Something happened today in a match I was playing. All of the balls were bunched together by the foot spot except for a lone ball up table. I called a safety and pocketed the lone ball and stuck the CB to head rail. I spotted the ball and my opponent looked over the stack and found a dead ball, then he mistakenly thought I had scratched and picked up the CB and moved it to his advantage for shooting the deadball. I called a foul and he then realized the mistake he made. My question is: does the CB get returned to the approximate original position?
Rules question
- Thread starter mnhighrunlist
- Start date
LOL...I have DONE that.....so lost in the the moment and trying to plan some response to something on the table that I unthinkingly, and mistakenly, thought I had ball in hand.
We also didn't know the exact rule, but my opponent was only too happy to have me put the ball back in the approximate original position, take the point from me, put me on one foul, and get the table back.
It was very embarrassing.
I now hesitate, think a second and make sure of the situation before I ever put my hand on a cueball in a game.
We also didn't know the exact rule, but my opponent was only too happy to have me put the ball back in the approximate original position, take the point from me, put me on one foul, and get the table back.
It was very embarrassing.
I now hesitate, think a second and make sure of the situation before I ever put my hand on a cueball in a game.
This is a good question, but I'm going to say that the ball remains in position rather than being restored to where it was on the rail, because of the parts in bold below. The World rules for fouls in 14.1 are:
Since there is no note under 6.6 about placing the cue ball anywhere else, I would think it remains in position for the incoming player. Obviously had the guy done this intentionally and corner hooked the cue, it would be an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and not a standard foul.
Since there is no note under 6.6 about placing the cue ball anywhere else, I would think it remains in position for the incoming player. Obviously had the guy done this intentionally and corner hooked the cue, it would be an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and not a standard foul.
4.9 Standard Fouls
If the shooter commits a standard foul, a point is subtracted from his score, balls are spotted as necessary, and play passes to his opponent. The cue ball remains in position except as noted below.
The following are standard fouls at 14.1:
6.1 Cue Ball Scratch or off the Table The cue ball is in hand behind the head string (see 1.5 Cue Ball in Hand).
I think the incoming player has cue ball in hand behind the line.
If the shooter commits a standard foul, a point is subtracted from his score, balls are spotted as necessary, and play passes to his opponent. The cue ball remains in position except as noted below.
The following are standard fouls at 14.1:
6.1 Cue Ball Scratch or off the Table The cue ball is in hand behind the head string (see 1.5 Cue Ball in Hand).
I think the incoming player has cue ball in hand behind the line.
I think TJ is right. Ball in hand behind head string. Hopefully Mr Jewett can chime in.
This is a large and general problem in an unrefereed match. What do you do in an unrefereed match when a player fouls while playing the part of the referee?
I think awarding ball in hand (to himself) in that situation is borderline referee stuff. Consider a referee picking up the cue ball at nine ball by mistake after a good hit. You just put the cue ball back.
I think that in general a player should not be penalized for mistakes when acting as the referee. Suppose you scratch while making a ball and that is your second foul in a row. You try to spot the ball in the middle of a tight cluster and you drop the ball and move several balls. I don't think that should count as your third foul. (Yes, there are some who would intentionally do that sort of thing to break up dead balls, but let's ignore that for now.)
So, in your particular situation, I think you should put the cue ball back where you think it was and let your opponent shoot.
In a related note, I think the present rules do not cover very well what to do if the balls are moved other than by a shot.
Bob, I 'm confused. Who is acting as the referee you are referring to in this situation? At the beginning of your post you mention this as a situation where a player fouls while acting as the referee. But next you said that awarding BIH to himself is a borderline call for a ref. But that would be the other player granting himself BIH, not the guy who committed the foul.
Also, assuming the match did have a ref, what would be the proper call? Restore the position/no foul, restore the position with a foul, or BIH in the kitchen? Obviously, if it is all ball fouls the first solution probably wouldn't apply.
Thanks.
Last edited:
I am confused too. I think Bob reversed the players from what mnhighrun described.
I think it has to be a foul. mnhighrun played a legal shot and his opponent picked up the cue ball. How can that not result in a foul?
Whether the (b) position is restored w/ a foul or (c) mn gets BIH in the kitchen, I'm not sure.
So assuming a foul is acknowledged and enforced, the question probably comes down to whether 6.6 (touched ball) or 6.1 (ball of table) is the guiding rule.
I'd go with 6.6 since for sure we are dealing with a touched/moved ball. That rule results in the ball being played from it's position. Obviously we are not dealing with an intentional foul here or unsportsmanlike conduct then comes into play.
BTW, I have no credentials as a referee or tournament official. Just giving my interpretation.
How I would play it
Here's what I would do:
If the game is for fun... I would have the guy or girl just put it back and continue their inning and, then kid them about it for a few minutes :grin:
If the game is a league game or for money... it's a 1 point foul, ball goes back as close to the original spot (not in hand) as possible and it's my shot.
Just what I would do, and which I have actually done a couple of times.
Here's what I would do:
If the game is for fun... I would have the guy or girl just put it back and continue their inning and, then kid them about it for a few minutes :grin:
If the game is a league game or for money... it's a 1 point foul, ball goes back as close to the original spot (not in hand) as possible and it's my shot.
Just what I would do, and which I have actually done a couple of times.
I read the OP a little too quickly.
The guy who picked up the cue ball by mistake was doing some of the ref's job the way I understood the situation. Often the person who scratches just leaves the table and sits down without acknowledging the foul or fetching the cue ball, leaving it to the incoming player to get the cue ball (which is the ref's job). In general in an unrefereed match the duties of the fouler are not clear.
The "grabber" was clearly confused about the flow of the game. If he somehow didn't see the shot, his confusion is understandable when he sees the "safer" spotting a ball and the cue ball in the kitchen. In that case, I'd tend to cut him some slack.
If he saw the whole previous shot, he was really confused, and I'd agree with a foul call. In general intentionally touching the cue ball with anything other than the tip is unsportsmanlike conduct and subject to a range of penalties. But the "grabber" seems not to have intended any trickery and was just confused. I think a standard foul and put the cue ball back where it was would be appropriate in this case. The cue ball was never officially in hand and it would take a scratch for it to be in hand unless the ref decided to impose a penalty harsher than just a foul.
True but this is one of those situations where the "grabber" (as I've been calling him) clearly meant to pick up the cue ball, so that much was intentional. The rules need some clause for "acting while in a brain freeze" but I don't see a good way to word it.
Well, while he intentionally picked up the ball, he picked it up thinking he had ball in hand. So I don't think his action could be ruled an intentional foul since he didn't know his action was committing a foul. He thought he had the right to pick up the ball. I agree with you that in this specific situation it seems pretty clear that the guy had no intention to commit a foul and had he been aware of the situation would not have picked up the CB.
But this whole situation does bring up a question about who is the referee in a match without a ref. I always sort of thought it was pretty much the opponent and not the shooter who acted as ref since otherwise the shooter would have to call all fouls on himself, and we know how often that wouldn't happen.
But since in a dispute the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter it seems that in effect it is the shooter who is the referee, since he sort of has the final authority.
But this whole situation does bring up a question about who is the referee in a match without a ref. I always sort of thought it was pretty much the opponent and not the shooter who acted as ref since otherwise the shooter would have to call all fouls on himself, and we know how often that wouldn't happen.
But since in a dispute the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter it seems that in effect it is the shooter who is the referee, since he sort of has the final authority.
Last edited:
Maybe something like the mens rea element in criminal law? Perhaps a distinction between "negligently" picking up the cue ball (standard foul) versus "purposefully" picking up the cue ball (unsportsmanlike conduct). See the Model Penal Code summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#United_States