Refereeing question

[Bigmeek]

So what's the consensus on this? I would go with the non-striker has conceded.

PS. Can't see anything in the rules about how you are supposed to concede. Perhaps something needs to be added.

[Jetmech]

PS. Can't see anything in the rules about how you are supposed to concede. Perhaps something needs to be added.

You just say to your opponent (or the ref) that you don't want to continue. Simple as that, don't think that needs to be specifically set out in the rules.
If there's a referee, staying in your seat or a nod of the head when the ref looks in your direction when your oppenent is leaving the table, will be sufficient as well.

Best regards,
GR.

[Bigmeek]

You just say to your opponent (or the ref) that you don't want to continue. Simple as that, don't think that needs to be specifically set out in the rules.
If there's a referee, staying in your seat or a nod of the head when the ref looks in your direction when your oppenent is leaving the table, will be sufficient as well.
Best regards,
GR.

Agreed. A "nod of the head" has always been an accepted way of conceding and is not in the rules. By the same token, therefor, taking the balls out of the pockets and putting them on the table should also signify a concession. I think most folk who play snooker seriously follow this informal rule. Things start to go a bit wrong when you have people playing or reffing who are not really familiar with the rules or etiquette of the game.

[Jetmech]

taking the balls out of the pockets and putting them on the table should also signify a concession.

However, not when your oppenent is at the table, and certainly not - as was the case for the young lad - when your opponent is lining up for frame ball, or for that matter, any ball.

Things start to go a bit wrong when you have people playing or reffing who are not really familiar with the rules or etiquette of the game.

Which certainly applies to the young lad's opponent!

Best regards,
GR.

[snookerdad]

I have received an opinion from a WPBSA referee. He explained it's not a ruling as he wasn't there.

But he did clarify a couple of points.

He said: "There can not be two strikers at the same time, therefore the opponent who took balls out of the pocket was not the striker. He was the Non-Striker. Therefore Rule 3.15 Ball Moved by Other than Striker applies to the balls taken out of the pocket. ...the rule says that such balls..."...shall be repositioned .... without penalty.

"If I had been actually refereeing the match I would have given the non-striker a warning (ungentlemany conduct) put the balls back in the pocket and allowed play to continue as actually happened."

In regard to the rule that 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."

He explained: "This relates to doubles matches when the wrong player comes to the table. The key phrase here is "out of turn". As I said before you can not have two strikers at the same time and until the last striker has completed his turn and left the table this sentence from rule 2.5 can not apply."

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

He said: "This is rule 3.10.d.(i). and clearly says Striker not Non-Striker. So in your case it does not apply."

Interesting stuff.

Tim Dunkley (World Snooker coach)

[nrage]

Very interesting. I missed that phrase "out of turn", that does clarify the intent of that rule more.

[Bigmeek]

Interesting stuff indeed. So it looks like the correct result was achieved and the young lad lost the frame. In the league I play in I can see this being really controversial. The striker should probably always ask the question "are you conceding" if the non-striker starts taking balls out of the pocket or something similar. It's a bit unfair on the striker when his concentration has been broken.

[biggus stickus]

I think it should be written into the rules as a concession. I mean honestly how much would that put you off a shot in a tight competition. Mistake or not if the young lad was still playing you should not go near the table until he is finished.

[tommygunner1309]

Hi Tim The problem with the 'Ball moved other than the striker' is that this rule applies to balls 'in play'. If you read section 2 14
Forced off the Table.
A ball is forced off the table if it comes to rest other than on the bed of the table or in a pocket, or if it is picked up by the striker, whilst it is in play, except as provided for in Section 3 Rule 14(h).
I spoke to another referee who stated that 'If I had been refereeing, I would have called Frame, as soon as the non striker came to the table and began picking balls out of the rack. The decision would be final' and pointed out to me rule Section 5 1 (a)

The Referee
(I) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play
(ii)be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by these Rules.

I agree with him, and would have done exactly the same thing. A non striker coming to the table during the strikers play is indeed ungentlemanly conduct, and conceding whilst a non striker, and conceding when snookers are not required. However, I would not give him a warning - but would politely point out that it was not in the spirit of the game, and a warning would be forthcoming if it happened again.

So already we have three referees who have a different interpretation of the game, but in a sense are generally correct. For me the rule above 'referee be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by these Rules' says it all. I believe any good fair minded, impartial referee would have taken the action by the non striker as a concession.

I have received an email from a Grade 1 Tutor/Examiner who sits on the rules committee of the WPBSA who agrees with my assessment of this situation. I have emailed him back to ask if I can use his name and quote his reply. This is only Etiquette and am awaiting his reply

[neptar]

I think this comes down to the person refereeing the frame. If they feel strongly enough that this conduct merits punishment of losing the frame, or just a warning.

I will say as a side note that it's easy to blame others for your own mistake. The way I see it, if somebody does this to you and you miss the black, who should you blame? I think you have to look at yourself in these situations rather than dwell on the actions of others. I remember a game where I needed a 5 point snooker and snookered my opponent on the brown. It was positioned in such a way he had to go up and down the table with a chance of hitting blue, pink or black. Instead he tried to go round the back of the blue when the angle clearly wasn't there, it was pretty clear to see. He missed by a mile and ended up with the white on the baulke cushion at the other end of the table. It wasn't called as a foul and miss, instead just a foul. I let him play again and he just smashed into them and got a lucky snooker on me. I thought I'd been hard done by at the time, but reflecting on it after the frame I only had myself to blame. I'd had chances earlier in that frame and not made the most of them. In the same way the youngster had the chance to put away that black and none of it would have mattered. If somebody really puts you off, stand up from your shot and refocus. Maybe even tell the ref.

[magicman]

The kid was 9 years old

[neptar]

Totally missed his age in the original post, but I still think some of what I said rings true. It's something he can learn from and can make him a stronger player in the future.

[SnkrRef]

To my mind the lad's opponent, who was most definitely the non-striker, made a clear and decisive act of concession by removing the balls and placing them on the table. As non-striker he shouldn't have put balls on the table, not should he have conceded at that point.

A scenario that muddies the waters a little though: the non-striker misreads the scores and he believes he's lost the frame as the striker has just potted the black. He moves some balls from the rails onto the table, only to find out that the scores are now level and that the black should be respotted. Has he conceded the frame, or would his act be ignored?

[t.lavery55]

To my mind the lad's opponent, who was most definitely the non-striker, made a clear and decisive act of concession by removing the balls and placing them on the table. As non-striker he shouldn't have put balls on the table, not should he have conceded at that point.

A scenario that muddies the waters a little though: the non-striker misreads the scores and he believes he's lost the frame as the striker has just potted the black. He moves some balls from the rails onto the table, only to find out that the scores are now level and that the black should be respotted. Has he conceded the frame, or would his act be ignored?

As there is no risk of potentially gaining an advantage by disturbing the striker's concentration in the middle of a break in this case, I think the most sensible interpretation would be to treat this as "ball moved by other than striker", replace the balls without penalty, and allow play to continue on the respotted black.

[DeanH]

It is amazing how many players forget the basics when it comes to conceding (maybe they need to remind the players at the next Players conference ):
1) A Player can only concede during their turn, when they are the Striker.
2) A Player can only concede when snookers are required.

So in the scenario above, the player-concerned was not the Striker (as until the toss of the coin there is no Striker) and snookers were not required so he was not officially allowed to concede.
I would say the same as above, "ball moved by other than the striker", replace the balls without penalty, and then continue with the process for a respot Black.
This could be deemed as giving a benefit to the offending player as his misunderstood concession has been refused and he now has a chance to play and possibly win the frame that otherwise would have been awarded to the other player.
The next scenario, same as above but the player instead of taking the balls out of the pocket and placing them on the table, he offers his hand which is accepted.
This scenario is the same as with Tony Drago and the concession was accepted.
In the rules it mentions several times that a concession can be refused by the opponent, the concession is then null and void BUT it does not say that a concession accepted is firm and irreversible. Well not from my reading, anyone?
cheers