by Juddernaut88 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
I think it would be extremely harsh to penalise a player for faulty equipment so I wouldn't penalise the player for that.
-
Juddernaut88
- Posts: 53425
- Joined: 27 February 2020
- Location: Coventry
- Snooker Idol: Hendry and Trump
- Highest Break: 30
- Walk-On: Simple Minds- Glittering Prize
-
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Juddernaut88 wrote:I think it would be extremely harsh to penalise a player for faulty equipment so I wouldn't penalise the player for that.
Incomplete or incorrect answer
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by HappyCamper » 03 Jun 2020 Read
i'd say yes it's a foul.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18375
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Iranu » 03 Jun 2020 Read
I’d say the rest becomes an ‘extension’ of the cue. If the cue did the same it would be a foul so I agree with HC.
-
Iranu
- Posts: 40998
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
HappyCamper wrote:i'd say yes it's a foul.
Incomplete or incorrect answer
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Juddernaut88 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Foul Stephen Hendry 4
-
Juddernaut88
- Posts: 53425
- Joined: 27 February 2020
- Location: Coventry
- Snooker Idol: Hendry and Trump
- Highest Break: 30
- Walk-On: Simple Minds- Glittering Prize
-
by chengdufan » 03 Jun 2020 Read
No foul. Put the balls back where they were as best as possible and play on.
-
chengdufan
- Posts: 11398
- Joined: 08 July 2016
- Location: Chongqing
- Snooker Idol: Xiao Guodong
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: Europe - The Final Countdown
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
chengdufan wrote:No foul. Put the balls back where they were as best as possible and play on.
Incorrect or incomplete anwer
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Iranu » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Has the player picked up the rest or is the ref handing it to them when the head falls off?
-
Iranu
- Posts: 40998
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Iranu wrote:Has the player picked up the rest or is the ref handing it to them when the head falls off?
The player is holding the rest in the normal fashion and is on his shot.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by HappyCamper » 03 Jun 2020 Read
is it their own rest or was it provided?
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18375
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
HappyCamper wrote:is it their own rest or was it provided?
Please cover both cases in your response.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by HappyCamper » 03 Jun 2020 Read
if it their own rest then they are responsible for the equipment and should be penalised with a foul.
if it was provided by third party then they are not responsible and so no foul. referee replaces the balls and i presume gets a new rest.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18375
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
HappyCamper has produced a full and accurate answer and I hereby abnegate control of the quiz thread.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by HappyCamper » 03 Jun 2020 Read
who is the most recent world amateur champion to have also been world professional champion, and which did they achieve first?
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18375
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by HappyCamper » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Bingo.
Ams
yup, 1996 and 2015.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18375
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
YOU ARE THE REF!!
Judd Trump is on the last red on his way to another 147 break, having potted the first 14 reds into the same pocket.
Unfortunately the bone-idle referee has not emptied the pocket at any point during the break.
The Ace in the Pack plays the last red perfectly but due to the oafish official's inaction, the pocket is full to the brim and the red hits one of these pocketed reds and comes back out of the pocket and comes to rest on the table.
The referee does not know what to do and asks you how he should proceed.
What would you advise?
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Andre147 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
First of all...
The pocket rail does not hold 14 reds, at most 9 or 10.
But anyway, no matter how many reds were already "inside" the pocket, if that situation ocurred, and me as the referee knew it was my fault that Trump couldn't pot that red, I would simply call it a legal shot, the red stays in the pocket and the break continues.
Same applies for instance, when respotting blue ball, the cue ball is still moving, but the referee doesnt notice that, he respots the blue and then the cue ball touches it. The ref must now replace the cue ball to where he thinks it should have come to rest. When the referee is at fault, the player is never penalised.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41673
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Andre147 wrote:First of all...
The pocket rail does not hold 14 reds, at most 9 or 10.
But anyway, no matter how many reds were already "inside" the pocket, if that situation ocurred, and me as the referee knew it was my fault that Trump couldn't pot that red, I would simply call it a legal shot, the red stays in the pocket and the break continues.
Same applies for instance, when respotting blue ball, the cue ball is still moving, but the referee doesnt notice that, he respots the blue and then the cue ball touches it. The ref must now replace the cue ball to where he thinks it should have come to rest. When the referee is at fault, the player is never penalised.
Incorrect.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Andre147 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
It's correct.
And I get the honor to make a question.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41673
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Andre147 wrote:It's correct.
And I get the honor to make a question.
Well I disagree with you respectfully although I would concede that you know more about the rules in general than I ever will.
In this case however you are not right.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by SnookerEd25 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Andre is correct - his question.
-
SnookerEd25
- Posts: 18073
- Joined: 10 October 2011
- Location: West London
- Snooker Idol: Cliff Wilson
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: Play with Fire (Rolling Stones)
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
OK - I am not going to claim I am definitely right but I took the ruling from the EASB referee training website so I was confident in my assertion.
I will concede if Acesinc agrees with Andre but the training site said that if the ball does not come to rest in a pocket then it is not deemed to have been pocketed.
I will PM Acesinc
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Iranu » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Andre147 wrote:First of all...
The pocket rail does not hold 14 reds, at most 9 or 10.
But anyway, no matter how many reds were already "inside" the pocket, if that situation ocurred, and me as the referee knew it was my fault that Trump couldn't pot that red, I would simply call it a legal shot, the red stays in the pocket and the break continues.
Same applies for instance, when respotting blue ball, the cue ball is still moving, but the referee doesnt notice that, he respots the blue and then the cue ball touches it. The ref must now replace the cue ball to where he thinks it should have come to rest. When the referee is at fault, the player is never penalised.
There wad an incident in a Chinese tournament where Robbo played a blue into a middle pocket but it jumped out because there were so many reds. The referee didn’t deem it as pocketed. I guess the ref was wrong.
I’ve tried to find the video but I can’t.
-
Iranu
- Posts: 40998
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Iranu - I believe the referee to have been correct.
The relevant rule states:
"If any ball enters a pocket and rebounds onto the playing area, it
does not count as having been potted or pocketed. The striker has
no redress if this occurs."
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Andre147 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
If it's the referee's fault then yes the player is never penalised.
However, I've seen situations when the object ball enters a pocket but jumps out of it. That is not deemed as pocketed. But in the other instance it's clear as daylight it was the referee's fault, I would simply call it a legal shot and break continues.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41673
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by Andre147 » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Iranu - I believe the referee to have been correct.
The relevant rule states:
"If any ball enters a pocket and rebounds onto the playing area, it
does not count as having been potted or pocketed. The striker has
no redress if this occurs."
There is also Section 5 which constitutes to fair play and common sense.
Yes the object ball didnt stay in the pocket, BUT common sense prevails in this situation because why did that happen? Because the referee didn't take the reds out.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41673
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by HappyCamper » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:YOU ARE THE REF!!
...
Unfortunately the bone-idle referee ...
... but due to the oafish official's inaction...
i feel under attack
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18375
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Badsnookerplayer » 03 Jun 2020 Read
Andre147 wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:Iranu - I believe the referee to have been correct.
The relevant rule states:
"If any ball enters a pocket and rebounds onto the playing area, it
does not count as having been potted or pocketed. The striker has
no redress if this occurs."
There is also Section 5 which constitutes to fair play and common sense.
Yes the object ball didnt stay in the pocket, BUT common sense prevails in this situation because why did that happen? Because the referee didn't take the reds out.
But the referee would be acting against a rule that is in the official document (2nd point on page 15 of this document) -
https://www.wpbsa.com/wp-content/upload ... s-2019.pdfI understand that they can use discretion but I do not believe they can in this situation as the ball has not been 'pocketed' same as if it hit the back leather and bounced out onto the floor it would be a foul.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk