Safety/rule question

[shredder]

This may be a bit of a daft question, but here goes:

Watching the ROS v Woollaston match and Woollaston plays a safety play on the green and rolls the white right near the brown, making Ronnie having to play several cushions in order to hit red. So far so good...

But the ref then watches to see if the white touches the brown (he watches closely, hovering his hand above to block out the light, so I figure that's what he's doing)

Why does the ref do this? What does it matter if it is touching? It's not like he's allowed to hit the brown anyway.

I've seen this happen before, so thought I'd get to the bottom of this.

[streamer45]

This may be a bit of a daft question, but here goes:

Watching the ROS v Woollaston match and Woollaston plays a safety play on the green and rolls the white right near the brown, making Ronnie having to play several cushions in order to hit red. So far so good...

But the ref then watches to see if the white touches the brown (he watches closely, hovering his hand above to block out the light, so I figure that's what he's doing)

Why does the ref do this? What does it matter if it is touching? It's not like he's allowed to hit the brown anyway.

I've seen this happen before, so thought I'd get to the bottom of this.

I guess he just wants to make sure where the cue ball is in case of a miss.

[SnkrRef]

Yes, it will be to check its position in case the ball needs to be replaced after a miss. Even if it had been an inch or so away, the ref should have taken a close look at exactly where it was to enable him to accurately replace it if a miss is called (which if it involved a multi-cushion escape, would be quite likely).

As an aside, even if the cue ball had ended up touching the brown, it would not be a 'touching ball' because the brown is not on. If asked the referee has to answer if the balls are touching but he'd NOT say 'touching ball', but 'yes they are touching' or 'the cue ball is touching the brown'.

[shredder]

As an aside, even if the cue ball had ended up touching the brown, it would not be a 'touching ball' because the brown is not on. If asked the referee has to answer if the balls are touching but he'd NOT say 'touching ball', but 'yes they are touching' or 'the cue ball is touching the brown'.

No I know, exactly why I asked
However, would make sense for the ref to know exactly where it was prior to the shot... cheers

[HemiRR]

one other reason to check if the cue ball is touching a ball that is not on - it is possible for a striker to shoot clean away from a touching ball and have that ball move because the touching ball was resting on the edge of a minor divot (held back by the cue ball ) and then falls into into the divot because the cue ball is no longer keeping the ball from falling into the divot. As a referee you can then easily determine if the striker or the table made the touching ball move.