AlfquGit wrote:Are you saying that the referee has to assume the opponent will have the balls replaced after the penalty? Surely, that cannot be the case, especially because in that scenario there does not seem to be any incentive for the opponent to do so.
I will start with this (but will probably ramble off in several other directions in time, as I am wont to do), ......
You may heard a phrase in the past something like, "In following the Spirit of the Law, one didn't follow the Letter of the Law." I believe this is such a case. That is not to say that a Referee would or should call Foul and a Miss in this instance, but that he or she
could call FAAM.
Myself, I still play by the Rules of 2014, prior to this most recent revision. Most everything is the same of course, but in several respects, I believe the Rules of 2019 are a step backward. Putting that aside though, let's look at the Spirit of the FAAM rule and possibly look at its precise wording and what those words actually mean.
The first misconception that spectators of the game seem to have is that FAAM is a relatively "new" rule. (To us old timers, the early 1990's is still "recent history".) In fact the Rule has been in place for a very, very long time. It has been called by various names and has been implemented differently over the years and decades, but in fact the Spirit of the FAAM rule can be seen in a Rule Set that I once found as far back as the late 1800's. That is not a typo....1800's. But in the early 1990's the Rule changed as to how it would be implemented and that created some unintended problems for which (unsuccessful in my opinion) attempts have been made to correct ever since.
So let's talk about the Spirit of this Rule as it applies to your query above. The reason this Rule is applied in the first place is that because over time, it eventually dawned on players of the Game that
sometimes it is advantageous to purposely accept a foul and penalty rather than playing a proper, fair stroke which may have a more disastrous result than the few points lost to a foul stroke. This way of thinking completely annihilates the Prime Directive of the FAAM rule, that being, "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on." So over time, discretion has been gradually taken away from the Referee and calling FAAM has now become more objective than subjective. This concept of "objective rather than subjective" is good but the manner in which it has been implemented within the Rules so far is terrible.
Trying to stick with the subject matter at hand, let's reference the specific rule then from the "old" Rules (2014), Section 3, Rule 14., Foul and a Miss:
---------------------
".......
(b) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS,
unless:
(i) any player needed penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke being played; (see (b) (ii))
(ii) before or after the stroke, the points available on the table are equal to the points difference excluding the value of the re-spotted black; ......"
---------------------
Rule books in general are not light, easy reading. The words don't roll off the tongue. Like "legal-speak", the words written attempt to be precise and perfectly clear, but often end up a difficult, tangled mess that can be easily incorrectly interpreted. And I freely admit that my own interpretations of the written words of the Rules may well occasionally be incorrect. No matter how many times you read that passage up there, it may never make itself clear in your head. It is still not perfectly clear in my own head so when I am faced with such confusion about the wording of a Rule, I try to look at precedence of how I have witnessed the Rule applied at the professional level in order to come up with my own wording of the rule so that it is easier for me to remember. And so for this particular rule, the FAAM, I think to myself, "If EITHER player requires snooker penalty points in order to WIN the frame whether BEFORE OR AFTER the foul stroke, then a Miss will NOT be called (under normal circumstances)." Even my
simplified version there comes with qualifiers and isn't perfectly clear by any means. And it is probably not exactly correct....it is just my own interpretation to help me keep the Rule organized when I am faced with a qualifying situation in a frame with someone. So to break down my own interpretation, it is two parts; let's deal with the second part first.
"(Under normal circumstances)"......this means that (at the Professional level at least), FAAM may possibly be called anytime, anywhere, by any Referee IF that Referee is under the impression that the player INTENTIONALLY and PURPOSEFULLY played a Miss stroke. Why would a player do that? As stated above, players over time learned the hard way that it may sometimes be better to leave balls undisturbed and give the opponent penalty points rather than playing a fair stroke, and opening up balls for the opponent to possibly pot and win. So if a Referee interprets a situation this way, he or she can AND SHOULD call Foul and a Miss no matter the frame situation, no what the current score may be.
As for the first part of my "simplified" rule, I won't go into too much detail as that would defeat the point of "simplified", but in essence it states that as long as either player is capable of WINNING the frame utilizing ONLY the value of the points of the balls remaining on the table, then we are DEFINITELY in a circumstance in which FAAM can and should be called.
And there, in a nutshell, you have it. Your posited scenario falls exactly under the scenario of the above paragraph. Granted, that above paragraph is based on my own "simplified" interpretation of the Rule and I freely admit the possibility that my interpretation has flaws, but IF the paragraph above is correct, then yes, whether old Rules or new, FAAM should be called in this case.
We have only speculated non-specific situations so far so let me posit a very specific situation. If we were standing and talking at a snooker table, I would just set up balls for you and it would be obvious, but due to current social distancing guidelines keeping us at the moment probably thousands of miles apart, I will need instead to give you some tedious description of the table situation. I will make it as simple and painless as possible:
All colours except Black resting on their own spot. Black ball is very near the jaws of one of its natural pockets, let's say it is about 3 inches out from the exact center of the drop of the Top Right pocket (that is the Black pocket on the Yellow side of the table for any not familiar with common Billiards Table anatomy descriptions). The third to last Red has been potted by Player A and the White comes to rest exactly mid point between the Pink Spot and the Black Spot. The two remaining Reds set on either side quite close to the White so that the White is snookered on every colour. Referee requests Player A to declare which colour he is on. The current score is Player A 1, Player B 46. With this description, the table and frame situation should be crystal clear.
Player A, fully snookered, might declare any colour since none of them will be simple to contact. The Black is probably the easiest to contact because it is close, straightforward angle and close to a cushion creating a "big ball" effect. However, a foul would mean seven penalty points rather than four and the Black being so close to the pocket means the White may easily go in off. Player A thinks, and thinks, and thinks some more. For a full six minutes (a la some unnamed mentor), Player A ponders his situation and finally declares "Yellow" and crouches to strike. Cue is pointed at the Green side Black end cushion, Player A just strikes gently and rolls the White to contact the nearest side cushion, thus avoiding a Free Ball situation (a strong possibility had he played the White into Baulk) but also blocking the possibility of his opponent potting a Red as the Black ball is still blocking the natural pocket of either Red.
The Referee can AND SHOULD call Foul and a Miss, four points away. The Ref is not obliged to say why he called FAAM, but it could have been for either or both of two reasons: 1) Player A's intent was clear; he never endeavoured to contact the Yellow and at the same time, he was purposefully avoiding leaving a Free Ball for his opponent. and 2) There really truly are enough points on the table still for Player A to win the frame in the event of a Foul and a Miss.
I think you are correct though that the Referee would call FAAM for reason # 1 more so than reason # 2. If Black was sitting on its spot rather than the jaws of the pocket, perhaps the Ref would not call the Miss at all, especially if Player A tactfully made his stroke appear to be a miscue and also still managed to avoid leaving a pot on or a Free Ball situation. In fact, Player B would probably be a fool if he had the balls replaced in any case. The now current score of 50-1 means that not only one, but in fact likely TWO penalties will be required for Player A to win if Player B chooses NOT to replace and simply allows the frame to advance. With the Black sitting so close to the pocket, we now all know that there is quite a good possibility that it might just pot and it might just leave White well positioned on one of the Reds to continue on for the clearance.
So after writing and reading through all this mumbo jumbo, the short answer is most likely, "They never thought of that when they were actually writing down the Rules." And I will also add that at the Professional level, it is very rare for a player to put
himself or herself into a "snookered" situation as is required in this scenario. Happens all the time among amateurs of course. While it is clearly possible for a striker's break to begin with pot of colour then followed by pot of Red, I don't believe I have ever actually witnessed it to happen myself at any level. I would be interested to know if ANYONE reading this (either of you two
) has ever seen this happen ever.
And that I think is going to bring me to my next post which will be an effort (though probably incorrect) of answering your quiz question # 2).