Good bump Mr. Dufan; I like the term ‘magnet frame’ and (personally) hate re-racks. At the very least it should revert to being at the referee’s discretion rather than players nodding to each other and the referee adhering to their demands.
In fact, I’d like to know what the official ruling is on this, and whether it has changed from the days when a ref. gave the players a designated number of shots to resolve the issue before deciding on ending the frame himself (or herself).
Aces? (or anyone)
I think "magnet frame" is a perfect term; well done, Roland!
As to Ed's query, I don't think I am an authority on this topic, I am just a guy with an opinion. You should know here in the US, I don't actually watch
nearly as much professional snooker as I would like. I did have a referee's training course, but that is over ten years ago now, and I have not been re-certified at all. Of course, new editions of the Rules have been published recently so the only benefit I have is my prior familiarity with the gist of the Rules.
So in taking a look, yes, in fact, the controlling Rule for this situation has apparently changed with the 2019 edition. It is Section 3., Rule 17. (formerly Section 3., Rule 16. in the 2014 edition). So previously
, the wording was,
If the referee thinks a position of stalemate exists, or is being approached, he shall offer the players the immediate option of re-starting the frame. If any player objects, the referee shall allow play to continue with the proviso that the situation must change within a stated period, usually after three more strokes to each side but at the referee’s discretion. ..."
and this wording would seem to assume that the players would want
to continue the frame. That may be true if there is a significant score differential, but it seems that in more recent times, players jump at the chance of a reset if it is early in the frame with little score on the board. I do recall seeing a frame or two years ago in which the players requested a stalemate but the Referee denied them the request because the frame had not advanced to an unworkable situation. I am certain this was long before the 2019 revision (of which, you may recall, I am not a particularly avid fan). So the Referee then had complete authority to determine if the frame would continue or not.
ruleset, 2019 edition, governing rule states,
If the referee thinks a position of stalemate exists, or is being
approached, or is indicated by both players,
the referee shall offer
the players the immediate option of re-starting the frame. ..." (bold italics added)
and this, in my opinion removes authority from the Referee. Awful governance in my opinion. Yet another reason for me to dislike the current ruleset. This wording says that if both players want a reset
(the proper, archaic snooker term which has now been dumbed-down to the standard pool term "re-rack" in the current, God-awful ruleset), then the Referee is obligated to give it to them. A travesty.
We don't recognize the current ruleset in my club. We still play under the authority of the Rules of 2014. Anarchy.