WPBSA Rules meeting

[DeanH]

The referee's decision is always final. However, there might be circumstances when, for example, undoing a cue isn't to be taken as a concession. The non-striker might be anticipating needing his longer butt, and unscrews his cue in readiness. Maybe I'm clutching at straws. I think in almost all circumstances, the actions described would be treated as a concession.

That is what I was thinking, as in dependant of circumstances, player adding an extension or (take it to extremes ) taking the extension off the cue, this would not be deemed as a sign of concession.

[t.lavery55]

What about if a player takes one of the above actions when he is the non-striker? To give an example where it would be most important, if the striker is on a high break, and with just pink and black needed to achieve the tournament highest break, the non-striker unscrews his cue. Section 4 rule 5 (a) states: "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”. Would it best for the referee to ignore the unscrewing of the cue entirely, or take it as an offered concession, and ask the striker if he accepts? (Even though he almost certainly won’t and his concentration may be affected).

This also raises the question of what action the referee would take if the concession could not so easily be ignored, such as if the non-striker walked out of the arena or deliberately moved the balls?

[SnkrRef]

To answer your first point, if a player was on a break and it was obvious his opponent was unscrewing his cue etc, then I'd ignore it until the end of the break.

With regard to the second scenario, if the striker didn't want to accept the concession then I'd replace the balls to their original position. The non-striker would get a warning for ungentlemanly conduct.

[t.lavery55]

With regard to the second scenario, if the striker didn't want to accept the concession then I'd replace the balls to their original position. The non-striker would get a warning for ungentlemanly conduct.

Thanks for the response. What action would you take if it happened a second time? The normal practice for a second instance of ungentlemanly conduct would be to award the non-offender the frame, but this would also deprive the striker of completing his high break in this case.

[SnkrRef]

Thanks for the response. What action would you take if it happened a second time? The normal practice for a second instance of ungentlemanly conduct would be to award the non-offender the frame, but this would also deprive the striker of completing his high break in this case.

I don't see a problem in allowing the player to continue with his break (replacing balls if necessary) AND awarding the match afterwards. An S5 decision in the interest of fair play.

[t.lavery55]

I don't see a problem in allowing the player to continue with his break (replacing balls if necessary) AND awarding the match afterwards. An S5 decision in the interest of fair play.

I see. I wasn't sure whether this would be deemed conduct sufficiently serious to lose the whole match, or not. Are there any guidelines, do you know, about when conduct should be considered to be this serious, or serious enough to lose the frame, without being warned first?