Optional replacement of object balls after a miss

[Bruce]

In checking the Rules, I found something that I hadn't realised. If a player plays a foul-and-miss shot and the opponent asks for the cue ball to be replaced, the referee does not necessarily have to replace the object balls unless he considers that the offending player would thereby gain an advantage.

These are the relevant extracts from the Rules:

"After a miss and a request by the next player to replace the cue-ball, any object balls disturbed will remain where they are unless the referee considers the offending player would or could gain an advantage. In the latter case, any or all disturbed balls may be replaced to the referee’s satisfaction and in either case, colours incorrectly off the table will be spotted or replaced as appropriate."

"The next player may ask if the referee intends to replace balls other than the cue-ball in the event that he should ask for the stroke to be played from the original position, and the referee shall state his intentions."

Has anyone ever seen a case in professional tournament play where the object balls were not replaced in such a case? I've never seen it happen. There seems to be an assumption that object balls will always be replaced.

[The Statman]

Yes that is quite correct. It is normal that the referee would try to replace all balls, and it is usually the case that only a few balls have moved.

But the rule is written like it is so that, if many balls are moved, the referee does not have to bother with what would be an impossible task. Say you have a shot past the yellow to glance off the pack. You misjudge it and graze the yellow, causing the cue-ball to career into the pack – the referee would want to make sure that the player has the same amount of red to aim for as he did originally, but he does not have to replace every single one.

Another case it the snooker escape off the side cushion where the pink is hit - the white might then nudge a few reds in a loose pack. Here, as long as the player is left with the same shot, the referee does not have to bother moving several reds, each a minuscule distance.

I have never known a player to ask; on tv it is not so much a problem because in complicated situations there is the replay to consult. I would imagine very few players actually know of that wording.

[Bruce]

I would imagine very few players actually know of that wording.

Thanks for your reply.

It's probably not just the players that won't be familiar with that wording - I wonder whether any of the TV commentators (who are ex-players anyway) would know about it!

A few months ago in another televised tournament (either the UK or the Masters), it was apparent that Ronnie O'Sullivan didn't even understand the 3-miss rule. He thought the player had to be able to hit both edges of a Red, whereas of course he only has to be able to make a full-ball contact. Alan Chamberlain had to explain it to him! So it's surprising what players don't know in the rules!