4 or 7 penalty?

[tommygunner1309]

Here is a good one for you all that you may come across in some league match evenings.

Player A plays and pots a red, but the cue ball comes off the cushion and comes to a stop in amongst the pack of reds, snookering him on all colours. He declares yellow ball, plays and misses, the white coming to a stop near the bottom yellow pocket. Referee calls a foul and a miss, and Player B elects the shot to be retaken. The referee replaces the ball in amongst the reds, and Player A says, no, it was here, and moves the white with his finger about an inch. The referee calls foul and awards:

A. 7 points, as a foul has been committed before the colour is declared - or

B. 4 points - and allows the player to retake his shot.

This caused quite a good discussion at the meeting, and the correct answer was confirmed by both Derek Budde and Alan Chamberlain. Got us all thinking though

[jrc750]

Got to be 7 surely ??

[Belloz22]

Well technically the next shot has not begun because the player and referee have not agreed on the correct position to retake the shot, thus technically he is not on a ball. I would argue it should be 4 points, but then I could see why it would be 7 points as the highest OB is the black. Final answer id say is 4 just because the next shot has technically not be taking, thus the foul never occurred during the shot - as there is no agreement it is in the right place.

[DeanH]

4 or 7 penalty?

I would say 7 point foul as a colour had not yet been nominated with the cue ball being replaced and no ball on.

[SnkrRef]

Just because a miss has been called and the balls are being replaced to the original position, Player A doesn't have to play at the yellow again: the ball on reverts to being one of Player A's choice. Therefore, because no colour has been nominated at this stage, then the penalty has to be seven points.

If Player B had moved the cue ball, then he would have been penalised as if he was the striker, and he too would have been penalised seven points.

[t.lavery55]

I too would say that it is a seven point penalty as the colour has not been nominated. However, I disagree with the referee calling a foul, as then the usual options after a foul would become available to player B. A more appropriate call in this instance would be "penalty".
See Section 3 rule 14(h) "During such consultation, if either player should touch a ball in play, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker, without affecting the order of play".

[tommygunner1309]

Well all these are very interesting. My answer was, 7 point penalty using sect 3 d (v) (fails to declare which ball he is on when snookered or when requested to do so by the referee. The other two refs there at the time agreed 7 point penalty. I pointed out that after the second foul, Player A being put back in can change his mind and take another colour, (as SnkrRef pointed out.)

The ruling I got back (as agreed by DB and AC) was that the penalty was four points, as in the interest of fair play, the last ball declared was yellow and no other declaration had been called since. I pointed out that the players turn had come to an end since his declaration, and therefore the 7 penalty rule should come into play - However this is not the case adopted by the two members of the WPBSA rules committee, and I was led to believe that my interpretation was incorrect.

I think I have to agree to disagree with my masters - just goes to prove that the rules are not as clear-cut as they appear.

[jrc750]

Since when did fair play alter the rules ???

[tommygunner1309]

Well technically the next shot has not begun because the player and referee have not agreed on the correct position to retake the shot, thus technically he is not on a ball. I would argue it should be 4 points, but then I could see why it would be 7 points as the highest OB is the black. Final answer id say is 4 just because the next shot has technically not be taking, thus the foul never occurred during the shot - as there is no agreement it is in the right place.

The reason why I say 7 penalty, is because the first foul occurred when player A missed the yellow. Hence, player B comes to the table and has a choice of playing the next shot, or making player A play again - so to my thinking, it is the start of a new shot from Player A.

[tommygunner1309]

Since when did fair play alter the rules ???

Well, my thoughts exactly. I know that refs are advised to take "fair play" into consideration, but it begs the question, fair play to whom? If player B is 15 points in arrears would he consider it unfair if Player A was only penalized 4, for which an interpretation in the manual states 7 in a case of sect 3 d (v)?

[t.lavery55]

Well all these are very interesting. My answer was, 7 point penalty using sect 3 d (v) (fails to declare which ball he is on when snookered or when requested to do so by the referee. The other two refs there at the time agreed 7 point penalty. I pointed out that after the second foul, Player A being put back in can change his mind and take another colour, (as SnkrRef pointed out.)

The ruling I got back (as agreed by DB and AC) was that the penalty was four points, as in the interest of fair play, the last ball declared was yellow and no other declaration had been called since. I pointed out that the players turn had come to an end since his declaration, and therefore the 7 penalty rule should come into play - However this is not the case adopted by the two members of the WPBSA rules committee, and I was led to believe that my interpretation was incorrect.

I think I have to agree to disagree with my masters - just goes to prove that the rules are not as clear-cut as they appear.

So, would the same ruling be applied in the following scenario? Player A is snookered on all colours, as above, a foul and a miss is called, the balls are replaced, and, while attempting to play the shot a second time, player A feathers the cue-ball. Player B then asks him to play from the new position, but the angle of the shot remains unaltered. If player A were to commit a further foul while preparing to play again, would it still be considered in the interests of fair play to call a foul of 4 if he had not made a new declaration?!

[Odrl]

So, would the same ruling be applied in the following scenario? Player A is snookered on all colours, as above, a foul and a miss is called, the balls are replaced, and, while attempting to play the shot a second time, player A feathers the cue-ball. Player B then asks him to play from the new position, but the angle of the shot remains unaltered. If player A were to commit a further foul while preparing to play again, would it still be considered in the interests of fair play to call a foul of 4 if he had not made a new declaration?!

Well, if he was asked to play from the new position, he would then be on a red, wouldn't he?

[DeanH]

Well all these are very interesting. My answer was, 7 point penalty using sect 3 d (v) (fails to declare which ball he is on when snookered or when requested to do so by the referee. The other two refs there at the time agreed 7 point penalty. I pointed out that after the second foul, Player A being put back in can change his mind and take another colour, (as SnkrRef pointed out.)

The ruling I got back (as agreed by DB and AC) was that the penalty was four points, as in the interest of fair play, the last ball declared was yellow and no other declaration had been called since. I pointed out that the players turn had come to an end since his declaration, and therefore the 7 penalty rule should come into play - However this is not the case adopted by the two members of the WPBSA rules committee, and I was led to believe that my interpretation was incorrect.

I think I have to agree to disagree with my masters - just goes to prove that the rules are not as clear-cut as they appear.

sorry, but when have they ever appeared clear-cut?
personnally, I think the wording, layout, and structure of the Rules needs completely rebuilding and managed by a person or persons who know how to do plain-English, clear structure, and common-sense flow of content. Unfortunately the current people in control of the Rules maybe (I hope ) experienced Referees of our beloved games buy they are too close to them to have an objective view of what words they write.
I do not mean the meaning Rules themselves need rewriting or changing but the document, the layout, and the structure.

[t.lavery55]

Well, if he was asked to play from the new position, he would then be on a red, wouldn't he?

Under the new rules, not necessarily, as it is now up to his opponent to decide whether he would like player A to be on a Red or a colour:
Section 3 rule 11 (i): "If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cue-ball 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."

[SnkrRef]

Under the new rules, not necessarily, as it is now up to his opponent to decide whether he would like player A to be on a Red or a colour:
Section 3 rule 11 (i): "If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cue-ball 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."

3.11(i) is a rule which I expect 99% of players and 90% of referees don't know is there and/or don't understand it!

It has, however, opened up a new scenario where a referee has to make a judgement call... just when is a player hampered?

I would be helpful to quote the whole rule though:

(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.