Foul when in-hand

[tommygunner1309]

Yes I did remember the rule change as we discussed it at one of the SRA meetings - so I now believe that the Higgins/O'Sullivan incident happened before this amendment - indeed, am I right in thinking that the amendment was made BECAUSE of the incident?

Picking your brains now - in the first incident, the player fouls the red with the rest and the ref calls 'foul - four player x'.
Then he fouls the black - how would you make the call - rescinding the foul four and substituting with foul 7.
I can just imagine this happening to me in the next match I ref - and would be rather red faced if I called is wrong

[SnkrRef]

Yes I did remember the rule change as we discussed it at one of the SRA meetings - so I now believe that the Higgins/O'Sullivan incident happened before this amendment - indeed, am I right in thinking that the amendment was made BECAUSE of the incident?

Picking your brains now - in the first incident, the player fouls the red with the rest and the ref calls 'foul - four player x'.
Then he fouls the black - how would you make the call - rescinding the foul four and substituting with foul 7.
I can just imagine this happening to me in the next match I ref - and would be rather red faced if I called is wrong

Yes, the 2011 amendment was made after the ROS/Higgins incident and probably because of it!

In the other incident the referee would simply first off call foul. Scores and penalty announcement should (just about) always be the last thing the referee does at the end of a player's stroke/turn. It should be taken as an indication that it is ok for the next stroke to be played. Whilst calling the scores doesn't end a stroke/turn, a stroke is not ended until the referee has announced any scores/penalties. Waiting to call the score/penalty ensures that there are no such mis-calls!

Section2 rule 6:
(c) A stroke is not completed until:
(i) all balls have come to rest;
(ii) the striker has stood up, in readiness for a succeeding stroke, or leaving the table;
(iii) any equipment being used by the striker has been removed from a hazardous position; and
(iv) the referee has called any score relevant to the stroke.

[tommygunner1309]

Thanks for that - invaluable advice. I will keep that in mind not to call out a score until the end of a players visit. Having now refereed 52 amateur matches, I find that confidence and experience are the main benefits. I remember the first match I refereed. Zack was on a break in the 80's potted final red, yellow, green and brown and was preparing to pot blue when I walked round and spotted the Brown!!!!!!!!! Why on earth I did that, I have no idea. But it was rather embarrassing despite Zack having a chuckle before he potted blue. Thank goodness, those mistakes don't happen now.

Whoops - should read 'final red, black, yellow ---- ' etc

[t.lavery55]

There's a little known change to the rules which was introduced in the 2011 rule book which covers this: in section 3, rule 11(i):

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, if requested by his opponent to play again, the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) The colour on where all the Reds were off the table; or either
(iii) A colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted; or
(iv) The option of playing the next Red or Yellow when there are no Reds remaining.
Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by
the referee if requested by the non-offender.

This means that IF he puts the offender back in, he (the non-offender) has the choice as to whether his opponent is on a red (or specifically the yellow if he had just potted the last red before the foul) or any colour of his choice. Note this is only applicable if the striker had been snookered or hampered in any way, commits a fould before striking the cue ball.

I bet the vast majority of players don't know of this rule change, and I suspect a lot of referees don't either!

I notice that the term 'hampered' is not specifically defined in the rules, though I presume it is intended to refer to when the striker has to bridge over another ball to strike the cue-ball. But what about if the cue-ball is tight under a cushion? If a player, in attempting to play a difficult safety shot from the baulk cushion, feathers the cue-ball, they may leave the cue-ball in a place where the shot will be easier if asked to play again. And yet, technically, they haven't played a stroke, as the cue-ball has not been struck with the tip of the cue. Would the non-striker be entitled to ask the referee to have the cue-ball replaced and the stroke replayed in this instance as well, or has this situation still not been covered by the rules?

On a side note, do you think it is acceptable for the term 'snookered' to be used to mean being unable to directly hit the ball on, as it is in the rule you quoted, even though this is not the way it is defined in section 2 rule 17? I can imagine this causing some confusion, and I can also envisage the possibility of a crafty player trying to use it to argue with the referee's decision!

[SnkrRef]

I notice that the term 'hampered' is not specifically defined in the rules, though I presume it is intended to refer to when the striker has to bridge over another ball to strike the cue-ball. But what about if the cue-ball is tight under a cushion? If a player, in attempting to play a difficult safety shot from the baulk cushion, feathers the cue-ball, they may leave the cue-ball in a place where the shot will be easier if asked to play again. And yet, technically, they haven't played a stroke, as the cue-ball has not been struck with the tip of the cue. Would the non-striker be entitled to ask the referee to have the cue-ball replaced and the stroke replayed in this instance as well, or has this situation still not been covered by the rules?

On a side note, do you think it is acceptable for the term 'snookered' to be used to mean being unable to directly hit the ball on, as it is in the rule you quoted, even though this is not the way it is defined in section 2 rule 17? I can imagine this causing some confusion, and I can also envisage the possibility of a crafty player trying to use it to argue with the referee's decision!

In the rule as previously quoted, it does say, in the lines under (iv) "Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender."

I think you're reading into rule 11(i) a meaning which isn't there. I think we have to take it at face value and use the definition given in 17(d) - ie use it in a wider range of situations when both sides of an object ball cannot be hit.

However, this then begs the question of there being different obstructing balls for different balls on, such that there is no straight line to any part of any ball on, and therefore 11(i) doesn't apply.

Perhaps this is one for referral to the Rules Committee.

[t.lavery55]

In the rule as previously quoted, it does say, in the lines under (iv) "Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender."

I think you're reading into rule 11(i) a meaning which isn't there. I think we have to take it at face value and use the definition given in 17(d) - ie use it in a wider range of situations when both sides of an object ball cannot be hit.

However, this then begs the question of there being different obstructing balls for different balls on, such that there is no straight line to any part of any ball on, and therefore 11(i) doesn't apply.

Perhaps this is one for referral to the Rules Committee.

OK so, just to clarify, you are saying that the phrase under (iv): "Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender" applies even if the striker is not "snookered or hampered in any way"?

Presumably though, the non-offender does not "have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same prior to the infringement", if the "snookered or hampered" situation does not apply.

Part of the reason why I thought that 'snookered' was being used to mean being unable to directly hit the ball on is because of the similar usage in section 3 rule 10 d(v), which states that a seven point penalty will be incurred "if the striker... fails to declare which ball he is on when snookered...".

I feel sure that, in this case at least, the meaning must be as I stated earlier, since there will be some scenarios where a player cannot hit both extreme edges of any ball on, but it will still be perfectly obvious which colour he is going for (e.g. because he can see enough to pot it), so it would seem very harsh to penalise him in this instance for failing to declare.

I note also that this is a another new addition to the rule book. I agree that it would be a good idea to mention this to the Rules Committee.

[SnkrRef]

OK so, just to clarify, you are saying that the phrase under (iv): "Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender" applies even if the striker is not "snookered or hampered in any way"?

No. That phrase appears as part of section (i) so only applies when the striker is snookered or hampered.

Presumably though, the non-offender does not "have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same prior to the infringement", if the "snookered or hampered" situation does not apply.

Indeed not.

Part of the reason why I thought that 'snookered' was being used to mean being unable to directly hit the ball on is because of the similar usage in section 3 rule 10 d(v), which states that a seven point penalty will be incurred "if the striker... fails to declare which ball he is on when snookered...".

I feel sure that, in this case at least, the meaning must be as I stated earlier, since there will be some scenarios where a player cannot hit both extreme edges of any ball on, but it will still be perfectly obvious which colour he is going for (e.g. because he can see enough to pot it), so it would seem very harsh to penalise him in this instance for failing to declare.

Again I think we have to assume that this applies in the case where the striker is 'snookered', as defined. Maybe there's a case for using the phrase 'total snooker' as in World Rules for eight ball pool! There will be instances where it is perfectly obvious which colour the striker is aiming for even if he is 'totally' snookered.

[t.lavery55]

No. That phrase appears as part of section (i) so only applies when the striker is snookered or hampered.

Interesting. I can't really see why being "snookered or hampered" warrants a different rule to other situations, but perhaps that will be cleared up in due course.

Again I think we have to assume that this applies in the case where the striker is 'snookered', as defined. Maybe there's a case for using the phrase 'total snooker' as in World Rules for eight ball pool! There will be instances where it is perfectly obvious which colour the striker is aiming for even if he is 'totally' snookered.

I have found the following notes in the SRA manual:

"The inclusion of 'when snookered' in 3.10.d.v. should not affect 2.12.a. Although technically 'snookered' as per 2.17., the striker may be able to see enough of a ball on to pot it quite easily and will therefore 'indicate to the satisfaction of the Referee' as normal. The requirement to declare one's selected ball on only applies after the striker has potted a Red or free ball nominated as a Red AND ALL COLOURS ARE TOTALLY OBSTRUCTED BY BALLS NOT ON, i.e. other Reds."

The bit in bold would seem to suggest that therefore the term 'snookered' is not being used in the way it is defined in section 2 rule 17.

[SnkrRef]

Interesting. I can't really see why being "snookered or hampered" warrants a different rule to other situations, but perhaps that will be cleared up in due course.



I have found the following notes in the SRA manual:

"The inclusion of 'when snookered' in 3.10.d.v. should not affect 2.12.a. Although technically 'snookered' as per 2.17., the striker may be able to see enough of a ball on to pot it quite easily and will therefore 'indicate to the satisfaction of the Referee' as normal. The requirement to declare one's selected ball on only applies after the striker has potted a Red or free ball nominated as a Red AND ALL COLOURS ARE TOTALLY OBSTRUCTED BY BALLS NOT ON, i.e. other Reds."

The bit in bold would seem to suggest that therefore the term 'snookered' is not being used in the way it is defined in section 2 rule 17.

Hmm another common sense interpretation of the rules, to make them mean something they don't actually say.

I can think of another example though, where the player must nominate when snookered. Imagine there are only blue, pink and black left on the table. Player fouls and leaves the object balls balls pink, blue and black in a line, close together so that a free ball is declared. Surely the requirement to declare should apply in this case, although, of course, a good referee will always ask for a declaration anyway.

[t.lavery55]

a good referee will always ask for a declaration anyway.

Exactly, which is why I am puzzled that this change to the rules was made at all. Referees are, after all, trusted to ask players to declare when necessary due to two or more balls being in close proximity, or when touching a ball that could be on, so I don't see why this case should be any different. I would have thought that it was simplest to just leave the rule as saying that a foul of seven points occurs if the striker "fails to declare which ball he is on when requested to do so by the referee". There is nothing ambiguous about this.

To return briefly to my earlier question, can the cue-ball be hampered by a cushion, (e.g. if it is tight against it, making it harder to cue), or does hampering have to be by another ball?

[SnkrRef]

Since 'hampered' isn't defined in the rules, one must adopt a common sense definition, and, therefore, I'd say that yes a cushion can just as easily hamper a player as balls.

[bellamy]

the cue ball remains in hand until a foul is commited when the cue ball is on the table, there for player a leaves the table as he has fouled and player b takes it from where it lies or, puts player a back in, but cue ball is played from where it lies