Deliberate foul

[Londonlad147]

Same rule applies, warning not to continue that behavior else the frame and if continues the match to the opponent.
As to whether the balls are replaced, I think this would be a F&M and the non-offending player would have the usual three choices.

You can only call F&M where a stroke has been played and the cue ball fails to make first contact with a ball on. If balls are moved by hand then you cannot call F&M.

[Londonlad147]

hm, thinking you may be right, as discussed earlier, I am sure I added a bit more, but cant see my edit.
Maybe just up to the non-offending player to get the snooker required.
Now the referee has the option to award the frame immediately after a gross infringement of the rule, but does this "deliberate foul" constitute a gross infringement?
Should a new clause be added to the rules defining a "deliberate foul" and the penalty?
Easier than leaving it to the individual referee.

As I said in my recent post, I think you have to be very careful before giving a warning: the referee would need to be absolutely certain that the pocketing of the red was intentional. Even if he was convinced it was an intentional act, then I don't see it as something which would lead to an immediate loss of frame. Surely it would have to be considered under s4.1(a)(ii):

SECTION 4 THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
(a) In the event of:
(i) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the selection of a stroke; or
(ii) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(iii) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to
ungentlemanly conduct; or
(iv) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(v) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the
frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(vi) award the frame to his opponent; or
(vii) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious, award the game to his opponent.
(b) If a referee has warned the Player under (v) above, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above, the referee must either:
(i) award the frame to his opponent; or
(ii) in the event that the further conduct is sufficiently serious, award the game to his opponent.
(c) If a referee has awarded a frame to a Player‟s opponent pursuant to the above provisions, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above by the Player concerned, the referee must award the game to the Player‟s opponent.
(d) Any decision by a referee to award a frame and/or the game to a Player‟s opponent shall be final and shall not be subject to any appeal.

If there was some doubt, then I might just have a quiet word with the player to the effect that 'I had suspicions of unfair play, don't do it again!'

[DeanH]

Deliberate foul

thanks LL
an edit of one of my earlier posts did not seem to appear, I retracted the F&M statement as you say above

[travisbickle]

You can only call F&M where a stroke has been played and the cue ball fails to make first contact with a ball on. If balls are moved by hand then you cannot call F&M.

I would’ve thought moving the CB or any ball with your hands would be called a foul & miss.
What happens then, is it loss of frame?
If it isn’t then if you find yourself in a really difficult snooker next time you could just move the CB or any other OB’s for that matter with your hand give away just 4 penalty points and carry on. That can’t be right, can it?

[DeanH]

I would’ve thought moving the CB or any ball with your hands would be called a foul & miss.
What happens then, is it loss of frame?
If it isn’t then if you find yourself in a really difficult snooker next time you could just move the CB or any other OB’s for that matter with your hand give away just 4 penalty points and carry on. That can’t be right, can it?

From an earlier post, I am sure it will not be F&M but just a Foul and 4 or value of ball on if greater penalty points - but the non-offending player has the choice to put the offending player back in if the position of balls is not to their liking

Rule 3.10 Penalties
(d) seven points if the striker:
(iii) touches any ball during consultation as described in Section 3, Rule 14(g).
maybe this rule can be changed to include a 7 point penalty "if a striker touches any ball for any reason"

[travisbickle]

From an earlier post, I am sure it will not be F&M but just a Foul and 4 or value of ball on if greater penalty points - but the non-offending player has the choice to put the offending player back in if the position of balls is not to their liking

Rule 3.10 Penalties
(d) seven points if the striker:
(iii) touches any ball during consultation as described in Section 3, Rule 14(g).
maybe this rule can be changed to include a 7 point penalty "if a striker touches any ball for any reason"

So in the case of Selby & Dott, could Selby have asked the ref if he could pick the CB up as it was going to go into the pocket before Dott intervened or does he still have to play the CB from where it is regardless?

[DeanH]

So in the case of Selby & Dott, could Selby have asked the ref if he could pick the CB up as it was going to go into the pocket before Dott intervened or does he still have to play the CB from where it is regardless?

If he had asked the referee "can I pick this up?" the referee would not have answered Yes or No but "please play on"; and Selby would have fouled if he picked it up (as actually happened).
What should have been clear to Selby is that the referee did not pick up the cue ball, give it a wipe and put it by the bottom cushion as they do when handing a cue ball to a player as a "ball in hand" situation
Selby had the option to play the cue ball from where it was after knocked by Dott, or he could have asked Dott to play from where it was.

[travisbickle]

If he had asked the referee "can I pick this up?" the referee would not have answered Yes or No but "please play on"; and Selby would have fouled if he picked it up (as actually happened).
What should have been clear to Selby is that the referee did not pick up the cue ball, give it a wipe and put it by the bottom cushion as they do when handing a cue ball to a player as a "ball in hand" situation
Selby had the option to play the cue ball from where it was after knocked by Dott, or he could have asked Dott to play from where it was.

Imo it's a stupid rule.
So Selby is at a massive disadvantage through no fault of his own.
The ref should have said to Selby he has ball in hand and warned Dott if it happens again he will forfeit the frame.

[Billy]

Imo it's a stupid rule.
So Selby is at a massive disadvantage through no fault of his own.
The ref should have said to Selby he has ball in hand and warned Dott if it happens again he will forfeit the frame.

I don't think it's a stupid rule - there can be no grey areas in the rulings of snooker (although I'm sure there are a couple). The referee was not at fault and did his job properly.

But, I do agree it was a little unfair on Selby. In the club this happens all the time, and the offending players is simply handing his opponent ball-in-hand, but rules is rules and the cueball did not go in-off (albeit because of Dott's intervention). As has been said, having had the situation explained, the sporting thing for Dott to have done at this stage would have been to simply pot the white directly into a pocket, thus awarding Selby the ball-in-hand he thought he'd had originally.

[travisbickle]

I don't think it's a stupid rule - there can be no grey areas in the rulings of snooker (although I'm sure there are a couple). The referee was not at fault and did his job properly.

But, I do agree it was a little unfair on Selby. In the club this happens all the time, and the offending players is simply handing his opponent ball-in-hand, but rules is rules and the cueball did not go in-off (albeit because of Dott's intervention). As has been said, having had the situation explained, the sporting thing for Dott to have done at this stage would have been to simply pot the white directly into a pocket, thus awarding Selby the ball-in-hand he thought he'd had originally.

As it stands it is a grey area mate.
Selby should have had ball in hand regardless. He wasn’t in the wrong and got punished for picking the CB up. Even if he didn’t pick the CB up he would be in a worse position then he should’ve been.
So imo the rule should be changed.

[DeanH]

As it stands it is a grey area mate.
Selby should have had ball in hand regardless. He wasn’t in the wrong and got punished for picking the CB up. Even if he didn’t pick the CB up he would be in a worse position then he should’ve been.
So imo the rule should be changed.

I don't think there is a grey area in the rules and this scenario, there was misunderstanding by the players as to the rules; the rules are defined and clear as to the individual sequence of events.
Selby was in the wrong because he picked up the cue-ball that had not left the playing surface (misunderstanding ).
If Selby had not picked up the cue ball, he could have put Dott in to play (as always the choice) .

But as said, many times on many threads, this scenario has been discussed, ad nauseum, and will probably be asked about many times in the future :biggrin:

[travisbickle]

I don't think there is a grey area in the rules and this scenario, there was misunderstanding by the players as to the rules; the rules are defined and clear as to the individual sequence of events.
Selby was in the wrong because he picked up the cue-ball that had not left the playing surface (misunderstanding ).
If Selby had not picked up the cue ball, he could have put Dott in to play (as always the choice) .

But as said, many times on many threads, this scenario has been discussed, ad nauseum, and will probably be asked about many times in the future :biggrin:

Sorry Dean but I still think Selby is far worse off then he should’ve been had he had ball in hand.

[DeanH]

Sorry Dean but I still think Selby is far worse off then he should’ve been had he had ball in hand.

undisputed, the cue ball was near the bottom cushion near the pocket, of course a worse position than ball in hand

[JimMalone]

undisputed, the cue ball was near the bottom cushion near the pocket, of course a worse position than ball in hand

Maybe there should be a rule like "unsportsmanlike conduct". Dott didn't do it on purpose in this case, but he actually profited from stopping the cueball going into the bucket. And any player could do this as well and gaining an advantage while just giving up four foul points.

[DeanH]

Maybe there should be a rule like "unsportsmanlike conduct". Dott didn't do it on purpose in this case, but he actually profited from stopping the cueball going into the bucket. And any player could do this as well and gaining an advantage while just giving up four foul points.

there is already, the whole section is called "Conduct"