Refereeing question

[SouthPaw]

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.

True I've seen it many times myself on a Saturday afternoon when the drinks flowing , i guess that's one of the pitfalls of a game with so many scenarios that can arise on the baize...

[vmax4steve]

It is a mistake by the referee IMO, the ungentlemanly conduct rule is there for a reason but so few referees use it.
I think it would be wise for all local leagues to make an addition to their general league rules that any such behaviour must deemed as a concession and to use the ungentlemanly conduct rule must be mandatory in all such cases.

[Jetmech]

Hi,

Regardless of the fact that the adult's behaviour could be interpreted as a consession,

the official Rules of Snooker, Section 2 [Definitions], definition 5, clearly states:
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.

Therefore, according to Section 3 [The Game], 10. Penalties, paragraph (d) (i)
Penalties are (...) seven points if the striker uses a ball off the table for any purpose

The young lad should have been awarded 7 penalty points, making the difference in scores definately greater than 7 and the frame would have been his, regardless of his shot on the last black.

Unscrewing a cue, IMO, can never be regarded as a consession. The rules don't mention anything about this, and after all, when a player is not at the table, he is allowed to do with his cue what he wants. Except of course if the noise of doing so should bring his opponent out of concentration.

Best regards,
GR.

[snookerdad]

That is certainly one way of interpreting the rules.

Are you a qualified referee?

I ask because I want to be able to quote an official source.

Tim

[Jetmech]

Hi Tim,

No, I'm not a qualified referee, although I intend to obtain a license. That's why I've been reading/studying the rules of snooker over the past months.

BTW: IMO it's not a way of interpreting the rules, the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation, if you come to the table as non-striker, everything you do will count as a foul and points will be awarded to the opponent accordingly. And it is also very clear that no one but the referee is allowed to take balls out of a pocket, with 7 penalty points being awarded on infriction of this rule.

So, should you have any further discussion about this frame at the club, you can quote the rules of snooker as published by the WSA as source. I know there are some situations on a snooker table were the rules leave room for interpretation, but I don't think in this particular case there is.

Best regards,
GR.

[snookerdad]

OK, GR, thanks.

[nrage]

BTW: IMO it's not a way of interpreting the rules, the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation,

It's really not clear at all IMO.

if you come to the table as non-striker, everything you do will count as a foul and points will be awarded to the opponent accordingly.

Can you have 2 strikers? Cos, the young lad was still "at the table" and "the striker" when the older guy took balls out of the pocket.

And it is also very clear that no one but the referee is allowed to take balls out of a pocket, with 7 penalty points being awarded on infriction of this rule.

It says "uses a ball off the table for any purpose" .. for what purpose was he using the balls?

I think you're fooling yourself if you believe you're not "interpreting" the rules here, it's certainly not as clear as you make out. Not that you're not correct, I am no more qualified to say - there are qualified refs who post here so it would be interesting to hear what they have to say.

[Jetmech]

Can you have 2 strikers? Cos, the young lad was still "at the table" and "the striker" when the older guy took balls out of the pocket.

No you can't, but that's irrelevant. The rule says clearly:
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.

I hope I don't need to explain the word "considered", do I?

So, really, very clear and no room for interpretation.

It says "uses a ball off the table for any purpose" .. for what purpose was he using the balls?

Well, you quoted my text, which is a quote from the rules. Is there room for interpretation when they write "for any purpose". So whether he took the balls out of the pocket to go juggling, play soccer or god knows what, it is a foul.

So again, really, very clear and no room for interpretation.

Best regards,
GR.

[nrage]

No you can't, but that's irrelevant. The rule says clearly:
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.

Fair point.

I hope I don't need to explain the word "considered", do I?

No need to get snarky.

Well, you quoted my text, which is a quote from the rules. Is there room for interpretation when they write "for any purpose". So whether he took the balls out of the pocket to go juggling, play soccer or god knows what, it is a foul.

My point was, he didn't use the balls for anything, there was no use to which he put the balls. This rule is clearly intended to stop a striker using a ball to measure a gap or similar. Applying it here may be to the letter of the law (perhaps) but it's not to the intent or spirit of the law.

What is fairly clear is that he was conceding the frame, as such the rules which should be applied (IMO) are those referring to concessions out of turn. A referee should have some scope to apply the rules in the most appropriate fashion. Applying them to the letter in opposition to common sense is why many people disliked Alan Chamberlain's decision to penalise Mark Selby in the incident where Dott prevented an in-off with his fist.

[Jetmech]

No need to get snarky.

No offense intended, but I thought that this particular rule is written in such way that there's no room for discussion. The non-striker coming to the table is penalized with the amount of points that would apply as if he were the striker.

My point was, he didn't use the balls for anything, there was no use to which he put the balls. This rule is clearly intended to stop a striker using a ball to measure a gap or similar. Applying it here may be to the letter of the law (perhaps) but it's not to the intent or spirit of the law.

One could say that he used the balls in the pocket to communicate his consession. But still, he had no right to do so as non-striker. So a foul or warning should have been called in any case.

What is fairly clear is that he was conceding the frame, as such the rules which should be applied (IMO) are those referring to concessions out of turn. A referee should have some scope to apply the rules in the most appropriate fashion. Applying them to the letter in opposition to common sense is why many people disliked Alan Chamberlain's decision to penalise Mark Selby in the incident where Dott prevented an in-off with his fist.

I've seen that 'incident' too. Indeed not an example of professional refereeing. However, not professional by Dott either to do this in a ranking tournament match. And on his next turn he could have hammered the white straight into a pocket to allow Selby to play from in hand after all.

On a side note: I had this (the initial incident in this thread) happening to myself as well, in a local (province) league ranking tournament. No referee during the match, as it was in the early stages. Three remaining colors on their spot, and I'm perfect on the blue, and 17 points ahead. Just as I'm lining up, my opponent unscrews his cue and walks away from the table, in my line of sight! (didn't even care to shake my hand) Consequently, I miss the blue, and (me stupid) called him back to the table, saying he can still win. And he did!

Best regards,
GR.

[nrage]

No offense intended, but I thought that this particular rule is written in such way that there's no room for discussion. The non-striker coming to the table is penalized with the amount of points that would apply as if he were the striker.

It's still not perfectly clear. What is meant by "comes to the table"? The implication of that phrase, as the rule was written/intended, is that he physically walked to the table to play a shot, right? In this case however, he didn't "come to the table" to play a shot, he did physically walk to the table, but it was to concede.

So, the rule itself is clear, but whether it applies to this situation is unclear, this was my point (in addition to questioning having 2 strikers, which you cleared up for me).

One could say that he used the balls in the pocket to communicate his consession. But still, he had no right to do so as non-striker. So a foul or warning should have been called in any case.

Agreed, he should not concede unless he is actually the striker (not just considered the striker for purposes of determining a foul, for example). The section I quoted earlier deals with that, the referee would caution the player in that case and if he persisted award the frame or match depending on seriousness.

This is the section I think applies here.

I've seen that 'incident' too. Indeed not an example of professional refereeing. However, not professional by Dott either to do this in a ranking tournament match. And on his next turn he could have hammered the white straight into a pocket to allow Selby to play from in hand after all.

I thought Dott should have done something like that, however Alan would probably have called Foul and a Miss in that case :P

On a side note: I had this (the initial incident in this thread) happening to myself as well, in a local (province) league ranking tournament. No referee during the match, as it was in the early stages. Three remaining colors on their spot, and I'm perfect on the blue, and 17 points ahead. Just as I'm lining up, my opponent unscrews his cue and walks away from the table, in my line of sight! (didn't even care to shake my hand) Consequently, I miss the blue, and (me stupid) called him back to the table, saying he can still win. And he did!

So you've learned the lesson the hard way. But, at least, it'll never happen to you again.

On a side note I've also seen some excellent refereeing. One incident which springs to mind, which was both clever and amusing was I think Mark King, and sadly I cannot recall the referee. Mark was trying to get across where he thought a ball should be replaced (this was not a full televised match so they didn't have the assistance of the overlay screen). Mark is not allowed to touch the balls himself, so the referee picks up the ball then takes Marks hand and places it on his wrist. Mark then moves the ball via the ref's hand into his suggested position. It was an excellent application of common sense to technically avoid a technicality of the rules.

[Bigmeek]

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

[tommygunner1309]

.







My point was, he didn't use the balls for anything, there was no use to which he put the balls. This rule is clearly What is fairly clear is that he was conceding the frame, as such the rules which should be applied (IMO) are those referring to concessions out of turn. A referee should have some scope to apply the rules in the most appropriate fashion. Applying them to the letter in opposition to common sense is why many people disliked Alan Chamberlain's decision to penalise Mark Selby in the incident where Dott prevented an in-off with his fist.

It seems to me that he was using the balls for a purpose. The purpose of ending the present frame and setting up the table for the next, or if match was over, to be put back in the box. If you remove balls from a pocket, there must, somewhere, be a purpose for that. I have now asked the rules committee of the WPBSA to add a rule of supplement to the rule book 'defining what is meant by concession'. Every single referee I have spoken to about this, including Tutor/Examiners say the same thing. Frame over - young lad wins. And they have all agreed, that however you look at it, the balls taken out of the pocket were used for a 'purpose' - whatever that purpose may be.

[snookerdad]

Thanks tommygunner.

Can you give me the name of a qualified referee who has said this as I want to be able to quote an official source?

Tim

[nrage]

It seems to me that he was using the balls for a purpose. The purpose of ending the present frame and setting up the table for the next, or if match was over, to be put back in the box. If you remove balls from a pocket, there must, somewhere, be a purpose for that. I have now asked the rules committee of the WPBSA to add a rule of supplement to the rule book 'defining what is meant by concession'. Every single referee I have spoken to about this, including Tutor/Examiners say the same thing. Frame over - young lad wins. And they have all agreed, that however you look at it, the balls taken out of the pocket were used for a 'purpose' - whatever that purpose may be.

Perhaps, you might be correct. We could probably argue the semantics of this and other phrases all day but I don't actually think this is the important point in this specific case.

To my mind what is important is applying rules as they were intended to be applied. The rule about non striker coming to the table out of turn is not intended to apply to someone offering a concession. Likewise, the rule about using a ball in a pocket for any purpose was intended to prevent someone using a ball to measure the clearance or gap around balls in play, not to apply to someone mistakenly starting the next frame.

So, IMO applying these rules in this specific situation goes against the intent of the rules, and therefore the wrong thing for a referee to do. Instead, common sense should prevail. It was fairly clear the offender was offering a concession, and there are rules for that so apply those instead.