To call a foul or not to call a foul?

[bazkook]

This weekend I was playing in a weekly local American snooker doubles tournament where partners are drawn blindly. The tournament is double elimination and there was only 8 teams. My partner and I lost our first match and won our second match. On our third match we were winning by a large margin when a player on the opposing team possibly committed a foul. He made a red and then the blue and after re-spotting the blue ball, the blue rolled off its spot and and the opposing player put the ball back on the spot using the ferrule of his cue.
I did not call a foul because 1) he is an elderly player who I respect and 2) my partner and I were already winning and I did not want to cause a fuss if the other team got upset. Plus the tournament is essentially a friendly social event with a cheap entry fee of only $20. However, I have always played under the rule that after you spot a ball and release it, the balls are live again. There is even a stupid local rule in one of the places where I play snooker where once you place the cue ball in the D area and release it, you cannot move it again or else it is a foul.
Is the action of the opposing player a foul? If so, would you have called it?

 

[Scaramouche]

It is the referee's responsibility to place the ball.

Since you did not have a referee, and your opponent placed the ball, he is responsible to put it on the spot.
And to replace it if he sees it roll off.

If he didn't see it roll off and you did, you would have the right to have the ball correctly placed.

Your opponent is elderly, may have problems stretching to place the ball, so he places it properly using his cue.

In a social game, how can you contemplate trying to call a foul because he used his cue rather than his hand to properly place the ball?

15.
Ball Moved by Other than Striker
If a ball, stationary or moving, is disturbed other than by the striker, it shall be re-positioned by the referee to the place he judges the ball was, or would have finished, without penalty.
(a)
This Rule shall include cases where another occurrence or person,
causes the striker to move a ball, but will not apply in cases where a ball
moves due to any defect in the table surface, except in the case where a
spotted ball moves before the next stroke has been made.

(b) No player shall be penalised for any disturbance of balls by the referee

The Rules
http://www.wpbsa.com/sites/default/files/uploads/official_rules_edited_05.11.14_web_version_1.pdf

 

[acesinc1999]

Of course, Scaramouche is exactly correct, but I would like to add another point or two to this topic.

First off, you stated that you were playing in an American snooker doubles tournament. What the rules are for this tournament is anybody's guess; the only real authority for that would be the tournament director. American snooker rules tend to be very localized, you stated as such about the wacky "ball in hand" rule. Posters of this snooker forum generally (but not always) accept the IBSF international version of the Rules of Snooker. There is no way for anyone in the "cyber world" to know what your "local rules" may be.

Secondly, if anyone committed a foul according to the IBSF rules, unfortunately, it was you (although as you will see, your "foul" is just poor etiquette and not to be penalized with the award of points; you should just know better next time). Another quote from the Rules of Snooker, in this case, Section 3., Rule 19.:
"19. Interpretation
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) When there is no referee, such as in a social game, the opposing player or side will be regarded as such for the purpose of these Rules."

What that means is that there is no way that the old guy should have been spotting his own blue ball in the first place; according to the rules, it is YOUR JOB as the opposing player to spot that ball. But in any case, you are also viewing the situation incorrectly in that you think you saw YOUR OPPONENT spotting and subsequently re-positioning the blue ball. You did not. What you saw was THE REFEREE doing so. Any player acting as the referee by definition simply cannot commit a foul. A hypothetical...let's say your opponent potted the blue so you, acting according to the rules, retrieve the ball and go to spot it. But you accidentally drop the ball, it bangs into a cluster of reds and a comedy of errors ensue. Foul? Absolutely not. Acting as (an admittedly clumsy) referee, it is not possible for you to commit a foul. In the same way, it is not possible for your opponent acting as referee at that instant in time to commit a foul, even if he had retrieved his own ball and perpetrated the comedy of errors, he still committed no foul as a player, therefore, after you all do your best to get all the balls back where they belong and finally get that blue spotted, he would still continue his break. On the other hand, say he potted the blue then you did your job and spotted the blue but say it rolled off a little when you released it and he noticed but you did not. Properly, he should ask you to check the spot of the blue. Alternatively, if you already sat down in your chair, he might say something like, "I'm going to re-spot this blue. It moved." and he does so acting as the referee. But if he doesn't say a word and just moves the blue whether by hand or cue or using a pair of tongs or anything else because he doesn't like the position after you had spotted it, THAT would be a foul because he was the striker (shooter) at that point in time, not the referee.

By the way, there is also no such rule that the balls "are live again" once you spot and release them. Professionally, it does happen on occasion that a player will ask the referee to "check the spot" usually because the spotted ball is causing some interference to the red he plans on playing next so he is hoping that a re-spot may be just a tiny fraction more generous. And the referee for his part will usually comply rolling the ball off its spot, trying to place his eyes and body into perfect position to be as accurate as possible with the spot, then re-spotting. What you WILL NOT see is the referee checking the line of interference that the player is concerned about; the referee's only concern is that the ball is as accurately on the center of its spot as possible so the tactic could potentially backfire on the player adding even more interference. However, to take this scenario to its extreme, once a player has accepted the referee's spot, now the balls are "live again" as you stated and what that means is, for instance, if the black is spotted, the player takes another shot at a red, then the player asks for the BLACK to be cleaned, you will see the referee take out his marker to mark the position of the black before picking it up to clean it even though it is theoretically "on its spot". Since that black is a "live ball", it must be replaced to its current exact position using a ball marker even if it appears to be on its spot.

 

[bazkook]

It is the referee's responsibility to place the ball.

Since you did not have a referee, and your opponent placed the ball, he is responsible to put it on the spot.
And to replace it if he sees it roll off.

If he didn't see it roll off and you did, you would have the right to have the ball correctly placed.

Your opponent is elderly, may have problems stretching to place the ball, so he places it properly using his cue.

In a social game, how can you contemplate trying to call a foul because he used his cue rather than his hand to properly place the ball?

I was not thinking of calling a foul on him at all. I was just wondering if it could be considered it a foul or not, whether the ball was moved by hand or cue. The local players are peculiar about balls being moved and they are quick to call fouls for any possible infraction. I have seen fouls called on people for things like shirts touching but not moving a ball, which is technically a foul but it is rarely called in our games unless the ball moves or the person calling the foul is an a**hole looking to get points any way possible. The local rules are weird in some scenarios.
One odd rule is that if you are snookered and do not want to hit the object ball, fearing to leave the object ball for your opponent, you can either push the cue ball to a place where your opponent may let you shoot again or shoot the blocking ball without even hitting the object ball. For example, if my opponent snookered me with most of the balls in the open and I missed my object ball and left a shot for my opponent, he/she could end the game then and there. However, under our local rules, I could push the cue ball to a spot where I feel I could hit the object ball or to a spot where my opponent has a very tough shot on the object ball but refuses to take the shot because there are no rewards for making the ball due to tough position on the next ball.
Another rule is that during the break off shot, if you fail to hit the rack, you can grab the cue ball before it hits any other balls and you are allowed to break again. If the cue ball hits another ball before you can grab it, then it is a foul.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I was not thinking of calling a foul on him at all. I was just wondering if it could be considered it a foul or not, whether the ball was moved by hand or cue. The local players are peculiar about balls being moved and they are quick to call fouls for any possible infraction. I have seen fouls called on people for things like shirts touching but not moving a ball, which is technically a foul but it is rarely called in our games unless the ball moves or the person calling the foul is an a**hole looking to get points any way possible. The local rules are weird in some scenarios.
One odd rule is that if you are snookered and do not want to hit the object ball, fearing to leave the object ball for your opponent, you can either push the cue ball to a place where your opponent may let you shoot again or shoot the blocking ball without even hitting the object ball. For example, if my opponent snookered me with most of the balls in the open and I missed my object ball and left a shot for my opponent, he/she could end the game then and there. However, under our local rules, I could push the cue ball to a spot where I feel I could hit the object ball or to a spot where my opponent has a very tough shot on the object ball but refuses to take the shot because there are no rewards for making the ball due to tough position on the next ball.
Another rule is that during the break off shot, if you fail to hit the rack, you can grab the cue ball before it hits any other balls and you are allowed to break again. If the cue ball hits another ball before you can grab it, then it is a foul.

I think it would be better to play by the rules of snooker, but it would take a lot of retraining. The YouTube videos of Ronnie, Stephen, Steve and Judd make more sense if you know the rules they are playing by.

 

[bazkook]

Of course, Scaramouche is exactly correct, but I would like to add another point or two to this topic.

First off, you stated that you were playing in an American snooker doubles tournament. What the rules are for this tournament is anybody's guess; the only real authority for that would be the tournament director. American snooker rules tend to be very localized, you stated as such about the wacky "ball in hand" rule. Posters of this snooker forum generally (but not always) accept the IBSF international version of the Rules of Snooker. There is no way for anyone in the "cyber world" to know what your "local rules" may be.

Yes the local rules are sometimes vague and vary from player to player.

Secondly, if anyone committed a foul according to the IBSF rules, unfortunately, it was you (although as you will see, your "foul" is just poor etiquette and not to be penalized with the award of points; you should just know better next time). Another quote from the Rules of Snooker, in this case, Section 3., Rule 19.:
"19. Interpretation
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) When there is no referee, such as in a social game, the opposing player or side will be regarded as such for the purpose of these Rules."

Like I mentioned previously, I did not call the foul. I did not even say anything to anybody else about whether or not it was a foul. At the time I did not consider it a foul and I knew the opposing player's intentions were in the right place. I was just asking the question on the forums seeking an answer.

What that means is that there is no way that the old guy should have been spotting his own blue ball in the first place; according to the rules, it is YOUR JOB as the opposing player to spot that ball.

In the area I play in, in doubles play, the shooter's partner traditionally spots his partner's ball but I failed to mention that the shooter's partner was a newcomer to snooker and was not aware of that custom.

But in any case, you are also viewing the situation incorrectly in that you think you saw YOUR OPPONENT spotting and subsequently re-positioning the blue ball. You did not. What you saw was THE REFEREE doing so. Any player acting as the referee by definition simply cannot commit a foul. A hypothetical...let's say your opponent potted the blue so you, acting according to the rules, retrieve the ball and go to spot it. But you accidentally drop the ball, it bangs into a cluster of reds and a comedy of errors ensue. Foul? Absolutely not. Acting as (an admittedly clumsy) referee, it is not possible for you to commit a foul. In the same way, it is not possible for your opponent acting as referee at that instant in time to commit a foul, even if he had retrieved his own ball and perpetrated the comedy of errors, he still committed no foul as a player, therefore, after you all do your best to get all the balls back where they belong and finally get that blue spotted, he would still continue his break. On the other hand, say he potted the blue then you did your job and spotted the blue but say it rolled off a little when you released it and he noticed but you did not. Properly, he should ask you to check the spot of the blue. Alternatively, if you already sat down in your chair, he might say something like, "I'm going to re-spot this blue. It moved." and he does so acting as the referee. But if he doesn't say a word and just moves the blue whether by hand or cue or using a pair of tongs or anything else because he doesn't like the position after you had spotted it, THAT would be a foul because he was the striker (shooter) at that point in time, not the referee.

I agree with your point about the person spotting the ball being the acting "referee" and I agree that if I was to spot the ball and disturb another ball, then it would not be a foul, since I am not the shooting player. I do not agree with your statement that it is not a foul if the shooter spots the ball and disturbs another ball because, in my opinion, if the shooter is taking the responsibility of spotting the ball when there are others who could spot the ball for him/her, then the shooter should take responsibility for anything that comes from spotting the ball. The shooter should be vigilant and not take any chances if the act of spotting the ball may result in other balls being disturbed.

By the way, there is also no such rule that the balls "are live again" once you spot and release them. Professionally, it does happen on occasion that a player will ask the referee to "check the spot" usually because the spotted ball is causing some interference to the red he plans on playing next so he is hoping that a re-spot may be just a tiny fraction more generous. And the referee for his part will usually comply rolling the ball off its spot, trying to place his eyes and body into perfect position to be as accurate as possible with the spot, then re-spotting. What you WILL NOT see is the referee checking the line of interference that the player is concerned about; the referee's only concern is that the ball is as accurately on the center of its spot as possible so the tactic could potentially backfire on the player adding even more interference. However, to take this scenario to its extreme, once a player has accepted the referee's spot, now the balls are "live again" as you stated and what that means is, for instance, if the black is spotted, the player takes another shot at a red, then the player asks for the BLACK to be cleaned, you will see the referee take out his marker to mark the position of the black before picking it up to clean it even though it is theoretically "on its spot". Since that black is a "live ball", it must be replaced to its current exact position using a ball marker even if it appears to be on its spot.

I agree with your point about live balls and the position of spotted balls but I dare you to try to tell that some of the local players. They will argue until they are purple in the face and then some. :wink:

 

[bazkook]

I think it would be better to play by the rules of snooker, but it would take a lot of retraining. The YouTube videos of Ronnie, Stephen, Steve and Judd make more sense if you know the rules they are playing by.

I agree but trying to teach the rules of international snooker to those who have played American snooker for years would be an act of congress if you know what I mean. Many of the guys I play American snooker with have been playing a certain way for longer that I have been on this earth and they are quite stubborn in their ways. I understand most of the rules of international snooker and while I like most of the British rules, I would like to see some of the American snooker rules merged with international snooker, such as requiring the object ball or another ball to hit a cushion after a legal contact. I guess that comes from a pool background though so sue me.