Rule change

[tommygunner1309]

An interesting SRA meeting last night revealed a new change decided by the WPBSA rules committee made for some good discussion.
Player 1 pots a red, but scuffs the green with his shirt sleeve. foul. but the white continues toward a ball hanging on the edge of a pocket, which drops in, before the white reaches it, and the white then runs into the pocket. The WPBSA RC decided after long discussion that all balls are replaced, and player 2 then comes to the table. Some of us were not too comfortable with that, but rules are rules.
However, it was also brought to our attention that the IBSF have a different outcome to this rule. Apart from the normal choices after a foul, the decision was that player 2 could now, after the above situation, place the cue ball ANYWHERE on the table he wished!!!! I was told that this was rejected by the 'players'. I am assuming that the 'players' refers to the pro's. Of course, I heard this, and have not read it anywhere from the IBSF, but anyone who wishes to follow this up may have to ask Clive Brown, who I understand is on the rules for IBSF.
Having emailed the EASB, an answer from them is still awaited as to which way they will go.
As a class 3 referee, I find it totally frustrating that these organisations cannot agree on a standard set of rules. I believe divisions of this sort will eventually destroy the game as we know it, with one set of rules for some, and a different set for others. No wonder it is getting harder to get people to qualify as a referee.
I would be interested to hear some points of view on this. Apparently, the players rejected the IBSF idea because it would mean end of frame, probably, if you could place the white anywhere you liked.
What do you think?

[Terry Davidson]

To my mind the original potted red would stay down and the foul would be called. As the second red over the pocket fell in due to vibration I think it should still stay down as the cueball would have potted it anyway. As for the cueball I would say player 2 (the non-offender) should have it in hand in the 'D' as it may or may not have gone in after the red over the pocket was potted and that would be up to the referee's discretion. The only other choice I see is the referee could decide to replace the cueball over the jaws of the pocket where the red fell in.

Terry

[DeanH]

Your scenario, I would have thought it would be: 1) potted Red stays in pocket, 2) hanging ball dropping into pocket would be replaced, 3) the Cue Ball in-hand.
IBSF - place Cue Ball anywhere on table is a big no-no for me, which would definitely be Frame over at a good level and above. Current Ball-in-Hand (play from D) works well I think.
Yes, it would be nice if all organisations have matching rules and interpretation of as well, just have to look at the state of UK Pool to see the consequences of such as situation!

[SnkrRef]

An interesting SRA meeting last night revealed a new change decided by the WPBSA rules committee made for some good discussion.
Player 1 pots a red, but scuffs the green with his shirt sleeve. foul. but the white continues toward a ball hanging on the edge of a pocket, which drops in, before the white reaches it, and the white then runs into the pocket. The WPBSA RC decided after long discussion that all balls are replaced, and player 2 then comes to the table. Some of us were not too comfortable with that, but rules are rules.
However, it was also brought to our attention that the IBSF have a different outcome to this rule. Apart from the normal choices after a foul, the decision was that player 2 could now, after the above situation, place the cue ball ANYWHERE on the table he wished!!!! I was told that this was rejected by the 'players'. I am assuming that the 'players' refers to the pro's. Of course, I heard this, and have not read it anywhere from the IBSF, but anyone who wishes to follow this up may have to ask Clive Brown, who I understand is on the rules for IBSF.
Having emailed the EASB, an answer from them is still awaited as to which way they will go.
As a class 3 referee, I find it totally frustrating that these organisations cannot agree on a standard set of rules. I believe divisions of this sort will eventually destroy the game as we know it, with one set of rules for some, and a different set for others. No wonder it is getting harder to get people to qualify as a referee.
I would be interested to hear some points of view on this. Apparently, the players rejected the IBSF idea because it would mean end of frame, probably, if you could place the white anywhere you liked.
What do you think?

I'm surprised at your comment, as Derek Budde from SRA is, to my knowledge, the ONLY UK representative on the IBSF Rules Committee, so he should have full knowledge of what IBSF are doing! Clive Brown certainly isn't on ANY rules committee AFAIK.

The scenario was covered in the Q&A session with World Snooker, and, per Derek's summary, this is what was siad:
9. Q. Player pots a red but fouls the green with his cuff. The cue ball is travelling on towards another red
that is hanging over a pocket. Before the cue-ball arrives, the red falls into the pocket. What is the
decision?
A. This is covered in the rulebook Section 3. 9, Page 21, Ball on Edge of Pocket. All balls to be
replaced as before the shot was played.

I've certainly not heard of a different interpretation being suggested by IBSF.

If you want an answer from EASB then the man responsible will, presumably, be Dan Lewis who is Director for Referees. He can be reached on d.lewis@easb.co.uk (new email addresses within EASB). There is no separate EASB Rules Committee. In practice though most rules queries would probably be passed through to Derek to answer or seek clarification with IBSF/WS!

[tommygunner1309]

DeanH and Terry D : Yes, that is how I interpret the rule, and to me DeanH has the exact explanation how I would have judged it, had I been a ref at this match. However, now it seems that if the white was definitely going to strike the red before it fell in the pocket, all balls should be replaced.

SnkRef. I am only reporting what was said, therefore it is of course only hearsay, which can be a dangerous thing. And of course, you are quite right in quoting S3. 9 page 21. Ball on edge of pocket - so really it isn't so much a rule change as more of a reminder, as this rule has been in the manual for some time.

As regards the EASB, I believe the WPBSA have emailed them about this, but as of last night, no answer had been received.
Derek is chairman of the Brighton and Hove RA, and the SRA, and I know is on the rules comm of WBPSA - either I forgot or didn't know he was on the IBSF, so I am equally mystified about that situation. I think I will need to ask him to clarify the situation next time I see him. I don't know Clive Brown personally, but I got the impression from Derek that he was on the IBSF.

So now - I really am confused. I am glad I brought it up though - because I sure need some clarification from the confusion that now inhabits my head.

[best1966]

You say a new change has been decided by the WPBSA rules committee, this isn't a change. It's already in the rule book as Ball On Edge Of Pocket.

[tommygunner1309]

You say a new change has been decided by the WPBSA rules committee, this isn't a change. It's already in the rule book as Ball On Edge Of Pocket.

Yes, that's right - and I think if you read my second post I have pointed that out.

The rule change I was referring to was the IBSF meeting which took place a few weeks ago, whereby they want to introduce the rule in this scenario, that the white be placed anywhere on the table, which I think to most people would be a disaster. The 'players' and the WPBSA have both rejected this, as I said earlier.

I would just like to add my apologies for believing Clive Brown was on the IBSF rules committee. Not sure how I got confused with that one.

[100-uper]

Yes, that's right - and I think if you read my second post I have pointed that out.

The rule change I was referring to was the IBSF meeting which took place a few weeks ago, whereby they want to introduce the rule in this scenario, that the white be placed anywhere on the table, which I think to most people would be a disaster. The 'players' and the WPBSA have both rejected this, as I said earlier.

I would just like to add my apologies for believing Clive Brown was on the IBSF rules committee. Not sure how I got confused with that one.

I was under the impression that the rule about placing the cue ball anywhere on the table applied only to the 6-reds version of snooker which the IBSF are promoting.

[tommygunner1309]

I was under the impression that the rule about placing the cue ball anywhere on the table applied only to the 6-reds version of snooker which the IBSF are promoting.

At the meeting I attended, it was stated that this rule by the IBSF would include the whole of the amateur game played under their jurisdiction. And it only applies to the Ball on edge of pocket ruling.

[SnkrRef]

At the meeting I attended, it was stated that this rule by the IBSF would include the whole of the amateur game played under their jurisdiction. And it only applies to the Ball on edge of pocket ruling.

I really can't see the logic for wanting to change the rule!

[Terry Davidson]

Instead of working on a very rare problem such as the ball on the edge of the pocket you would think that these rules meetings would try and solve the most widespread and pressing problem in the snooker world and that is the 'MISS' rule. Right now this rule is subject to interpretation by the referee but the problem is most amateurs do not play with a referee so we end up with many different interpretations of it.

The pros directed the pro referee association to interpret it very hard for the pros who play on the same perfect conditions all the time. In an awful lot of places the MISS rule is not even used during amateur league matches. Here in Canada it's interpreted as the 'MUST HIT' rule no matter how difficult the snooker is to hit as we never have a referee available except for the big tournaments and then these referees also interpret is as the pros do, in other words 'MUST HIT' again.

I have had a very difficult snooker on an amateur table where the cushions all react differently and in attempting a 4-cushion hit and coming within 1/8" of hitting the ball on have still been called a MISS and that is not in the intent of the Miss Rule as written.

You'd think these various rules committees might be able to work something out to standardize all the rules for everyone but I suppose that's just too difficult a target for them so they can decide on the ball on edge of pocket situation, which is already in the rules and not subject to interpretation at all.

Terry

[tommygunner1309]

I really can't see the logic for wanting to change the rule!

I couldn't agree with you more, SnkrRef - but I think you gave me a hint when you said Derek was the ONLY UK rep on the IBSF RC.
For the last 100 odd years Snooker has been almost wholly a British and Commonwealth game, with very few outsiders entering into the fray - but today we see snooker everywhere - Brazil, India etc etc and with all these new countries coming into it, they are also likely to come with fresh ideas. Some will be bad, and maybe some will be good - but at least as far as the professional game is concerned, this is run under WPBSA rules - so the changes will not affect us for some time to come.
Just to reinforce the above paragraph - I was also told from an excellent source that at another meeting recently, a very well known, non british referee suggested a rule change to respotting of the black. His idea was that it was unfair to the player making the break if, after potting black, and moving a couple of reds, the black would not go back on its spot, as a red was too close to the spot, but the only spot available was the yellow spot. He advocated placing the black as close to its spot as possible, without touching the red - as you would do if no other spot was available - so that the player could continue with, possibly, red/blacks - ie ignoring the empty yellow spot. It appears to have been rejected by the people at the meeting. He is a highly respected ref and one that I believe is the best there is - however - the point I am making is that people in high places (if you like) are beginning to see the game differently.

I would add, that I personally do not agree with any rule change of this type. I think there are one or two small problems with the rules, but generally, I wholeheartedly agree with the way the game is at present. I would also add that, if requested, I would not referee matches under any IBSF control if there were rule changes of the type mentioned.

I will endeavor to find out more information about rule changes as proposed by the IBSF and will report what I am told

[tommygunner1309]

Instead of working on a very rare problem such as the ball on the edge of the pocket you would think that these rules meetings would try and solve the most widespread and pressing problem in the snooker world and that is the 'MISS' rule. Right now this rule is subject to interpretation by the referee but the problem is most amateurs do not play with a referee so we end up with many different interpretations of it.
Terry

Yes Terry, I think you have a point there. The worst thing about reffing for me at the moment is the 'miss rule'. It is so much more difficult in the amateur game, because you are forever taking into account the ability of the player. Judging whether to call a miss when a player only is a couple of inches away (with a high break in his life of 24) and his opponent who is only an inch away (but with a lifetime best of 125) is a nightmare. Using your discretion can often get a ref in hot water with the players. I would suggest that if an amateur match is underway without a referee that the miss rule be discontinued - unless a VERY deliberate miss is played.

I also agree with your last paragraph about standardizing the rules for all organisations, which I believe I pointed out earlier in this thread. I wonder how football would get on, if all of a sudden the off side rule was totally different when playing in Brazil, but if you play in Korea, the offside rule was non existent. It just wouldn't work - which is why I worry for the future of snooker.

[100-uper]

- but at least as far as the professional game is concerned, this is run under WPBSA rules - so the changes will not affect us for some time to come.

Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. The National Governing Body in England is affiliated to the IBSF and therefore required to apply their rules, not those of the WPBSA. As far as I know, this applies to all NGB's who are recognised as such within the IOC structure. WPBSA rules are mandatory for professionals only, although local leagues could adopt them (or any other rules) if they wished.

[tommygunner1309]

As far as I know, all the pro tournaments are played using the WPBSA manual.