Rule Question

[sharkster63]

Good Day, I was wondering if it is a foul if while addressing the white I dig my fingers into the cloth while addressing the white thus moving the cloth which caused the green to move quite a bit because it fell into a spotting hole in the cloth. I called a foul because I seen the green move, he said I did not touch the green, I said it did not move on its own. I tried to find the answer in the rules but could not. Thank You,,,

[Tommykiid]

Rule Question

the cloth should be restreached by the sound of it and it is a foul if the cloth moved as far as I'm aware but the exception is the vibration rule which doesn't sound like it apply here so u think you did the right thing by calling a foul ......... why we're you digging into the cloth in the 1st place ??

[sharkster63]

I was not the person who did it, I called it, he totally disregarded my foul by saying he did not touch the ball, he continued to shoot without getting up. He then told me that he was certain that it was not a foul because he did not touch the ball, he knew the green moved, he seen it.. CHeers

[Tommykiid]

Rule Question

Yeh I'd consider it a foul because it was him that made the movement of the cloth so ur right to call a foul

[cpserrao]

Did he gain any advantage by the green moving into its spot?
I'm inclined to think that unless he was intentionally trying to get the green to slip into its spot thereby giving him some advantage on his stroke, it would not be foul.

[DeanH]

This is covered in the rules by the following:
Sec 3.15 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.

I would say the loose cloth is a defect in the table surface and therefore for this scenario it would be a Foul.
There is a case for it not to be a foul and to replace the ball(s) back and the stroke to be played again, I recall playing a pool league match and the cloth was so loose that it was nearly impossible to play a sot without raising a crimple in the cloth so it was decided at the start of the night that if everyone did not do anything deliberate no fouls would be called for these moving balls, but the balls would be replaced and the stroke continues.
Hopefully LondonLad will pop on soon with his call.

[itsnoteasy]

If the cloth is loose and moved and the ball has rolled into a dint on the cloth, I would say those are both defects on the table, because 1, the cloth shouldn't move and 2, there shouldn't be dints in the cloth.
Was this a proper match or just a game in the club? If it was either there is not a hope in hell I would have called a foul even if it's within the rules, it's not within the spirit of the game for me, he didn't mean it, and in clubs balls roll into dints or off spots all the time, it's just something you have to put up with. It's not the crucible.

[snookerdad]

Not a foul. As Dean pointed out, the rules say the ball(s) would not be repositioned - but no foul would be called.

It's a similar case to playing away from a touching ball and seeing the other ball move. Again, no foul.

Tim Dunkley (World Snooker coach)

[itsnoteasy]

Not a foul. As Dean pointed out, the rules say the ball(s) would not be repositioned - but no foul would be called.

It's a similar case to playing away from a touching ball and seeing the other ball move. Again, no foul.

Tim Dunkley (World Snooker coach)

Dean said it was a foul.

[DeanH]

Hi Tim
From my reading of the rules it would be a foul and not replaced as it is a defect of the playing surface.

please let me know your understanding as you see it

[snookerdad]

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.

This rule is about whether balls should be repositioned or not. It's not about fouls.

In (a), the difference is that a colour moving on its spot will be repositioned but a ball anywhere else would not be repositioned. But neither scenario results in a penalty.

If you turn it around and look at it from another viewpoint, it makes sense. Let's say you address the cue-ball and another ball ten feet away moves, perhaps on a slate line, would that be a foul?

[DeanH]

Ok, I see that; so no foul and not replaced - in the OP scenario of the cloth crumpling up.

The point of whether it is the player causing the movement due to him placing his hand on the defective cloth, that then moves it.
I understand about a ball rolling into a divot, or a third-party either moving a ball or causing the player to move a ball, but this is the player themselves at the table...

As mentioned previously, we played on that really bad table, and you could roll a ball the whole length of the table by the crimple in the cloth

[Londonlad147]

If the player has not physically touched the ball then you cannot call a foul.

Rule 3.15 is intended to refer to something/someone off the table causing a movement of the balls. If balls move as a result of defects in the table (eg a ball suddenly rolling off it's spot), then they are not replaced, and it's not a foul... after all such a movement may not be part of a shot.

The only exception to this is when the cue ball is a touching ball or close to being touching another ball. If on subsequent examination the situation has reversed, then the referee is entitled to move the balls back so that they are indeed touching/not touching as appropriate.

[sharkster63]

Nil advantage was gained, lots to lose if its a foul... I agree the cloth was much to loose...

Did he gain any advantage by the green moving into its spot?
I'm inclined to think that unless he was intentionally trying to get the green to slip into its spot thereby giving him some advantage on his stroke, it would not be foul.

[sharkster63]

Thanks for the help... I see what you are saying...I will keep reading the rest of the thread..

This is covered in the rules by the following:
Sec 3.15 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.

I would say the loose cloth is a defect in the table surface and therefore for this scenario it would be a Foul.
There is a case for it not to be a foul and to replace the ball(s) back and the stroke to be played again, I recall playing a pool league match and the cloth was so loose that it was nearly impossible to play a sot without raising a crimple in the cloth so it was decided at the start of the night that if everyone did not do anything deliberate no fouls would be called for these moving balls, but the balls would be replaced and the stroke continues.
Hopefully LondonLad will pop on soon with his call.