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

[SnkrRef]

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 ??

3.19 provides that the opposing player is deemed to be the referee in games where there is no independent referee. I would take that to mean the non-striker is deemed to be the referee.

As I said earlier, the situation is a grey area, but personally I would consider that he moved the cue ball whilst acting as referee rather than as a player, and, therefore, the cue ball should be replaced to where it was, without penalty (as previously described). I think that given ambiguity of the situation then you could add the weight of s5 that decisions can be made in the interest of fair play.

You opponent, in acting as referee, made a mistake, and it seems unfair that either of you should be punished or gain from that mistake.

[SnkrRef]

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?

But you've already said that the incident took place before the rules changed. Since August 2014 if a player deliberately moves the cue ball by hand (and that would include with his cue or anything else), then the cue ball must be played from in hand, not where it was moved to.

[SnkrRef]

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

That's a really useful comment. NOT. The 2014 rule book did not introduce any fundamental changes to the Miss rule, only re-wrote it to make it easier to understand, particularly for those who don't have English as a first language.

This topic is NOT about the miss rule per se, but about what should happen if a ball is deliberately moved whilst on the table.

[Byrom]

That's a really useful comment. NOT. The 2014 rule book did not introduce any fundamental changes to the Miss rule, only re-wrote it to make it easier to understand, particularly for those who don't have English as a first language.

This topic is NOT about the miss rule per se, but about what should happen if a ball is deliberately moved whilst on the table.

Well I have asked two refs now - I will ask more and 2 or three pro players who have been in the game years and they don't know the exact ruling either - so maybe it should be an automatic concession as re the Alex Higgins case? Or played as a miss replaced with a foul to the other player as I suggest?

Do you know the answer please snk ref or does the rule book need amending to accommodate this from happening in the future?

Am I correct under the new rules if the white ball is left plumb in the reds can a player now just pick it up accidentally on purpose - say to clean the ball - knowing this is a foul and will now under the amendment the white ball will now be moved to be played from the D?

My concern is that this ball in hand could now be a safe place to play from and the rule makes it advantageous for the player who has just left the other guy in the reds to do this - so the new rule as you described it to me is flawed yes?

As for my case it was in August so I don't know which rules where out actually - or if the player I was playing is regarded as a ref - or a player - but I thought it was a foul and should have been treated as if a miss rule to me then I could have replaced the ball where it was and cleared. At the time it was treated as a foul to me with me now having to play the ball from where it now lay after the guy had moved it - this was the ruling given - and it was treated as a foul in my favor with the option of a fee ball or make him go again. My concern with this is the player had moved it into a worse position for me - so thought it unfair.

I am surprised you say the rule is that under the old rules it was not a foul by the other player who picked up the ball and moved it by the way.

[itsnoteasy]

3.19 provides that the opposing player is deemed to be the referee in games where there is no independent referee. I would take that to mean the non-striker is deemed to be the referee.

As I said earlier, the situation is a grey area, but personally I would consider that he moved the cue ball whilst acting as referee rather than as a player, and, therefore, the cue ball should be replaced to where it was, without penalty (as previously described). I think that given ambiguity of the situation then you could add the weight of s5 that decisions can be made in the interest of fair play.

You opponent, in acting as referee, made a mistake, and it seems unfair that either of you should be punished or gain from that mistake.

3.19 sounds a little bit open to foul play, but it's the rules, so I don't think a foul can be given, maybe morally wrong but as it stands no foul, white replaced.

[SnkrRef]

Well I have asked two refs now - I will ask more and 2 or three pro players who have been in the game years and they don't know the exact ruling either - so maybe it should be an automatic concession as re the Alex Higgins case? Or played as a miss replaced with a foul to the other player as I suggest?

Do you know the answer please snk ref or does the rule book need amending to accommodate this from happening in the future?

I think you've got to distinguish between games which have an independent referee and those where the players are refereeing themselves as to how you view these things, because it will affect whether they are acting as referee or player, the consequences for which are different, as previously explained.

I'm not sure what happened with the Higgins match, but I suspect it was a long time ago, and there have been revisions to the rules since then. I don't think that picking up the cue ball should ever be treated as an automatic concession, and the rule book is quite clear on what should happen if the cue ball is deliberately moved or picked up by either striker or non-striker.

In your case as described originally I really don't think it would be fair to treat this as anything other than the cue ball being moved by the referee. We saw a case in the China Open, I think it was, earlier in the year, where there were several incidents of the apparently qualified referees not knowing the Miss rule properly. In one case a Miss was called and the balls replaced. The offender then pointed out that because snookers were required a Miss shouldn't have been called. Jan Verhaas was called out and he directed the balls to be replaced where they had finished after the last shot, and the non-offender had to make his choice from there. IMHO this is exactly what should have happened in your scenario.

You certainly can't call a Miss on the guy who picked up the cue ball, because he hasn't played a stroke! A Miss can only be called if a stroke is played and the cue ball fails to first make contact with a ball on (by either hitting another ball not on first, or failing to hit any ball).

[SnkrRef]

Am I correct under the new rules if the white ball is left plumb in the reds can a player now just pick it up accidentally on purpose - say to clean the ball - knowing this is a foul and will now under the amendment the white ball will now be moved to be played from the D?

My concern is that this ball in hand could now be a safe place to play from and the rule makes it advantageous for the player who has just left the other guy in the reds to do this - so the new rule as you described it to me is flawed yes?

The rule has NOT changed with regard to the striker moving the cue ball (it's been the same since at least 1995). It has just made it clear that if the cue ball is moved by the non-striker it is treated in the same way.

If playing from in-hand does not present a good position, then of course the non-offender has the option of putting the offender in from there.

However, if the action was considered to be wilfully unfair then the offender could be either warned or lose a frame for his actions, under s4. If one player leaves the cue ball amongst the reds with a good chance of making a clearance but chooses to pick up the cue ball then I don't think I'd have any hesitation in considering this serious enough to award the frame.

[Byrom]

I think you've got to distinguish between games which have an independent referee and those where the players are refereeing themselves as to how you view these things, because it will affect whether they are acting as referee or player, the consequences for which are different, as previously explained.

I'm not sure what happened with the Higgins match, but I suspect it was a long time ago, and there have been revisions to the rules since then. I don't think that picking up the cue ball should ever be treated as an automatic concession, and the rule book is quite clear on what should happen if the cue ball is deliberately moved or picked up by either striker or non-striker.

In your case as described originally I really don't think it would be fair to treat this as anything other than the cue ball being moved by the referee. We saw a case in the China Open, I think it was, earlier in the year, where there were several incidents of the apparently qualified referees not knowing the Miss rule properly. In one case a Miss was called and the balls replaced. The offender then pointed out that because snookers were required a Miss shouldn't have been called. Jan Verhaas was called out and he directed the balls to be replaced where they had finished after the last shot, and the non-offender had to make his choice from there. IMHO this is exactly what should have happened in your scenario.

You certainly can't call a Miss on the guy who picked up the cue ball, because he hasn't played a stroke! A Miss can only be called if a stroke is played and the cue ball fails to first make contact with a ball on (by either hitting another ball not on first, or failing to hit any ball).

Ok clear on that without a ref thing and I do understand the miss rule perfectly - more than most players perhaps- but in my situation why is it not a foul to me for him picking up the ball when I told him he couldn't before he did?

Surely you can see that it is wrong of him to do that - does not seem fair to me what you are saying is that I carry on from where it was without a penalty - it was his turn now it is mine - no foul points awarded - sort of gives me half a foul?

If you are right then this pro ref was wrong to say I must now play from where that ball is after the player in play decided to replace it calling a foul and a miss when I was beyond the point he was allowed to do this and needed snookers - I was again snookered when he replaced it - I was told I have the option to put him in or take a free ball and it was a foul 4 to me in his opinion. You say this is not a foul but it is now my turn and I have to play from where the ball was before he picked it up - which I think is wrong and slightly unfair on me.

He was in play and was the player - so was he a ref or a player? if it was my shot he would be a ref I suppose but for his own shot I am not sure?

I definitely think it should be a foul 4 and I should get to play from where it was before he picked it up - otherwise the rule is wrong in my humble opinion - but interesting debate none the less

Fact is if he slightly touched the ball then I would get this same situation I mean foul four and me in play - so in effect you are saying it is less of a foul to pick the ball up and move it without meaning it rather than slightly touch it also inadvertently if you see what I am saying.

[Byrom]

The rule has NOT changed with regard to the striker moving the cue ball (it's been the same since at least 1995). It has just made it clear that if the cue ball is moved by the non-striker it is treated in the same way.

If playing from in-hand does not present a good position, then of course the non-offender has the option of putting the offender in from there.

However, if the action was considered to be wilfully unfair then the offender could be either warned or lose a frame for his actions, under s4. If one player leaves the cue ball amongst the reds with a good chance of making a clearance but chooses to pick up the cue ball then I don't think I'd have any hesitation in considering this serious enough to award the frame.

Thanks for clarifying that one

[SnkrRef]

Ok clear on that without a ref thing and I do understand the miss rule perfectly - more than most players perhaps- but in my situation why is it not a foul to me for him picking up the ball when I told him he couldn't before he did?

Surely you can see that it is wrong of him to do that - does not seem fair to me what you are saying is that I carry on from where it was without a penalty - it was his turn now it is mine - no foul points awarded - sort of gives me half a foul?

If you are right then this pro ref was wrong to say I must now play from where that ball is after the player in play decided to replace it calling a foul and a miss when I was beyond the point he was allowed to do this and needed snookers - I was again snookered when he replaced it - I was told I have the option to put him in or take a free ball and it was a foul 4 to me in his opinion. You say this is not a foul but it is now my turn and I have to play from where the ball was before he picked it up - which I think is wrong and slightly unfair on me.

He was in play and was the player - so was he a ref or a player? if it was my shot he would be a ref I suppose but for his own shot I am not sure?

I definitely think it should be a foul 4 and I should get to play from where it was before he picked it up - otherwise the rule is wrong in my humble opinion - but interesting debate none the less

Fact is if he slightly touched the ball then I would get this same situation I mean foul four and me in play - so in effect you are saying it is less off a foul to pick the ball up and move it without meaning it rather than slightly touch it also inadvertently if you see what I am saying.

We're talking at cross purposes. I've said all along that the ball should have been replaced to where it landed after the foul stroke on which he tried to claim a miss. But if we're assuming he's the ref at the time then there is no penalty.

If in the pre August 2014 rules, one takes the view that he moved the ball as a player then yes that would have been a foul and you would have had to make your choices from where he positioned the cue ball. I'm not suggesting the pro refs were wrong in what they said because the incident happened around the time the rules changed, although I'm firmly of the opinion that the other guy moved the ball as referee rather than player.

Ignoring the question of whether the miss call was right or wrong, was he the referee? Once all balls stopped moving from your foul stroke and you'd stood up from the table, your turn then ended and he became the striker. As soon as he wanted the balls replaced he ceased to be the striker in your favour, and at that time he once again became the referee, and was the referee when he moved the cue ball. In summary the 'referee' got it wrong, and the cue ball should have been replaced to where it landed after your foul (as happened in the China Open match I referred to earlier).

[SnkrRef]

This also raises another question. The non-offender asked you to play again (from the original position rather than the position left). If the Miss call is subsequently rescinded, does the non-offender have the right to change his mind as to whether to play himself or put you in from the position left? Or should 3.13 apply?

13. Play Again
Once a player has requested an opponent to play again after a foul or requested the replacement of ball(s) after a FOUL AND A MISS, such request cannot be withdrawn. The offender, having been asked to play again, is entitled to:
(a) change his mind as to:
(i) which stroke he will play; and
(ii) which ball on he will attempt to hit;
(b) score points for any ball or balls he may pot.

I think I'd be tempted to let the non-offender change his mind and play the next shot himself if he wishes.

[Byrom]

The rule on this was told to me correct before - although this was amended to stop the disparity that occurred in the pro match you described - pre-rule change which is fine although this seemed wrong to me at the time too.

But the amendment is still not fair still - here is why - again let me explain as we might have our wires crossed.

A player touches a ball inadvertently it is a foul four and my go a player picks the ball up wrongly on the miss rule or or any other reason inadvertently he can say he is acting as a ref in a match with no ref?

The rule should be that it gets replaced where it was and foul points awarded to me though - if he slightly touches the ball whats to stop any player saying "no I was acting as a ref so me touching the ball is not a foul points away then" - it don't make sense what you are saying really. Its ok if I agree I suppose - say my opponent asks to clean the white I say yes he cleans it acting as a ref but in my situation I said don't pick it up its not a miss but he did it anyway which I think is a foul.

I am also a ref in the game am I not - I told him not to pick it up and replace it explaining I needed snookers so a miss cant be called but he went ahead and picked it up anyway.

I think its a foul and the ball gets replaced with penalty points to me really and that is what the rule should be - the rules are not fair or clear on this point in the pro game or am game then if this is not right surely?

[Byrom]

This also raises another question. The non-offender asked you to play again (from the original position rather than the position left). If the Miss call is subsequently rescinded, does the non-offender have the right to change his mind as to whether to play himself or put you in from the position left? Or should 3.13 apply?

13. Play Again
Once a player has requested an opponent to play again after a foul or requested the replacement of ball(s) after a FOUL AND A MISS, such request cannot be withdrawn. The offender, having been asked to play again, is entitled to:
(a) change his mind as to:
(i) which stroke he will play; and
(ii) which ball on he will attempt to hit;
(b) score points for any ball or balls he may pot.

I think I'd be tempted to let the non-offender change his mind and play the next shot himself if he wishes.

Yes I was coming to that - this cant be right to let that happen - it must be a foul to me surely as now this means he picked the ball up and called a miss replaced the ball twice after when I told him not to touch the ball - yet now he can just say sorry replace the ball where he thought it was then change his mind and just pot the green?

[SnkrRef]

You've got to distinguish between the striker and the non-striker. If the striker touches any ball in play then it will be a foul. If it is accidental then 3.11(i) might apply. If it is deliberate then 2.14 applies. He can't argue that he's moved the ball as referee as only the non-striker can be the referee, as previously explained.

Yes, you are also a referee in the match, but only when you're the non-striker. You can't both be referees at the same time.

[SnkrRef]

Yes I was coming to that - this cant be right to let that happen - it must be a foul to me surely?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this posting.