Equipment Malfunction, Foul?

[Lux]

Top of the morning, gents

I've been having something interesting happen to me a few times this past month. The heads of the rests have fallen off of the rest and ended up disturbing a number of balls on the table. I hadn't even used the rest yet as I was holding it over the table while walking with it. It was funny at first but I was a bit miffed afterwards because it changes the dynamic of the frame by taking control of it out of my hands. Thankfully this didn't happen during a tournament, but my practise partner and I are very strict and enforce everything except the miss rule, so the problem floored us.

My question is, is this equipment malfunction considered a foul? I hadn't even placed the rest on the cloth when the heads fell off. Competitively, would the referee have the balls replaced, or does play continue from where they are?

 

[Scaramouche]

I certainly should not be viewed by anyone as being qualified to provide the definitive answer :grin:

Seems to me that if you disturb the object balls with anything except the cue ball, you have committed a foul.

In a tournament where the referee handles the rest there may be some other considerations.

I am more curious about the type of rest head.

If you were using a Moosehead or some such with a rubber gasket that was designed to fit on a pool cue, not on a proper snooker rest handle, I can understand it coming off.

Regular snooker rest heads screw on. Never seen it happen once, let alone several times.

 

[Shortside K]

Foul!

Top of the morning, gents

I've been having something interesting happen to me a few times this past month. The heads of the rests have fallen off of the rest and ended up disturbing a number of balls on the table. I hadn't even used the rest yet as I was holding it over the table while walking with it. It was funny at first but I was a bit miffed afterwards because it changes the dynamic of the frame by taking control of it out of my hands. Thankfully this didn't happen during a tournament, but my practise partner and I are very strict and enforce everything except the miss rule, so the problem floored us.

My question is, is this equipment malfunction considered a foul? I hadn't even placed the rest on the cloth when the heads fell off. Competitively, would the referee have the balls replaced, or does play continue from where they are?

It is a foul. No different than if you dropped the rest onto the balls, or dropped your chalk onto the balls.
Also, I find not playing the "miss" rule allows your snookered opponent to intentionally miss the ball that is "on" for a few points and play a safety while doing so. I see it happen many, many, many times. This is especially true when the pack is open and your opponent is snookered behind a "baulk" color.
If he really attempts to hit a red the odds are he will present a great opportunity for you to score heavily, so he intentionally misses and plays a safety, leaving you a poor chance.
I appreciate that many average players get frustrated by playing the miss rule.
The rule that I often question is the "roll -up" after playing a defensive long pot from the baulk area. A red is potted and then a roll-up onto one of the baulk colors is automatic.
I think that the rule should be changed so that it would be unacceptable to snooker behind the nominated color. Snookers can still be played, but remove the reward for basically fluking a ball and then nudging the cue ball onto a color for a very punative snooker. Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Lux]

If you were using a Moosehead or some such with a rubber gasket that was designed to fit on a pool cue, not on a proper snooker rest handle, I can understand it coming off.

Regular snooker rest heads screw on. Never seen it happen once, let alone several times.

It happened using a cross rest when the head was screw-on type. I can see, though, that over time the threads would chew up the shaft from constant use and eventually let go. This also happened with a spider rest, but closer examination revealed that this one was caused by the guys who used the table prior to us-- very abusive East Europeans who have no respect for the table!:angry:

It is a foul. No different than if you dropped the rest onto the balls, or dropped your chalk onto the balls.

Thanks for that. I'll keep that in mind and maybe be a little more attentive when wielding the rests in the future. Regarding the miss rule, it's not that it frustrates us, we feel that it is a call that only a referee can make. But don't get me wrong, me and my mate are very well acquainted people and play our snooker with the utmost of respect and sportsmanship, so that sort of escape deviance never happens between us. We're the sort of players who relish in safety bouts, anyway!:wink:

 

[Bob Jewett]

The rules are on-line at ibsf.info. Here is the relevant section, which is under Ancillary Equipment:

(b) Equipment normally found at the table which has been provided by another party including the referee are not the responsibility of the striker. Should this equipment prove to be faulty and thereby cause the striker to touch a ball or balls, no fouls will be called. The referee will, if necessary, reposition any balls in accordance with Rule 15 above and the striker, if in a break, will be allowed to continue without penalty.​

I think there was no foul.

 

[Wity]

hmmmmm must remember that seeing as i take my own flexi rest every time.