foul or not?

[instroke75]

I was playing today, and snookered my opponent. He kicked at the ball but in the process hit the ball he was hooked behind with his stick! I called a foul, and he said there was no foul, got mad and quit!
As far as I've always understood, if you hit the ball you're hooked behind, whether with your stick, the cue ball, or your body it is a foul!
Someone please let me know because I'm pretty sure I'm right, but would like to know if I'm not!
Jeremy

 

[drsnooker]

Yep that's a foul. If your opponent wants to touch balls with his cue tell him to play pool....

 

[Boro Nut]

I can't answer for American rules, but in the real game yes, it is a foul. The only ball you can touch when in play is the cue ball, and then only when striking it with the tip of the cue. Even a hair dangling onto a ball is a foul. If I'm not mistaken it's a principle that big tournament pool competitions adhere to now as well. If you interfere with any ball you have only yourself to blame, and you cut out any potential dispute over whether an advantage was gained or not.

There are certain instances such as defective equipment (eg the head falling off the rest etc) where you are not held to be to blame for disturbing the balls, but otherwise it's pretty clear, and I think, fair and sensible.

Boro Nut

 

[instroke75]

Thanks guys! I appreciate the clarification!
Jeremy

 

[Fatboy]

I can't answer for American rules, but in the real game yes, it is a foul. The only ball you can touch when in play is the cue ball, and then only when striking it with the tip of the cue. Even a hair dangling onto a ball is a foul. If I'm not mistaken it's a principle that big tournament pool competitions adhere to now as well. If you interfere with any ball you have only yourself to blame, and you cut out any potential dispute over whether an advantage was gained or not.

There are certain instances such as defective equipment (eg the head falling off the rest etc) where you are not held to be to blame for disturbing the balls, but otherwise it's pretty clear, and I think, fair and sensible.

Boro Nut

Years ago I played alot of snooker in Northern California and we played like you just described, unless we made a agreed upon rules change before the game, which didnt happen often.

One fat guy I played sometimes we played where it was ok if he hit a ball with his belly, i could choose where to leave the balls his belly moved. It was a social game and it so important.


we did have some rules that were different from what I haave seen in the UK, like hitting a cushion after contact and re setting the CB after a foul when snookered.

 

[worriedbeef]

Yep that's a foul. If your opponent wants to touch balls with his cue tell him to play pool....

what's with the dig at pool?

why are you on azbilliards if pool pisses you off so much?

actually in general cue ball fouls only is a much fairer and more logical rule than all ball fouls but it does become slightly flawed as it's implemented.

 

[pdcue]

what's with the dig at pool?

why are you on azbilliards if pool pisses you off so much?

actually in general cue ball fouls only is a much fairer and more logical rule than all ball fouls but it does become slightly flawed as it's implemented.

A. this is the Snooker forum
B. see A above.
C. In grown-up pool <14.1 and OnePocket> touching any ball is a foul.

Not to be argumentative, but I don't see CueBall only fouls as being
more logical or more fair - would you care to elaborate on why you do?

Dale

 

[worriedbeef]

Not to be argumentative, but I don't see CueBall only fouls as being
more logical or more fair - would you care to elaborate on why you do?

Because nothing irritates me more than seeing (or not seeing) a snooker player's hair brush an adjacent ball and not even move it yet the player thinks it's right to concede their turn at the table and declare a foul in the interests of sportmanship. a stray red ball being moved less than a millimetre or even not being moved at all makes no difference to the game in the slightest.

plus people on here like to compare to golf as well, i will use a golf example to support my point. if a golfer knocks his ball off the tee before he takes his swing then he just puts it back on - no foul.

obviously the problem with cue ball fouls only is in in the implementation of it. where to draw the line and the issue of whether something was a genuine accident or not can be a grey area and a sticking point. plus whether there are any ref's for all the tournament matches and not just the later stages. so implementation of cue ball fouls only can be tricky.

A. this is the Snooker forum
B. see A above.
C. In grown-up pool <14.1 and OnePocket> touching any ball is a foul.

and drsnooker's original point was worded in a way designed to take a swipe at the game of pool, which i think was fairly obvious and it annoyed me.

 

[pdcue]

Because nothing irritates me more than seeing (or not seeing) a snooker player's hair brush an adjacent ball and not even move it yet the player thinks it's right to concede their turn at the table and declare a foul in the interests of sportmanship. a stray red ball being moved less than a millimetre or even not being moved at all makes no difference to the game in the slightest.

plus people on here like to compare to golf as well, i will use a golf example to support my point. if a golfer knocks his ball off the tee before he takes his swing then he just puts it back on - no foul.

obviously the problem with cue ball fouls only is in in the implementation of it. where to draw the line and the issue of whether something was a genuine accident or not can be a grey area and a sticking point. plus whether there are any ref's for all the tournament matches and not just the later stages. so implementation of cue ball fouls only can be tricky.



and drsnooker's original point was worded in a way designed to take a swipe at the game of pool, which i think was fairly obvious and it annoyed me.

OK maybe I should be argumentative. I don't much care for the argument that an example from Golf has anything to do with cuesports, bur consider
Basketball and Baseball.

In baseball -a fielder can reach across the foul line and touch a foul
flyball - that doesn't make it a fair ball.

In Basketball a player can reach out of bounds to retreive a ball and
keep it in play, provided it hasn't touched the floor out of bounds.

In a way, these two rules are opposite, but is one more fair or more logical
than the other? Of course not. They reflect the manner in which the people who set up the rules felt the game should be played.

Long ago, whoever set the rules for pool decided toughing a ball should be a foul - neither logic nor fairness have anything to do with it. Fouls on all balls certainly is no less 'logical' than cueball only fouls.

Dale

 

[worriedbeef]

but 'logic' and 'fairness' do have something to do with it because it was the point i was originally trying to make. saying that the person who set the rules for pool decided long ago that foul on all balls is the rule is irrelevant because i'm not arguing whether it's a rule or not - we know it is - i'm arguing that it's the unfairer rule of the two.

all i said that was in theory cue ball fouls only is a fairer way of doing things.

surely you'd agree with me that an arm hair touching an adjacent ball shouldn't be a reason for the end of a turn at the table. it's just frustrating to watch sometimes. or when the tv cameras have to replay a moment in ultra slow motion sometimes to see if a comepletely unrelated ball moved a millimetre!

but like i said the problem with cue ball fouls only is implementing it.

where do you draw the line? how do you determine if someone fouled on purpose, or the extent and severity of the fouls that you can ignore.

 

[Boro Nut]

plus people on here like to compare to golf as well, i will use a golf example to support my point. if a golfer knocks his ball off the tee before he takes his swing then he just puts it back on - no foul.

I'm no golf expert, but if my understanding is correct that's a terrible analogy. A ball on a tee is the same as a ball in the 'D' waiting for you to strike it with the tip. You can do what you like with it before you've struck it with the tip. Only then is it in play, and then everything is 'live'. It is not the same in golf I believe. I understood that if a golfer swung at a ball on the tee and missed, it still counted as a shot. Correct me if I am wrong.

When the golf ball is out there it's just like snooker. You cannot touch it other than striking it unless expressly stated in the rules. I also understood you are penalised for hitting your opponents ball with yours when on the green. That's why the etiquette is to remove yours if it's even close to the line of the other player.

Similarly you can't even touch the sand in the bunker with your club without penalty, never mind a ball.

Basically the point is, no matter what the game is, once you start the instant you strike the first shot, you operate to the letter of the rules. Part of the skill of games like snooker is being able to play a shot from a difficult leave such as bridging over balls just as well as with your elbow on the table. Nobody should intend to move other balls in any situation, therefore if you touch a ball you have clearly failed to carry out your intention, and are rightly penalised for it. It's meant to be difficult. It's why your opponent left you there. I personally can't see what's unfair about it. Bumbling oafs get punished in other sports. Why not cuesports?

Boro Nut

 

[Boro Nut]

all i said that was in theory cue ball fouls only is a fairer way of doing things.

surely you'd agree with me that an arm hair touching an adjacent ball shouldn't be a reason for the end of a turn at the table. it's just frustrating to watch sometimes. or when the tv cameras have to replay a moment in ultra slow motion sometimes to see if a comepletely unrelated ball moved a millimetre!

The trouble is, if you don't, you have opened the whole thing up for argument and interpretation. What if you unintentionally moved a ball that may or may not have materially affected the outcome of the shot? If you make the rule only apply to balls that are actually moved then who decides? You have no reason to be touching other balls while in play, and by making it a fould you cut out most of the opportunity for cheating and all of the opportunity for arguing about it. Rules that rely on objective facts rather than subjective judgements are always superior.

Boro Nut

 

[worriedbeef]

The trouble is, if you don't, you have opened the whole thing up for argument and interpretation. What if you unintentionally moved a ball that may or may not have materially affected the outcome of the shot? If you make the rule only apply to balls that are actually moved then who decides? You have no reason to be touching other balls while in play, and by making it a fould you cut out most of the opportunity for cheating and all of the opportunity for arguing about it. Rules that rely on objective facts rather than subjective judgements are always superior.

this was why i stated from the off that the main problem with cue ball fouls only is in the implementation of it.

and i completely understand your point about part of the skill of being a good player is being able to bridge while hampered etc, but nevertheless sometimes i still feel it can spoil things and can be a bit silly sometimes.

 

[pdcue]

I'm no golf expert, but if my understanding is correct that's a terrible analogy. A ball on a tee is the same as a ball in the 'D' waiting for you to strike it with the tip. You can do what you like with it before you've struck it with the tip. Only then is it in play, and then everything is 'live'. It is not the same in golf I believe. I understood that if a golfer swung at a ball on the tee and missed, it still counted as a shot. Correct me if I am wrong.

When the golf ball is out there it's just like snooker. You cannot touch it other than striking it unless expressly stated in the rules. I also understood you are penalised for hitting your opponents ball with yours when on the green. That's why the etiquette is to remove yours if it's even close to the line of the other player.

Similarly you can't even touch the sand in the bunker with your club without penalty, never mind a ball.

Basically the point is, no matter what the game is, once you start the instant you strike the first shot, you operate to the letter of the rules. Part of the skill of games like snooker is being able to play a shot from a difficult leave such as bridging over balls just as well as with your elbow on the table. Nobody should intend to move other balls in any situation, therefore if you touch a ball you have clearly failed to carry out your intention, and are rightly penalised for it. It's meant to be difficult. It's why your opponent left you there. I personally can't see what's unfair about it. Bumbling oafs get punished in other sports. Why not cuesports?

Boro Nut

Good points Boro. And the answer is they do, even over here in the colonies, grown up pool - 14.1 and in some instances One Pocket,
is played 'fouls on all balls'.

Your comment about the leave is suposed to be dificult, that;s why
your oponent left you there is spot on. Wish I had been smart enough
to think of it. I woukd just add it is doubly apropriate when you leave
yourself in a bad position - you deserve the hazard.

Dale<who only wishes he was as smart as a fifth grade Boro Nut>