Yet Another Foul & Miss Situation

[HemiRR]

The general rule states"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on."
Subsection (e) All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee, unless, before or after the stroke, the points available on the table are equal to the points difference excluding the value of the re-spotted black.


HERE IS THE SITUATION
Two decent players (both have centuries non their resumes) Seniors League match No referees but post shot 'adjudicator" from each team can be called. Player A is 40 points up. The Pink and Black are 7/8 ball apart just in front of the pink spot. The Blue is hanging over the pocket, top corner green side. There is one red left and Player B rolled the red perfectly behind the Pink & Black leaving the cue ball near the baulk line between the brown & yellow spot.

Player A is faced with - Hit the pink and Player B can win - Hit the black and Player B can win. Plus it is an obvious likely free ball situation if the red in not hit - if fee ball Player B can win - (only if the cue ball ends up short and roughly on the line from the centre of the red to the pocket where the Blue is hanging would there be no free ball)

Player A suveys the situation from the top of the table for several minutes and obviously lines up a two rail approach using the green side rail below the side pocket. He plays the shot and is 2&1/2' short. (there was a plain ball one rail hit off the top rail to the right of the black spot but pretty much guarenteed to leave a free ball unless the red was hit) It was obvious to everyone watching that Player A intended to come short thus leaving Player B still requiring a snooker. Player A potted the last red after an exchange of safeties and won the frame.

Player B claimed foul & miss Player A cited Subsection (e) - eventually it was decided no foul and miss based on subsection (e)

Even though it was obvious The striker (Player A ) violated the general rule in that he did not, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on; was it correct to apply subsection (e) even though (as a referee I would have thought it was a deliberate foul)

Could SECTION 5. be used in such a circumstance?
1. The Referee
(a) The referee shall
(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,

[Ethanat]

Pardon my ignorance but I thought a miss will not be called during the snooker required stage?

[DeanH]

HemiRR
40 points difference, possible 35 on table, Foul on Red, Four point awarded, now difference 36 points, snooker required.
There is no clear path in a straight line from the Cue-Ball to any part of the Red ball.
Attempt deemed to be "not to the best of his ability".
My decision immediately would be "Foul & Miss", purely down to the intentional failure to their ability.

It was incorrect to apply subsection (e) as the intent of failure overrides this section.
Section 5 always applies yes () but as you say, the first component of the Foul and Miss, is that the player must play to the best of their ability, and in this scenario you state it is clear the player did not. so F&M

[DeanH]

Pardon my ignorance but I thought a miss will not be called during the snooker required stage?

that is true, but as the player "intentionally" played a poor shot, i.e. not to the best of their ability, a F&M should be called.
If not, then a player could play a shot like in pool 'deliberate foul' and play the cue-ball with no attempt to get anywhere near, then rely on the "snooker's needed" to prevent the F&M being called.
If the attempt was a good one in the snookers required stage, i.e. stops 1mm away from the ball-on, then ok, only a Foul.

[Ethanat]

Thanks Dean,
But in this scenario player A missed by less than 3 inches. Thought it's a reasonably good attempt.

[DeanH]

yes he did come up short by 2.5 inches, but it also says both players are regular century players and league players, and the scenario states "it was obvious to everyone watching that Player A intended to come short" there is your "intent". I would say - generalisation - but a player of the ability stated should be able to play a better shot.
We can only go by the description of the scenario given, else we can have limitless variations

[Ethanat]

Yup, got it. The way you argue abt intent reminds me of my law tutor. Ha.

[t.lavery55]

If you were sure that the red was missed deliberately, then "foul and a miss" should have been called. If it was simply a very half-hearted attempt, then a foul but no miss should be called. As it states in subsection (e), the referee (or adjudicator) has the discretion to make this decision, assuming that no part of the red could be hit directly (such cases are covered in sect 3 14 (b) and (c)).

See also section 2 rule 21: "A miss is when the cue-ball fails to first contact a ball on and the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball on".

Again it can be seen that the referee can use his discretion to decide whether or not to call "foul and a miss", regardless of the difference in scores.

[DeanH]

Yup, got it. The way you argue abt intent reminds me of my law tutor. Ha.

Oops sorry about that, didn't mean to

[SnkrRef]

Whilst I agree that a referee can invoke S5 and call F&M when snookers are required, you have to be very careful, and consider the difference between whether the player could have made a better attempt or whether he DELIBERATELY missed - there is a difference. If the referee thinks it is deliberate then the referee is calling the player a cheat.

From reading the OP's scenario I really don't think a F&M can be called. There was a significant distance between the cue ball and the red, and to fall short by just 2½" makes it very hard to make the judgement call that he was deliberately trying to miss the ball. In most matches I've refereed there would have been ructions if I'd called F&M in that scenario.

[t.lavery55]

Whilst I agree that a referee can invoke S5 and call F&M when snookers are required, you have to be very careful, and consider the difference between whether the player could have made a better attempt or whether he DELIBERATELY missed - there is a difference. If the referee thinks it is deliberate then the referee is calling the player a cheat.

From reading the OP's scenario I really don't think a F&M can be called. There was a significant distance between the cue ball and the red, and to fall short by just 2½" makes it very hard to make the judgement call that he was deliberately trying to miss the ball. In most matches I've refereed there would have been ructions if I'd called F&M in that scenario.

Interesting. It must be difficult to differentiate between a player making a very poor attempt and no attempt at all. What about this case? Cue-ball is a few inches away from the baulk cushion. Red is the ball on. Black is over a top corner pocket with the last red just behind, and touching it so that it would be very difficult to hit the red without knocking the black in. The striker, who is 45 ahead, with 35 remaining wants to avoid a seven point penalty. He plays his shot and the cue-ball finishes a long way short of the red, only just reaching the blue spot. Would you call this a deliberate miss or just a very weak attempt to hit the ball on?

[SnkrRef]

Interesting. It must be difficult to differentiate between a player making a very poor attempt and no attempt at all. What about this case? Cue-ball is a few inches away from the baulk cushion. Red is the ball on. Black is over a top corner pocket with the last red just behind, and touching it so that it would be very difficult to hit the red without knocking the black in. The striker, who is 45 ahead, with 35 remaining wants to avoid a seven point penalty. He plays his shot and the cue-ball finishes a long way short of the red, only just reaching the blue spot. Would you call this a deliberate miss or just a very weak attempt to hit the ball on?

I would probably only call a foul. The player hasn't really gained an advantage, as the non-offender would almost certainly put him back in, and thereby probably gaining an extra 7 points such that he'd only be 34 points behind! When thinking about these hypothetical F&M situations, it's all too often forgotten that the non-offender can always put the offender back in.

[SnkrRef]

Interesting. It must be difficult to differentiate between a player making a very poor attempt and no attempt at all.

It is. By and large players are given the benefit of the doubt. I think it really needs to be absolutely blatant that a player hasn't made a proper effort to hit a ball on before he's effectively called a cheat.