Foul when in-hand

[t.lavery55]

Would anyone be able to help me with the following rules scenario, which occurred
in a match recently, when I was refereeing?

Following an in-off by player A, player B was positioning the cue-ball in the 'D', with his cue,
ready for his shot, and in doing so, touched the green with the cue-ball. I called
a foul, and straight afterwards, player B moved the cue-ball back away from the
green with his hand. What I am wondering is, does doing this constitute a second
foul for playing out of turn, or does this only apply if you actually play a shot?

Secondly, as player B dragged the cue-ball away from the green with his hand after
his initial foul, does this mean that player A is now in-hand (whereas he wouldn't
have been if the cue-ball had been left where it was)?

I was rather uncomfortable with the situation, as where the cue-ball was when the
green was touched, player A would have been entitled to a free ball, whereas where
it ended up, he wasn't, so it seemed as though player B had gained an unfair
advantage, although I don't think this was his intention when he moved the cue-
ball. Is there anything I can do to resolve this problem, besides giving a warning
for ungentlemanly conduct, or should it just be considered as a 'rub of the green'?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

[Neil Taperell]

Had something similar happen .....great question . Will be an interesting answer .

[SnkrRef]

The cue ball remains in hand until it is fairly played from in-hand OR until a foul is committed whilst it is on the table (according to Rule 9 of Section 2). Therefore, as soon as Player B touched the green (assuming the cue ball was on the bed of the table) then it ceased to be in hand. So yes, a second foul was committed if Player A moved it again by hand: he was no in hand and should have played it from where it was.

Or was it Player B that moved the cue ball after the initial foul? If so, then he cannot be fouled a second time, but again Player A should play from the position eventually left. *IF* you think Player B had deliberately moved the ball to gain an advantage then you could warn him for ungentlemanly conduct, but i would imagine he moved it through ignorance of the rule.

You may recall that Alan Chamberlain caused some controversy when Graham Dott punched a ball away from the cue ball which was heading into the green pocket rather than letting it drop. I can't remember the opponent, but whoever it was thought the cue-ball was in hand, but because the cue ball never actually left the bed of the table, it should have been played from where it came to rest (which coincidentally and confusingly in the D). He was therefore fouled for moving it within the D.

[t.lavery55]

The cue ball remains in hand until it is fairly played from in-hand OR until a foul is committed whilst it is on the table (according to Rule 9 of Section 2). Therefore, as soon as Player B touched the green (assuming the cue ball was on the bed of the table) then it ceased to be in hand. So yes, a second foul was committed if Player A moved it again by hand: he was no in hand and should have played it from where it was.

Or was it Player B that moved the cue ball after the initial foul? If so, then he cannot be fouled a second time, but again Player A should play from the position eventually left. *IF* you think Player B had deliberately moved the ball to gain an advantage then you could warn him for ungentlemanly conduct, but i would imagine he moved it through ignorance of the rule.

You may recall that Alan Chamberlain caused some controversy when Graham Dott punched a ball away from the cue ball which was heading into the green pocket rather than letting it drop. I can't remember the opponent, but whoever it was thought the cue-ball was in hand, but because the cue ball never actually left the bed of the table, it should have been played from where it came to rest (which coincidentally and confusingly in the D). He was therefore fouled for moving it within the D.

Thanks for the response. It sounds like I did make the correct decision at the time then. I have clarified my original post to say that it was player B that moved the cue-ball after the initial foul.

I do remember the Alan Chamberlain incident you refer to, and I have found it on youtube, it may help to further probe one of my earlier questions. When Mark Selby moved the cue-ball after Graeme Dott's foul, Alan Chamberlain deemed it to then be in-hand for Graeme, presumably because, by sliding the cue-ball along the cloth, Mark was deemed to have forced it off the table (he did not literally pick it up). Graeme on the other hand, simply knocked it into a different position, so he didn't have control of where it was going, so it wasn't forced off the table.

In the match I was refereeing, player B did a similar thing; he dragged the cue-ball into a second position after his initial foul involving the green, so I thought maybe this should leave player A in-hand too. Am I missing something?

Here's a link to that incident you refer to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1sDiLapr0g

[DandyA]

I do remember the Alan Chamberlain incident you refer to, and I have found it on youtube, it may help to further probe one of my earlier questions. When Mark Selby moved the cue-ball after Graeme Dott's foul, Alan Chamberlain deemed it to then be in-hand for Graeme, presumably because, by sliding the cue-ball along the cloth, Mark was deemed to have forced it off the table (he did not literally pick it up). Graeme on the other hand, simply knocked it into a different position, so he didn't have control of where it was going, so it wasn't forced off the table.

just to note I think you've got that slightly wrong ... Dott stopped the white from going in-off with his fist, pushing it towards the D but it didn't leave the bed of the table ... so foul but it needs to be played from where it is - it is not in-hand because it never left the bed of the table ...

Selby does then pick it up ... so foul and the ball is now in-hand to Dott because Selby did lift it from the bed of the table (albeit only slightly) ...

Full marks to Selby for not making a major fuss ... full marks too to Foulds and Everton on commentary ... why Dott didn't simply pot the white into a baulk pocket thus giving Selby ball in-hand as it should have been, I don't know ...

at the time on TSF, it was suggested Chamberlain might warn Dott for ungentlemanly conduct had he done so but I really can't see that would happen as it was the gentlemanly thing to do ...

if I were the ref, I'd have given Dott an ungentlemanly warning for stopping the white entering the pocket and said loudly enough so Selby could hear it ... this warning is because the cue-ball now has to be played from where it is, it is not in-hand ...

[SnkrRef]

When Mark Selby moved the cue-ball after Graeme Dott's foul, Alan Chamberlain deemed it to then be in-hand for Graeme, presumably because, by sliding the cue-ball along the cloth, Mark was deemed to have forced it off the table (he did not literally pick it up).

I think Alan Chamberlain deemed him to have raised it off the bed slightly as he moved it, so it had been forced of the table, hence in hand. If he had just slid it along the cloth without it leaving the bed of the table then it wouldn't have been in hand.

[Dave Walton]

I would have taken that as player B conceding the frame! Once he touched the green and you called the foul the cue ball would have to be played from where it was, by player B then moving the cue ball is serious misconduct or a concession imo both resulting in loss of frame, I could be wrong though

[t.lavery55]

In principle yes, this could happen, but in reality it seems a little too harsh to make player B forfeit the frame, as I don't think he was intending to gain an unfair advantage by moving the cue-ball again, to be honest I think it was really just an instinctive reaction to get the it away from the green, as he knew he shouldn't be touching it.

It is interesting to note how the same act (a deliberate foul), can result in different actions taken by the referee depending on the circumstances. It may be considered a concession, a standard foul as written in the rules, or it may be considered, for example, that a player went in-off, even though he did not literally do so.

I suppose it all comes down to the referee using his discretion and making the judgment that will best ensure fair play in that particular situation. I remember in one match I watched on TV, a player a long way in front and with the frame virtually secure, missed a simple pot, and hit the cue-ball in frustration. The referee simply called a foul and awarded the relevant penalty. The next player came to the table to attempt to clear up, but he also missed a pot, and deliberately moved a ball with his cue, but this time the referee interpreted this as a concession of the frame.

Presumably the deciding factor was that, with the second player a long way behind, it made a lot more sense to interpret his particular 'foul' as a concession. Personally I think that, in the above incident, Alan Chamberlain may have been better advised to treat Graeme Dott's shot as an in-off, and give Mark Selby ball in-hand, to better ensure that fair play was maintained, but at the end of the day, it was his decision, and, if you choose to interpret the rules literally, then he was correct.

[alabadi]

Once he touched the green and you called the foul the cue ball would have to be played from where it was, by player B

As I understand it if player B commits a foul by knocking the green with the cueball, order of play is now with player A not B, unless player A nominates player B to go again from where the cueball is laying.

the fact that player B then moved the cueball with his hand again doesn't matter, its still a foul. the cueball should be played from where it ended up.

Player B should be warned for misconduct and Player A has the table. if when coming to the table player A thought that the situation was not favourable he could put player B back in.

Alabbadi

[DawRef]

My response is for the original posting. When Player B touched the green with the cue-ball and you called 'foul', his turn ended and therefore he was no longer the striker. IMHO, when he then moved the cue-ball away from the green, I would have thought it came under the ruling of 'ball moved other than by striker', and as referee. you would have needed to replace it to the position you thought it was in before being moved. If this meant a free ballto player A, then so be it.
As the cue-ball was still on the bed of the table, if Player A then picks up the cue-ball (thinking he was in hand), it is a foul and Player B then has the choice of playing from in-hand.
Hopefully I have understood the question correctly and answered accordingly.

[t.lavery55]

My response is for the original posting. When Player B touched the green with the cue-ball and you called 'foul', his turn ended and therefore he was no longer the striker. IMHO, when he then moved the cue-ball away from the green, I would have thought it came under the ruling of 'ball moved other than by striker', and as referee. you would have needed to replace it to the position you thought it was in before being moved. If this meant a free ballto player A, then so be it.
As the cue-ball was still on the bed of the table, if Player A then picks up the cue-ball (thinking he was in hand), it is a foul and Player B then has the choice of playing from in-hand.
Hopefully I have understood the question correctly and answered accordingly.

Thanks for your response. The reason why I didn't think that the 'ball moved by other than striker' rule applied here is that, although player B's turn ended when he touched the green, I thought that he would, nevertheless, have still have been considered the striker, as for example, if he had then touched a higher value colour such as the blue as he was leaving the table, the penalty would have been increased to five points.
Although the phrase in section 2 rule 5 saying that a player ceases to be a striker when "the referee is satisfied that he has finally left the table" leaves room for discretion, I would have thought that the player would have had to have actually walked away from the table before he was no longer the striker, which hadn't happened here. Any thoughts on this?

[SnkrRef]

My response is for the original posting. When Player B touched the green with the cue-ball and you called 'foul', his turn ended and therefore he was no longer the striker. IMHO, when he then moved the cue-ball away from the green, I would have thought it came under the ruling of 'ball moved other than by striker', and as referee. you would have needed to replace it to the position you thought it was in before being moved. If this meant a free ballto player A, then so be it.
As the cue-ball was still on the bed of the table, if Player A then picks up the cue-ball (thinking he was in hand), it is a foul and Player B then has the choice of playing from in-hand.
Hopefully I have understood the question correctly and answered accordingly.

I have to disagree DawRef: Section 2 Rule 5 says:

5. Striker and Turn
The person about to play or in play is the striker and remains so until the final stroke, or foul, of his turn is complete and the referee is satisfied that he has finally left the table. 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. When the referee is satisfied that the above conditions have been met, the incoming striker’s turn begins. His turn and his right to play another stroke ends when:
(a) he fails to score from a stroke; or
(b) he commits a foul; or
(c) he requests the opponent to play again after his opponent has committed a foul.

The striker's turn does not end until he has left the table, so 3.15 cannot apply here.

Imagine this scenario: player is using the rest to play the cue ball which is in the middle of the reds. Red is the ball on. As he is positioning the rest, it touches a red, so referee calls a foul. As he then removes the rest he touches the black. Under your logic the foul would be just four points and any ball moved by the second foul would be replaced to their original position. I'm sure you wouldn't do that in practice?

[tommygunner1309]

I have to disagree DawRef: Section 2 Rule 5 says:
[I]

Imagine this scenario: player is using the rest to play the cue ball which is in the middle of the reds. Red is the ball on. As he is positioning the rest, it touches a red, so referee calls a foul. As he then removes the rest he touches the black. Under your logic the foul would be just four points and any ball moved by the second foul would be replaced to their original position. I'm sure you wouldn't do that in practice?

That's interesting, SnkrRef. So as well as the foul four for touching the red, you would also call foul 7 for fouling the black. Would you then replace the black or leave it in the position it finished after the foul. I am guessing that I would leave it where it finished. I ask this as I thought only one foul could be called for one stroke? i.e positioning the rest and removing the rest I would consider as the beginning (positioning) and end (removal) of the stroke?
How do you feel about the Higgins/O'Sullivan incident? Ronnie pots a red but ends up touching red, and snookered on all colours. He declares and in lining up touches the red with his cue. Foul. But a miss is not called as per the rules. Higgins is now left with a bit of an awkward safety playing away from the red, but if he puts Ronnie in again, according to the rules Ronnie has the same shot - i.e. playing safety away from touching red. Do you think a rule should be inserted that Higgins could call play again, but the original shot - i.e Ronnie must play for a colour? Quite an interesting situation, bearing in mind the 'fair play' rule.

[SnkrRef]

That's interesting, SnkrRef. So as well as the foul four for touching the red, you would also call foul 7 for fouling the black. Would you then replace the black or leave it in the position it finished after the foul. I am guessing that I would leave it where it finished. I ask this as I thought only one foul could be called for one stroke? i.e positioning the rest and removing the rest I would consider as the beginning (positioning) and end (removal) of the stroke?

The player will have committed two fouls in one turn, and only the highest/higher penalty would be applied when more than one foul is committed. The balls would be left as they are and the next player would have the normal options.

[SnkrRef]

That's interesting, SnkrRef. So as well as the foul four for touching the red, you would also call foul 7 for fouling the black. Would you then replace the black or leave it in the position it finished after the foul. I am guessing that I would leave it where it finished. I ask this as I thought only one foul could be called for one stroke? i.e positioning the rest and removing the rest I would consider as the beginning (positioning) and end (removal) of the stroke?
How do you feel about the Higgins/O'Sullivan incident? Ronnie pots a red but ends up touching red, and snookered on all colours. He declares and in lining up touches the red with his cue. Foul. But a miss is not called as per the rules. Higgins is now left with a bit of an awkward safety playing away from the red, but if he puts Ronnie in again, according to the rules Ronnie has the same shot - i.e. playing safety away from touching red. Do you think a rule should be inserted that Higgins could call play again, but the original shot - i.e Ronnie must play for a colour? Quite an interesting situation, bearing in mind the 'fair play' rule.

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!