I will PM Acesinc
I have read through most of this (section of this) thread (,not the whole thread of course as that would take days or months......perhaps I will do that when I get to my desert island; read through this whole thread that is), but I digress. I will be happy to offer up my opinion with the admission, as always, that it is nothing more than my opinion.
And with that, like King Solomon, I will cut the baby in half! And each mother shall receive one-half of the child!
That means that I will wimp out here and straddle both sides of the fence. BSP and Andre are both correct (in my opinion) for different reasons but it looks like you have that worked out between you two already. For THIS argument's sake, I will have to go with BSP (sorry Andre, give me a chance to explain my reasoning) and so I guess that Iranu should get the honors of the correct answer. By the time I post this, however, I expect you will be three or four questions down the road by then.
BSP's situation is purely hypothetical. I cannot see it ever happening in a professional match (although Iranu says he believes he saw it in a professional match) because this is not a situation that a professional referee should ever allow to come to fruition. On the other hand, I can see this occurring in an amateur match that is maybe refereed by other players in the local league or whatever. And those people simply are not familiar with proper procedure and decorum. So the amateur "referee" doesn't pay attention when the bag is full and the amateur "player" surely will see the pocket loaded with Reds as he sights but he is not smart enough to ask the acting referee to clear it. So he plays the stroke, the ball pops back out of the pocket and so here we are. He knowingly played the pot attempt into a full bag. NO POT in my opinion. It never should have come to this.
Now, in Andre's defense, I believe he was injecting HIMSELF into the hypothetical situation. And so he thought, "It never should have come to this. How, oh, how did I ever let it come to this?" and so he invoked the all powerful Section 5, Rule 1, which basically says that, as the controlling Referee, he is allowed to do anything that he sees fit in the interest of fair play. And as I read through the thread, of course, Andre eventually came to explain exactly the same point.
So that is my opinion. The former (amateur, no proper referee) is this situation that I believe is within the context of the question, but Andre is also definitely correct if somehow he has a complete brain fart on table and allows this situation to occur when he is in charge (which we all know can never happen in a million years, he will prevent the problem before it ever occurs, always).
Okay, I just re-read the original question, and it is Judd Trump on his way to another 147, but clearly, this must have (hypothetically) occurred in exhibition without a proper Referee. Judd ought to know better than to play a pot attempt into a full bag. Andre never would have allowed it to get to that point.