Can someone explain Rule 11(i), seems pretty confusing to me?

[renniwevarb]

The following is extracted from the WPBSA rule book Rev August 2014, Section 3 Rule no. 11(i):

11(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.

I find it pretty confusing, can anyone enlighten me on this rule?

[sharkster63]

Good Day, I just found this http://www.prosnookerblog.com/2011/0...ee-andy-yates/, and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT6JFuT9PWk hope this will clear things up. Cheers

[sharkster63]

Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX8OJQqicFw

[SnkrRef]

The rule was changed to deal with the situation which arose in the ROS/Higgins match as linked above.

Normally a simple foul (ie not a miss) will end the striker's turn, and the striker has the option of playing himself from the position left (possibly with a free ball) or putting the opponent in, in each c ase the ball on will be a red (if reds are on the table) or the next colour in sequence.

What 3.11(i) does is introduce another option to the non-offender, if the offender had fouled whilst preparing to play a stoke, and had been hampered in doing so (although the term hampered is not defined). It only introduces a change if the offender had potted a red and was on a colour. In that case the non-offender can ask the offender, if he decides to put him in again, to play either at a reed (as he would have to after any foul), or to play at his choice of colour, which would have been the position he was in when he fouled), which is effectively like calling a miss even though a stroke hasn't been played.

What confuses matters in the wording is part (iv). This means that if the offender had potted the last red on his last legal stroke, then the non-offender can ask the striker to play specifically at the yellow (as the next ball on in sequence), or give him the choice of any colour as he would have had before.

[Byrom]

while you are on the subject snr ref - I came across one in a match at a comp - I had no ref

I was snookered and missed and so fouled and this meant I needed snookers however the other guy called a miss picked up the ball although I told him not to - as I had gone beyond the point needing snookers - he did not listen and he replaced it which I said is a foul - now this was agreed it was a foul but I said the ball should be replaced where it was before he picked it up and replaced it - which also meant I could have easily cleared up and won - as he should have done really but where the ball was after he picked it up meant I was again snookered and now meant I could take a free ball or make him go again however the free ball was not an easy pot and the snooker not that hard to hit really although I had missed.

I was told I had to play it from where he put the ball down and some pro ref said this is right but I thought that cant be right as he could have placed it anywhere - in the pocket or in a awkward situation as he did - What is to stop any player doing this in a match say if he thinks it going in off when in reality it could jaw leaving the other guy on meanwhile he picks it up and places it on the back cushion? in the end this cost me the game and the match as I made him go again he hit the ball knocking it safe - however since been told this is wrong and I was right it should have been put back to where it was.

The other player is the ref in the match in this situation surely and if the ref makes a mistake are not the balls replaced in the same situation before he picked it up if the ball had stopped or in hand with a foul for picking it up?

[SnkrRef]

Hmmm, I'd be interested to know who the pro ref was who said you needed to play from where the other guy moved the cue ball to.

It's always a little less straight forward when you're reffing your own games, and in this case there are probably two ways of looking at it. If you're treating the other player as the referee at the time, then the incident could be seen as covered by 3.15 'Ball Moved by Other than Striker'. In that case the cue ball (or any balls moved) would be repalced to where they were or where they are judged to have come to rest had they still been moving, and without penalty.

15. Ball Moved by Other than Striker
If a ball, stationary or moving, is disturbed other than by the striker, it shall be re-positioned by the referee to the place he judges the ball was, or would have finished, without penalty.
(a) This Rule shall include cases where another occurrence or person, causes the striker to move a ball, but will not apply in cases where a ball moves due to any defect in the table surface, except in the case where a spotted ball moves before the next stroke has been made.
(b) No player shall be penalised for any disturbance of balls by the referee

When the 2014 rule book came out a few months back, it introduced a small change to 2.14, being the definition of 'forced off the table', by adding 'or intentionally moved by hand' and therefore now makes clear that if either striker or non-striker deliberately moves the cue ball whilst in play, then it is considered to be forced off the table (and hence must be played from in hand).

14. Forced off the table
A ball is forced off the table if it comes to rest other than on the bed of the table or in a pocket, or if it is picked up by the striker, or intentionally moved by hand whilst it is in play except as provided for in Section 3 Rule 14(g).

I think the former scenario should be adopted: ie you're assuming the other guy is the ref, and therefore replace the balls. If the incident took place before the 2014 change to 2.14, then I suppose you could argue that you would have had to made your choice from the position left after the cue ball had been made, This is exactly the scenario in the match where Dott punched the cue ball away from the pocket and inevitable in-off. It happened to stop in the D and the opponent picked it up thinking he was in hand, and Chamberlain called the further foul because it should have been played from the position left.

[Byrom]

It was pre rule change 'just' I think - I cant say who the ref was who said this - would not be fair to name him but I still don't understand the previous rule - replaced without penalty? 15 is wrong - It must be a foul if he picked it up though? Don't understand.

If just replaced and its my turn I would still need snookers - no advantage in this - does he place it back and continue - or me.

Please explain - If my turn was it ball in hand, play from where he put it - eg back in a snooker make him go again or claim the free ball like this ref said or replace without penalty?

I understand but don't agree with the rule change although there are situations including mine where there would be no advantage in doing this - because under this rule a player could simply 'by mistake' pick up the ball say to clean it or thinking he can replace after a mistaken foul and a miss is called when beyond the point needing snookers as in my case and if opponent was left in the reds or in a more advantageous position - under this new rule now the ball would-or could just be placed in hand in the D and safe?

[DeanH]

Can someone explain Rule 11(i), seems pretty confusing to me?

my view is that the other guy was acting as ref when he picked the cue ball up - so no foul for that action on his part

I feel that you are correct that he should not have gone straight to picking the cue ball without any discussion first.
Also that you would have had the choice to play from where it was before the pick up.

if I read all the above right :biggrin:

[Byrom]

Let me explain the situation again - not sure if the other player is a player or a ref or what the hell to do?

I was snookered behind the brown I came off the cushion trying to hit the green in the middle of the table I missed it but left the green on - instead of simply potting it he picked up the ball nominating a miss although I said he could not do that as I needed snookers now.

He then placed the ball so I was still snookered on the green ball - although now it was slightly harder to hit and next to the rail - not sure but he picked it up twice lol.

The ref that was asked said it was a foul by him and the ball must be played from where it lay now - I said that cant be right as it is a slightly harder position - he said it was a foul by the other player and I could either make him go again or take the free ball.

I wanted to claim a foul and play it from where it was before he picked it up as with the penalty for the foul I could have potted green and cleared up to win - as it was I had to go with this ref decision on the phone so I made him strike again - he hit the ball left it safe and I ended up loosing the match.

I think the new rule though better - might be flawed for the reason I mentioned previously?

[DeanH]

Can someone explain Rule 11(i), seems pretty confusing to me?

ok I don't think rule 11 applies to your scenario but Foul and Miss.
You were snookered and missed, and as snookers required as a result of the foul there are only two options the non offender has 1) play himself from where the cue ball stopped; 2) let the offender back in from where the cue ball stopped. The third option of having the cue ball replaced doesn't apply.

Also why the non offender didn't play the green anyway beats me

how you resolve the situation where he picks up the white to replace it depends on if you are friends and solve it cordially or with fistycuffs
or officially as you mention above from the other ref.
if it happened to me and my friends no one would have touched the white until everyone in agreement to the scenario.


I think your options after the white had been moved would be the freeball to you or let the opponent play the Green as has been said above

[Byrom]

Yes I don't know why he did not just pot it - maybe he was just trying to grind it out of me or did not realize the score properly - I did tell him he could not pick it up and re-place it as I needed snookers but he did it anyway - so I asked for a ruling.

So you are saying the ref i asked was right Dean - that I should take the free ball or make him go again from where it lay after he moved it as it was a foul by him?

I would have thought it was a foul and I could then pick the white up and replace it where it was and play the shot from where the ball was before he moved it you see - as I could have cleared from where it was quite easily but could not do it as easily after he moved it which did not seem fair to me.

But saying this - the new rule now indicates it is ball in hand - but I thought technically about it - should it not get replaced where the ball last was as if it was a foul and a miss when he picked it up as the ball had stopped?

Is the other player a ref or a player and if he picked it up accidentally or otherwise is it a foul to the other player - me ?? - As for the new rule amendment if it is what the snkr ref just described I could see a scenario that this could happen in the reds as I said but if a player now has to play it from the D there would be no advantage - whats to stop a player just from picking it up accidentally deliberately on purpose so to speak because he knows this is now just a foul to be played from the D?

[itsnoteasy]

This is quite a tricky one for my wee brain, I am in agreement with most of it(no miss because of snookers, cue ball should be replaced) but I'm kind of with Byrom that it's a foul, I think an impartial ref, refs the game with the consent of the other two players, this lad just appointed himself right ,without Byroms consent or agreement, and picked the White up, and because of this I think it's a foul, I once saw Alex Higgins throw a hissy fit after a miss stop the White as it traveled round the table and threw it round the angles with his hand(a slightly similar situation ) and if I remember rightly the ref called a foul, in fact I think he called it as a sign of resignation and gave the frame to his opponent .

[Byrom]

This is quite a tricky one for my wee brain, I am in agreement with most of it(no miss because of snookers, cue ball should be replaced) but I'm kind of with Byrom that it's a foul, I think an impartial ref, refs the game with the consent of the other two players, this lad just appointed himself right ,without Byroms consent or agreement, and picked the White up, and because of this I think it's a foul, I once saw Alex Higgins throw a hissy fit after a miss stop the White as it traveled round the table and threw it round the angles with his hand(a slightly similar situation ) and if I remember rightly the ref called a foul, in fact I think he called it as a sign of resignation and gave the frame to his opponent .

Yes that crossed my mind that this was in fact a concession under the rules too - although it would be hard to take it as he was in front at the time and obviously had not done it deliberately although he did not agree when I told him before he picked it up not to pick it up and then moved it back where it was before I missed as if it was a foul and a miss to him - then as I asked for a ruling he moved it nearer the cushion again making it even harder - I now had to either take a free ball or make him go again which was not right I felt.

I mean if that is the case and that ref I asked was right - what is to stop a player who leaves someone on just picking it up accidentally on purpose so to speak and placing it anywhere he wants in a safe place or pushing it down the pocket and taking a foul?

[renniwevarb]

Hey thanks for the replies, need to spend some time to look at the links and stuff to digest them. You guys are really helpful, appreciated!

[golferson123]

and so the miss rule grinds on and on with little changes desperately trying to make itself usable. time to start afresh? ��