5 which basically includes being the sole judge of fair or unfair play and be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play.
Personally, I would just call a foul - because it is extremely difficult for a ref to judge whether it is deliberate or not, unless of course it is absolutely blatant. Some players in difficult situations get a 'twitch' as they play the shot, and move around a little more than normal. Alex Higgins was a classic example - he moved around on almost every shot - and if a player argues that it wasn't deliberate how do you prove otherwise.
In the Ronnie/Higgins case, and I have watched it a dozen times, I don't believe it was deliberate. Ronnie was just doing what good players do, and own up to his fouls. I play with a mate who I have to watch like a hawk, because he never owns up to his fouls. His argument is 'Well you are a qualified ref, so you should know'. Not my way, I own up, and it can be frustrating - so it is always nice to hammer him 4 - 1 ...........