When is a player allowed to concede a frame?

[sArnie]

I thought concession was only allowed, when snooker is required:

Section 4.
5. Conceding
[...]
(c) A player shall not concede a frame in any match unless snookers are required. Any breach of this rule shall be regarded as ungentlemanly conduct by the player concerned.

Are there different approaches to this matter in different countries or specific tournaments?

I would very much appreciate input from other countries and in respect to tournaments.

[RocketRoy1983]

The player should only concede the frame once snookers are required. The referee should have a word with the player should he concede without requiring snookers as this is indeed considered disrespectful.

[davis_greatest]

The player should only concede the frame once snookers are required...

... and then only when he is the striker. It is ungentlemanly to concede when it is the turn of one's opponent.

[RocketRoy1983]

Yes very good point davis greatest. If you are in a situation where you only have one red left 35 remaining) and are for example 23 behind and your opponent pots the last red and the black say then yellow. You are now 33 behind with only 25 remaining. You should let your opponent carry on until he misses, reaches the black and doesnt attempt it or clears up not concede the frame when he is still at the table. unfortunately some morons forget this golden rule and it is SO frustrating. (Probably why they do it)

[sArnie]

Thank you very much for your replies so far. I would like to add an important aspect: How should the referee react, if a player does not respect this rule? Should the referee accept this behaviour if the opponent does?

In the end, the opponents may only accept that concession, because there isn't quite anything they could do about that themselves. Meaning that if the referee does not react according to the rules, this inappropriate way to concede might become an unspoken rule by itself.

The basic question still remains: Is this handled differently in different countries or tournaments or are there any exceptions correspondent to the level of tournament.

[JanieWatkins]

The referees in "interntional" events also observe the rule strictly. Players are always briefed specifically on all points regarding ungentlemanly (unladylike!) conduct.

Referees do use their discretion in very obvious situations, like when the players' left the ball handing on the pocket, but on the whole the rule is strictly enforced.

In WSA tournaments it's laid down not only in the rule book but also inthe player's hadndbook/discipline etc and if they concede they will be "warned"
if they do it a second time (or any other ungentlmanly act such as banging cue or swearing) they will be docked a frame.

As it's a RULE in the official rule book, it should be, like all other rules, enforced at all levels of the sport.

[sArnie]

I totally agree with you there, it should be that way, globalsnooker. Yesterday Marco Fu conceded the frame after Dale potted the last red (snooker was already required before that shot) although Dale obviously still was striker. In fact that was one of the reasons to open this thread.

[The Statman]

Yes all replies are spot on.

You may concede ONLY when you are the striker – although when it is in both players' interests to get on with the next frame, such as when someone is 34 in front and pots the last red, you often see the striker look up to his opponent who may then nod to indicate concession).

This is fine at professional level; there will be no high breaks involved and both players will be equally eager to continue. However, at a local level, if my opponent has reached easily the point where I will concede, how am I to know that his personal highest break is, say, 42 and he could better it with a clearance?

The new part of the rule is that you may concede ONLY when snookers are required (it doesn't actually state explicitly, but one can assume that it means when the conceding player needs snookers!). Failure to comply will be considered ungentlemanly conduct, and that rule then takes care of itself. As Janie says, a player will be warned that another case of ungentlemanly conduct will result in loss of frame.

[The Statman]

I totally agree with you there, it should be that way, globalsnooker. Yesterday Marco Fu conceded the frame after Dale potted the last red (snooker was already required before that shot) although Dale obviously still was striker. In fact that was one of the reasons to open this thread.

Yes, true. But we don't always know what has been said when the players are not microphoned.

It is possible that Fu said something like, "If you want, Dominic", thus allowing him to continue but also letting him know that, if he's keen to get on with the next, Fu is happy to concede now.

That seems to be a very sensible way of operating. It would be futile for a referee to insist that they carry on when neither player wants to!

Quite often when playing, when I am not the striker and am ready to concede, I will say "That's enough, if you want." That gives the striker the opportunity to accept the concession (otherwise we'd be paying £4:70 an hour just for faffing about!), but without removing his right to carry on if he wants.

It is the other Rule, the not-conceding-unless-snookers-are-required, which is properly implemented and rightly so – although not everyone agrees with my opinion on that!

[sArnie]

In the local snooker hall, where the loss of money - and £ 4:70* certainly is no bargain - would add up to the loss of the frame, that is a practical thing to do. In a situation where you play with a buddy and fun is a factor these kind of rules should not be taken too seriously.

In that case I have no objection to your approach, The Statman. It's after all a question of gentlemanly behaviour - of both contestants. If the striker offers his agreement to an early concession I would definitely not object, if the opponent accepted that offer.

Still: In the case, where a referee is in place and a tournament or league match going on I have my doubts. Isn't something like that offer to concede ungentlemanly in itself? In my opinion it could be a proposal that lures the opponent to concede early, rather than waiting for the striker to finish his shot and consider the situation then. That situation, for example, might be a brilliant opportunity to get additional points with a free ball, or easily set up a big bad snooker with a possible gain of some fouls in a row. At least the losing player might just try to regain control over himself with those last shots he might have, even if there is no chance to win anymore.

A player should always be aware of these opportunities, which are of course not that relevant or probable in professional snooker. To offer an out-of-the-rules opportunity to concede has something to it, I cannot really explain, but makes my teeth grind a bit anyway.

P.S.: * We do have a flatrate in our club's snooker hall: 40 € for as many hours as you want in a month. Boy, am I a lucky guy?! :snooker:

[The Statman]

Well, there are several things which are not quite in keeping with the rules but are done through commonsense anyway.

One of them is that it is the player's responsibility to place and remove the rest on/from the table. Common sense tells the referee that, if there is no ball in the vicinity of the rest, he will lift it from the table and put it away. There is nothing wrong with this, and although it is against the rules, it is accepted practice and it would certainly thwart the flow of the game if the referee insisted that the player hand him the rest away from the table.

Another is the calling of a stalemate (i.e. re-rack), which is at the referee's discretion. Sometimes the two players look at each other and confirm their willingness to each other; again it would be futile if the referee were to insist that the players continue when neither of them wishes to.

However, on the informal concession point, one would expect the referee to point out to the non-striker that he must allow the striker to continue, if the concession has been offered but the striker chooses to play on.

[dantuck_7]

Yesterday Marco Fu conceded the frame after Dale potted the last red (snooker was already required before that shot) although Dale obviously still was striker. In fact that was one of the reasons to open this thread.

Surely Dominic is going to take the resignation when it's offered rather than the chance he could miss the next pot and be forced to play on for another 20 mins.

[sArnie]

As The Statman already explained it might in fact have been Dale, who offered Fu an easy (and early) way out, by signalling he would accept a concession, even though Fu was not the striker.

The point is, that you are simply not allowed to concede while you're not the striker. I didn't think that Dale would have any reason not to accept Fu's concession. Still the way it went was definitely not by the rules.

[The Statman]

As The Statman already explained it might in fact have been Dale, who offered Fu an easy (and early) way out, by signalling he would accept a concession, even though Fu was not the striker.

The point is, that you are simply not allowed to concede while you're not the striker. I didn't think that Dale would have any reason not to accept Fu's concession. Still the way it went was definitely not by the rules.

But I think it more likely that Fu probably nodded to Dale, although it may well have been Dale glancing in his direction that elicited it.

As long as neither player feels put out, there is no problem. If one of them does feel put out, he can speak to the referee about it.

You can imagine a player who is, say, 30 points in front on the blue, his opponent may well play for snookers. Now, say the bloke who's in front pots the blue but snookers himself on the pink. The opponent is quite likely to concede even if he gets points for a failed escape (he'd be 29 behind on the pink). It would seem ridiculous for the striker then to spend a potentially considerable length of time considering his escape route, when the other guy is going to concede anyway. He will be grateful to receive an immediate concession and any referee would look father foolish if he insisted the game continue.

I know this is an extreme example, and almost certainly more extreme than the Fu-Dale incident (I did not see it). But there are times when common sense should prevail and this is one of them.

[bongo]

I've not read the whole thread, but we say 'when snookers are required', but they are NEVER required, penalty points from fouls are required!