Ruling: who controls a re-rack?

[Bob Jewett]

In the YouTube comments under the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA2XbbRHJys a question came up about who controls whether a stalemate is declared and the balls are re-racked. I think this can only occur under rule 3.16, and even if the players request a re-rack, the ref must agree.

Any veteran refs here?

 

[acesinc1999]

In the YouTube comments under the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA2XbbRHJys a question came up about who controls whether a stalemate is declared and the balls are re-racked. I think this can only occur under rule 3.16, and even if the players request a re-rack, the ref must agree.

Any veteran refs here?

Not a veteran ref, but a longtime student of the Rules. In my opinion, you are technically correct; nothing can happen on the Snooker table without approval of the Referee. Personally, I think the rule you are looking for is what I call the "Referee is all powerful rule". It is Section 5., 1., (a), (ii), which says simply that the referee shall:

"be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by these Rules."

Yes, technically, the ref can decline the request for reset but how would that be in the interest of fair play if both players agree? The referee would have no reason to exert this authority except for authority's sake and would probably afterwards face disciplinary action himself/herself for the conduct.

There are several video examples of the referee having authority to override the Rules as they are written due to application of the "all powerful rule" and this usually comes at the request of the players. Here is the easiest example that I could find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNFHD9XFqSA

As snooker is such an international sport, often English is the second language of players so to accept a foul based on a simple misspoken word would be ridiculous and Anthony McGill rightly utterly refuses to accept the penalty. The only thing that is unusual is the young ref taking so long to accept McGill's refusal--the exchange should have lasted just seconds instead of minutes but she (the ref) was in all likelihood concerned about doing her job correctly.


Edit:

P.S. to above: I just re-watched that clip I referenced and I did interpret it incorrectly. That (young) referee was afraid of overstepping her authority so in fact she did still insist on the Foul, Five Away (it should have been six away) as you can tell from the score change at the end. Anthony McGill was probably steamed that she would not accept his refusal and he compromised by putting the Chinese player back in for the next stroke. I have seen this same scenario elsewhere (of a misspoken English colour call) where the referee simply nullifies the foul call and allows the player to continue the break at the opponent's request.

 

[Slasher]

Section 3.
16. Stalemate
If the referee thinks a position of stalemate exists, or is being approached, he
shall offer the players the immediate option of re-starting the frame. If any
player objects, the referee shall allow play to continue with the proviso that the
situation must change within a stated period, usually after three more strokes
to each side but at the referee‟s discretion. If the situation remains basically
unchanged after the stated period has expired, the referee shall nullify all
scores and re-set all balls as for the start of a frame. The same player shall
again make the opening stroke, subject to Section 3 Rule 3(d) (iii), with the
same established order of play being maintained.

 

[Island Drive]

Integrity

Fair play to the sport should always win in the long haul.

 

[acesinc1999]

I would like to add to my post above, Bob, to prove the point that you are in fact correct.

Let's say that, as in the video, the players look at each other and say, "Re-rack?", "Yeah, re-rack..." and they totally ignore the referee who is standing a distance away. Then one of them (doesn't actually matter which) does something to disturb the table, say, he grabs the cue ball and lifts it off the bed of the table with the assumption that this frame is done, the balls will be reset.

Do you know the ruling? It is easy enough...the referee will state "Foul!" proper penalty will be enforced as required and the cue ball is to be played from in hand in the "D" as it was lifted from the bed of the table.

Now, at this point, the player who picked up the cue ball and committed the foul might again say to the other player, "Re-rack?" to which the striker will now answer, "What, are you crazy? I have ball in hand."

So the point is, yes, the players can agree to end the frame in stalemate and yes, the referee will always agree to it (although he is not bound to by the Rules), but the frame is NOT officially ended until the referee says that it is ended.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... So the point is, yes, the players can agree to end the frame in stalemate and yes, the referee will always agree to it (although he is not bound to by the Rules), but the frame is NOT officially ended until the referee says that it is ended.

It seems to me that the players could always force a re-rack by playing tiny little safeties on the reds until the ref had seen enough.

There is a potential re-rack situation between Trump and O'Sullivan on YouTube in which the pink is in the jaws of the left top pocket with the remaining reds and the black around it. I think it took half an hour to sort it out, but it was very interesting snooker; I'm glad it didn't end early.

 

[acesinc1999]

It seems to me that the players could always force a re-rack by playing tiny little safeties on the reds until the ref had seen enough.

There is a potential re-rack situation between Trump and O'Sullivan on YouTube in which the pink is in the jaws of the left top pocket with the remaining reds and the black around it. I think it took half an hour to sort it out, but it was very interesting snooker; I'm glad it didn't end early.

It was more like about ten minutes, but that is probably because it was Ronnie and Trump. Anyone else probably would have taken a half hour to conclude that series of shots. You can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta-efCUeNmw

In that sort of situation, the players often would ask for a reset simply because the scores were close so neither wanted to be the one to make the mistake because the first mistake would likely hand the frame to the opponent. With the personalities of those two though, they enjoyed playing it out.

In that case, the referee would be very unlikely to call for a reset because a "position of stalemate" was never approached. Every shot was different. Granted, the Pink stayed in the jaws, but each player was creative and played completely different shots every time. The white moved all over the table and they managed to bunch up, then separate, then bunch up the reds again. A position of stalemate is generally regarded more like in the sense of chess--move the rook one square, check, move the King one square, move the rook one square, check, move the King one square.... It just goes on forever so it is a stalemate. In contrast, these snooker players never approached a position of stalemate as far as snooker is concerned because obviously, at some point, one of them would have to knock the Pink in. A snooker stalemate is very often where the players just tip-tap back and forth between a couple reds in the pack similar to the Rook/King situation. The ref was never likely to call it, and nor should he.