What’s the rule in this situation.

[Ricky2112]

Bearing in mind the second strike was with the side of the cue as he swung at it with more like a baseball swing, spoke with the guy today and he thought I was going to claim the frame for him doing this. I told him I wasn't sure of the rule but was sure I could play white from where it stopped, but because he said white goes back in the D I took it from that he hadn't conceded the frame and to save any argument I put white back to the D.
If I lost it in anger like he had I would concede the frame out of embarrassment and would apologise straight away.
Thanks for your replys guys
Cheers Ricky

[Ricky2112]

The ball never left the table at any point so would not be covered by ruling of a ball being forced off the table. The ball was about to drop in the middle pocket when he swung at it sending the white around the table finally coming to rest down near the black spot.
Cheers

[DeanH]

That is the point of the "intentionally moved by hand" also means your opponents cue in this case - the cue-ball may not have physically left the bed of the table but due to the erroneous contact it is deemed to have - hence your initial Ball-in-hand was correct.
This is not a loss of frame action unless he continues to do so
Just penalty and ball in hand - of course you can put the offending player in with ball in hand

I forgot this aspect of the rules - this ruling came about after the Dott knuckling the cue ball out of the green pocket when it was about to go into the pocket; Selby picked it up off the bed of the table, etc, etc.

[Ricky2112]

Cheers Dean, I remember that situation with Dott, so am confused, if that is the same situation as whacking it in anger then is it not correct to play from where the white was moved to and not ball in hand. Because when Selby picked it up and put it in the D that was a foul was it not. Then it became ball in hand because when he lifted it , it had left the table. So Selby should have played it from where Dott Knuckled it to.
Is this correct
Thanks Guys for your input on this.
Cheers Ricky

There was no ref this is a league match where we are our own referees.

[Londonlad147]

Cheers Dean, I remember that situation with Dott, so am confused, if that is the same situation as whacking it in anger then is it not correct to play from where the white was moved to and not ball in hand. Because when Selby picked it up and put it in the D that was a foul was it not. Then it became ball in hand because when he lifted it , it had left the table. So Selby should have played it from where Dott Knuckled it to.
Is this correct
Thanks Guys for your input on this.
Cheers Ricky

There was no ref this is a league match where we are our own referees.

The rules were changed after the Dott-Selby match. The rules were correctly applied by Chamberlain in that match, according to what was in the rule book at the time. Dott moved the cue ball whilst it was on the table (and didn't leave it) and, therefore, Selby should have played from where it came to rest (within the D!). He then committed a further foul because he lifted the cue ball slightly, which meant it became in hand. The rules now say that any ball moved deliberately will be considered forced off the table, which, in the case of the cue ball, means it becomes in hand. If that had been in place at the time of the Dott-Selby incident then Selby could have quite rightly lifted the cue ball to play from where he wanted in the D (although it would always be best to let the referee move the ball).

[Ricky2112]

The rules were changed after the Dott-Selby match. The rules were correctly applied by Chamberlain in that match, according to what was in the rule book at the time. Dott moved the cue ball whilst it was on the table (and didn't leave it) and, therefore, Selby should have played from where it came to rest (within the D!). He then committed a further foul because he lifted the cue ball slightly, which meant it became in hand. The rules now say that any ball moved deliberately will be considered forced off the table, which, in the case of the cue ball, means it becomes in hand. If that had been in place at the time of the Dott-Selby incident then Selby could have quite rightly lifted the cue ball to play from where he wanted in the D (although it would always be best to let the referee move the ball).

So that makes the rule in my situation ball in hand, plus this could be deemed as misconduct but no penalty like lose of frame unless there was a ref to make this decision
Cheers Ricky

[andy carson]

you take his cue and smash the butt end as far as it will go up a very dark place......

[Nifty50]

So that makes the rule in my situation ball in hand, plus this could be deemed as misconduct but no penalty like lose of frame unless there was a ref to make this decision
Cheers Ricky

Ricky, you're in a tricky situation where there is no ref. The rule here is that the non striker is the ref. How would you have fancied telling your opponent that you were warning him for ungentlemanly conduct? How do you think he would have reacted?

[Ricky2112]

Ricky, you're in a tricky situation where there is no ref. The rule here is that the non striker is the ref. How would you have fancied telling your opponent that you were warning him for ungentlemanly conduct? How do you think he would have reacted?

Haha bud, actually after talking to this guy a week later we talked over the ruling and he said at the time he would not have blamed me if I had took the frame and he would have accepted it. He was very apologetic so I accept that and we have moved on. Respect to him for admitting he was wrong in doing what he did.
Cheers Ricky