Tim Dunkley wrote:It is not a foul.
Interestingly, if the rest came with the table (ie, it was not your own rest) and the head fell off and touched a ball, it would not be a foul.
Hi Tim! Good to see you again. I have not made it in here very much myself lately. I have long been wondering if you had made it anywhere with that Biskit Boy rule? I read your write up and I hope it may have struck a chord with the right people.
About the topic at hand, thanks for the compliment BadSnookerPlayer. Of course, Tim is absolutely right, no foul. The only point that I may add is that it seems to me that players often seem to believe that there is a Rule somewhere in the Book regarding any possible situation that may occur on a snooker (billiard) table. There is not. Quite the opposite really. The Rules of Snooker are what one would call a minimalist document, written with the full knowledge that it is not possible to cover every situation, therefore, the Rules may on occasion be open to interpretation, and if something occurs that indicates that a SPECIFIC rule must be written (such as the infamous situation of Ronnie nudging a Red to relieve himself of a cantankerous Foul and a Miss sequence), then additions/alterations are made. But the rule of thumb is very simple indeed.....if something is not specifically DISALLOWED in the Rules, then it is allowed.
Do not read the Rule Book expecting to find a passage somewhere that says, "The striker does not need to maintain contact with the rest as he plays his stroke." You won't find that. Just as you will also not find, "The striker must keep one hand on the rest as he plays his stroke." So if nothing in the Rules specifically disallows the action, then the action is allowed. He may play with no hands on the rest, or one or both hands, or even perhaps three hands on the rest if he has a genetic mutation. The Rules do not specify.
As for Tim's new posited scenario of a house rest head falling off and no penalty to striker, of course, that is correct as well. (If you bring your own personal rest/extension to the table, and it is defective causing a foul then penalty points are awarded.) This is what I would call a personal responsibility/"not my fault!" clause. If an outside action occurs for which the striker cannot be held responsible, then no penalty will be awarded; the Referee will return balls to their original positions and the stroke replayed. A couple more examples of this interpretation/line of reasoning (these would probably never happen professionally but easily envisioned at the Snooker Hall): 1) The striker is not responsible if the referee incorrectly spots a ball. (This happened to me at a tournament....I was working the Black end of the table and my idiot opponent spotted Green on the Yellow spot. I didn't notice until I went down there to clear colours. Had to get the Director to make a ruling, no foul.) 2) In a crowded club, you are set to play your stroke. Idiot at the next table bumps you so your cue tip contacts White. No foul. After an ice cold, dagger stare, reset the balls and try to play your stroke again. You won't find these specifics in the Rules but they all follow the same guidelines.
However, you are responsible for your OWN equipment. So if you have your own rest/extension and something breaks and interferes with a ball in play, foul and penalty assessed.
Tim, I have an infraction to run past you that I genuinely don't know the answer, just a best guess. I have not seen it occur so I don't know what the ruling would be. How about a case where a player's tip falls off during a stroke, then the table action causes a ball to roll over the tip diverting the ball? Is a penalty assessed for that? I assume so, and further, I assume it would still be a penalty even if it were a house cue as the player has in a sense taken temporary ownership of that cue by its mere selection. Of course, I have seen plenty of "tip falling off" scenarios but I don't think I have ever seen one that caused a known interference as a result. What say you?