The topic came up in the main forum.... At pool, the referee is permitted to explain (or attempt to explain) a rule to a player. At snooker, I have heard it is forbidden but I can find no explicit mention in the printed rules. John Street seems not to have addressed the point in his referee handbook.
So.... Is the referee permitted to answer a question pertaining to the rules? Which rule rules this?
The entirety of Section 5. covers the duties and responsibilities of all officials of the game, especially as it relates to the professional game. Specifically, Rule 1. of Section 5. is a bullet point checklist of what the Referee may or may not do. However, I am sure you already read that so I don't think it answers the specific question you are asking.
I cannot give you a definitive answer to your questions, only my own opinion and experience, but I can answer the first part with authority: "Is the referee permitted to answer a question pertaining to the rules?" The answer is an absolute "NO!" When the Referee is asked such a question, he (or she) will and must defer the answer in some way..."I will explain in detail later. For now, you must play your stroke." or something like that. I believe then it is permissible for the Referee to explain the situation at an interval, but I don't know that for sure; it might be that an explanation cannot be given until the match is complete. The reason for this may not be obvious but it is quite clear as to why based on precedent: the referee is NOT to favor one player over another in any situation whatsoever, the match must absolutely be a level playing ground. As an example, if a colour blind player is about to play at the Brown ball because he believes it is a Red, the Referee is FORBIDDEN to interfere to prevent the foul occurring. To do so would show favoritism to the colour blind player. So if one player has done his due diligence and has a working knowledge of the Rules, but the other player is a slacker and is only superficially familiar with the Rules of the Game, then the Referee would be showing favoritism to the ignorant player by explaining the Rules during the course of the match. Both players are on an even playing field in that the Referee will not explain the Rules during the match; each player SHOULD already know the Rules prior to picking up the cue.
Now, as I am sure you know, Section 5. states specifically (and I quote): "The Referee shall not answer any question not authorised in these Rules..." So what questions are authorized then? Somewhat paradoxically, it is circular logic. There is no list of "authorized questions" to be found anywhere within the Rules. The answer to which questions are authorized to be answered is in fact hidden in plain sight in exact the same Rule, Section 5. Rule 1. (the first couple of clauses):
1. The Referee
(a) The referee shall:
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play;
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation
not covered adequately by these Rules;
And if you read clause (i) and (ii) with an open mind, you come to realize that the Referee himself is the controlling authority as to what is or is not an authorized question that a player may ask and be answered! It is quite simple really.
In referee training, the general guideline for this is that the Referee may answer any question to which the answer is a FACT. He/she may not answer any question which may be interpreted as the Referee's opinion. The difference between these two things is not always obvious. For example, with the colour blind player, he may point at a ball and ask the Referee, "Is this the Brown ball?" or he may ask "Which is the Brown ball please?" and the Referee can and should answer either of those...the answer to either of those questions is a matter of fact.
On the other hand, a player may be ignorant of the Priority of Colour Spots when covered so maybe he plans to pot the Pink ball but its spot is currently covered. He may ask, "If I pot Pink, where will it spot?" The answer to that may seem to be a matter of fact because the Referee presumably KNOWS which spot the Pink will go on. But the Referee is not a prophet, he cannot predict the future. If in the course of the stroke, the Pink spot becomes UN-covered or maybe ALL of the spots end up covered, then the Referee would in fact have given WRONG information to the player. An answer to that question was NEVER a fact; indeed, it was only an opinion based on the information at the time. So instead the Referee should answer but not answer, such as, "You will have to pot the Pink and then you will find out."
The exact words of the question may be critical. For example, in a ball in hand situation, the player may place the cue ball within the "D" and ask, "Will it be a legal stroke if I play the cue ball from here?" Seems straightforward enough, but the Referee cannot answer that. What if the player plops the White ball directly into a pocket? The Referee has no way of knowing if it will or will not be a legal stroke. However, same situation, player places White and he CAN ask, "Is this a legal placement of the cue ball?" The Referee will take a close look and answer "Yes" if it is within the "D" or "No" if it is outside the lines of the "D". It is a matter of fact.
Specifically, the Referee is forbidden from answering questions about the state of the score, particularly meaning the difference of scores and/or whether or not snookers are required. So if the score is 60 to 40 and the ball on is Blue, the losing player asks, "Do I need snookers to win?", well how in the hell can the Ref possibly know the answer to that? Perhaps in his next turn, the winning player might put White in off, or maybe stupidly touch the Black ball....the player may or may not REQUIRE "snookers", anything might happen; the Referee cannot offer a valid opinion as a fact of the matter. And besides that, there is mental arithmetic involved here and mistakes can easily be made, the Referee is not some superhuman computer genius; he might make a simple math mistake and give the wrong answer. Therefore, his answer can only be something like, "You must determine that for yourself."
I know it is not a black and white answer that you may have been looking for but there is a consistent internal logic to it.
