Refereeing question

[snookerdad]

A nine-year-old lad played a league match tonight. He potted blue and pink and was getting ready to play the black for the frame.

His opponent miss-read the scoreboard and thought the pink was the frame ball. He took some balls out of a pocket and out them on the table.

Hats off to the young lad for pointing out it was a black-ball game and his opponent could still win.

The balls were taken off the table, the game continued and the young lad lost.

My question: Is it a foul to take balls out of a pocket and put them on the table?

One rule says "… If a non-striker comes to the table, out of turn, he shall be considered as the striker for any foul he may commit before leaving the table."

Another rule says it's a foul if the striker "uses a ball off the table for any purpose" (in this case for conceding?).

But another says "If a ball, stationary or moving, is disturbed other than by the striker, it shall be re-positioned by the referee to the place he judges the ball was, or would have finished, without penalty."

So, is he deemed to be the striker or non-striker?

I understand the rule about conceding out of turn but I believe that would be classed as ungentlemanly conduct - not as a foul - which of course can result in the referee awarding the frame to the opponent.

Tim

[Bigmeek]

How many points were in the game at the time?

[jrc750]

How many points were in the game at the time?

He said it was a "black ball game" so i guess less than 7, so the score is not important is it ???
Don't know the exact ruling but got to be a foul of some sort, maybe game over as he in effect conceded.

[Bigmeek]

He said it was a "black ball game" so i guess less than 7, so the score is not important is it ???
Don't know the exact ruling but got to be a foul of some sort, maybe game over as he in effect conceded.

Agreed. Score not important. Didn't' read post properly. Hope someone gives an answer to this as I've seen it happen a few times. You also get the situations where someone starts putting their cue away in their case, unscrewing cue, zero-ing the score board etc. All these would indicate a concession.

[nrage]

My question: Is it a foul to take balls out of a pocket and put them on the table?

Not strictly, as far as I can see, unless you actually use them for something.

One rule says "… If a non-striker comes to the table, out of turn, he shall be considered as the striker for any foul he may commit before leaving the table."

Can you have 2 "strikers" at the table? I don't think that makes any sense. The phrase "come to the table" also carries the implication that they were coming to the table to play a shot, and he wasn't. So I would argue he wasn't in fact coming to the table in the sense meant in that rule.

I think at best you could say he violated this rule on conduct appropriate..
Section 4 - Snooker
3. Non-striker
The non-striker shall, when the striker is playing, avoid standing or moving in the line of sight of the striker. He shall sit or stand at a reasonable distance from the table and avoid making any movement or action that may interrupt the concentration of the striker.

Another rule says it's a foul if the striker "uses a ball off the table for any purpose" (in this case for conceding?).

I think he was simply conceding and the balls coming out of the pocket were secondary to that, he wasn't using them for anything really - it's the same as if he was unscrewing his cue, or packing it away, or .. anything else you might do at the end of the frame.

But another says "If a ball, stationary or moving, is disturbed other than by the striker, it shall be re-positioned by the referee to the place he judges the ball was, or would have finished, without penalty."

I think this rule only applies to balls "in play"..

So, is he deemed to be the striker or non-striker?

My gut feeling is that he is the non-striker offering a concession.

The striker has then refused it as he is permitted to do:
5. Conceding
(a) A player may only concede when he is the striker. The opponent has the right to accept or refuse the concession, which becomes null and void if the opponent chooses to play on.

However, there is a ruling that concession when snookers are not required is ungentlemanly conduct, or misconduct:

(c) A player shall not concede a frame in any match unless snookers are required. Any breach of this rule shall be regarded as ungentlemanly conduct or misconduct by the player concerned.

The conduct section immediately above details what happens when ungentlemanly conduct or misconduct occurs. The referee warns the player, awards the frame, or even awards the game if the conduct is bad enough.

In this case I think a referee would have warned the player not to concede at that point, and to remain seated/out of the line of sight of the striker. If he persisted in his actions, then maybe award the frame. As he was simply mistaken I can't imagine he would have persisted.

So, ultimately, I think what happened was what should have happened.

[nrage]

Agreed. Score not important. Didn't' read post properly. Hope someone gives an answer to this as I've seen it happen a few times. You also get the situations where someone starts putting their cue away in their case, unscrewing cue, zero-ing the score board etc. All these would indicate a concession.

Indeed, and I think in all these cases the striker has the option to accept or decline the concession. If the former, frame won. If the latter, play on. In either case, the referee could warn the non-striker for ungentlemanly conduct, and if s/he considered the behaviour bad enough - award the frame anyway.

[pottr]

I started a thread on this a while back to do with etiquette.

I would have awarded the young lad the frame. If I ever have my opponent unscrew their cue, I walk over and shake their hand. It's very rare anyone contests although last year I did threaten to put someone through the wall when he attempted to put it back together.

Hendry did it against Martin Gould last year. Gouldy missed the black and Hendry won the match. Disgusting behaviour.

[mythman69]

Hendry did it against Martin Gould last year. Gouldy missed the black and Hendry won the match. Disgusting behaviour.

Is there a link to this maybe?

[DeanH]

also remember Tony Drago not that long ago, miss-counted, offered his hand and conceded the frame, then realised he could still win without snookers, but concession had already been accepted.

[tommygunner1309]

Its quite clear that the young lad should have been awarded the frame. Picking balls out of the pocket to reset the table is a clear concession. Its not the problem of the young lad to point out the error of his opponents ways, but full marks to him for honesty.
Take a look at section 4 (3) which states:
Non-striker.

The non striker shall, when the striker is playing, avoid standing or moving in the line of sight of the striker. He shall sit or stand at a reasonable distance from the table and avoid making ANY MOVEMENT OR ACTION THAT MAY INTERRUPT THE CONCENTRATION OF THE STRIKER.

So - the above is a 'rule'. Hence going back to Section 2 (16)

Foul

A foul is any infringement of these rules

As a referee, to me, this is clear cut - no arguments - no going back. It is both players responsibility to check the scoreboard.

[Terry Davidson]

Putting the balls back on the table or putting away or unscrewing the cue are regarded as a concession however the young lad refused the consession. He'll learn...if it happens to me I automatically accept the concession and if the opponent then says 'Oh, I miscounted the scores' and goes to put those balls back in the pocket I say it's too late bub, you conceded.

This is an old hustler's tactic which you used to see when the guy was on his game ball with a fairly easy pot and the opponent would start unscrewing his cue. I used to immediately get up from the shot and ask him if he was conceding or even accept the concession if I didn't like the guy's table manners.

Terry

[nrage]

Its quite clear that the young lad should have been awarded the frame. Picking balls out of the pocket to reset the table is a clear concession. Its not the problem of the young lad to point out the error of his opponents ways, but full marks to him for honesty.
Take a look at section 4 (3) which states:
Non-striker.

The non striker shall, when the striker is playing, avoid standing or moving in the line of sight of the striker. He shall sit or stand at a reasonable distance from the table and avoid making ANY MOVEMENT OR ACTION THAT MAY INTERRUPT THE CONCENTRATION OF THE STRIKER.

So - the above is a 'rule'. Hence going back to Section 2 (16)

Foul

A foul is any infringement of these rules

As a referee, to me, this is clear cut - no arguments - no going back. It is both players responsibility to check the scoreboard.

Some rules do not result in a foul, e.g.

Section 4, 5(c)
A player shall not concede a frame in any match unless snookers are required. Any breach of this rule shall be regarded as ungentlemanly conduct or misconduct by the player concerned.

But, you're right it does say that a foul is any infringement of "these rules".. exactly what it means by "these rules" is a little unclear, but the initial section of the document says the rules of snooker are pages 5-30, which includes the section on conduct I quoted above. So .. vague it is.

[SouthPaw]

This is the problem with league snooker, these scenarios creep up now and again and unfortunately more times than not the referee doesn't know how to deal with the situation, more than likely down to not interested in the grey points in the rule book.

In a official match so to speak, the referee would have asked the player taking the balls from the pocket to the table if he was conceding the frame, if he said yes then that's it, after that if he realized he could still win, too late! Just like Dean pointed out with that Tony Drago match lately...

[mythman69]

This is the problem with league snooker, these scenarios creep up now and again and unfortunately more times than not the referee doesn't know how to deal with the situation, more than likely down to not interested in the grey points in the rule book.

These grey points are an even bigger problem when there is no referee . . . seen so many arguments over whether it is a free ball or if a player hit a ball or not, etc, etc.

[magicman]

100% shocking behaviour from the adult here. It's irrelevant whether he miscounted or not. When your opponent is clearing up you don't throw balls on the table. Terry is right in saying when any gamesmanship occurs shake the guy by the hand and accept the concession. It's the only way you stop that kind of poor sportsmanship, shockingly illustrated by Hendry last year. My gut instinct in this case is that the adult deliberately did what he did to break the concentration of the child who he was embarrassed to be losing to.