unsportsmanlike conduct punishment...

krupa

krupa

The Dream Operator
Silver Member
Last night I was playing a friend and this situation came up:

3 balls left on the table, the cueball is frozen to one of them, and the other two are uptable; untouchable without some kind of Hail Mary kick shot. Basically, I was hosed.

My friend asked if I could just "sweep the balls, rearranging the whole table."

I said, "that would definitely be unsportsmanlike conduct, but I don't know what the punishment would be."

Looking at the WPA rules, I think the answer is the same as 3-fouls... I would lose 15 points, we re-rack the balls, and I have to shoot as per opening-break rules.

Is that correct?

-matthew
("atrocious" does not suitably describe how badly I played last night, but at least I got to play instead of just solitary practice)
 
I do believe that if a player "sweeps" the balls it is a lost of match. It would be at the top of Unspotsmenlike Conduct.

Maybe Bob Jewett can add to this. He is the one to go to for all the proper rules.
 
krupa said:
I said, "that would definitely be unsportsmanlike conduct, but I don't know what the punishment would be."

Looking at the WPA rules, I think the answer is the same as 3-fouls... I would lose 15 points, we re-rack the balls, and I have to shoot as per opening-break rules.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer, but this can't be it. A 15 point loss is almost nothing for really good players.
 
14-1StraightMan said:
I do believe that if a player "sweeps" the balls it is a lost of match. It would be at the top of Unspotsmenlike Conduct.

Maybe Bob Jewett can add to this. He is the one to go to for all the proper rules.
Click to expand...

I agree. Sweeping of the balls is usually concession of the frame. Since 14.1 is "continuous," the "frame" is actually the match.

Sweeping of the balls in other games that are more "multiple frame"-oriented (i.e. rack, with a hard, randomizing opening break shot) means you lost that rack, and slide a bead on your opponent's side. That concept doesn't exist in 14.1, since it is a continuous game, so loss of frame = loss of match.

That's just my personal interpretation of it.

YMMV,
-Sean
 
krupa said:
Last night I was playing a friend and this situation came up:

3 balls left on the table, the cueball is frozen to one of them, and the other two are uptable; untouchable without some kind of Hail Mary kick shot. Basically, I was hosed.

My friend asked if I could just "sweep the balls, rearranging the whole table."

I said, "that would definitely be unsportsmanlike conduct, but I don't know what the punishment would be."

Looking at the WPA rules, I think the answer is the same as 3-fouls... I would lose 15 points, we re-rack the balls, and I have to shoot as per opening-break rules.

Is that correct?

-matthew
("atrocious" does not suitably describe how badly I played last night, but at least I got to play instead of just solitary practice)
Click to expand...

I have never seen or heard of a position in which there was no way to play a shot in 14.1. If you're not on two, take a foul. If you're on two, play a safe or take a third (although I cannot imagine a position in which taking three would be right here).

Sweeping the balls in a refereed match would, typically, carry a fifteen point penalty and you'd have to break a new rack under opening break rules, and the same rule should, it seems apply in an unreferred match.

A diagram of this absolutely inconceivable position would help.
 
sjm said:
I have never seen or heard of a position in which there was no way to play a shot in 14.1. If you're not on two, take a foul. If you're on two, play a safe or take a third (although I cannot imagine a position in which taking three would be right here).

Sweeping the balls in a refereed match would, typically, carry a fifteen point penalty and you'd have to break a new rack under opening break rules, and the same rule should, it seems apply in an unreferred match.

A diagram of this absolutely inconceivable position would help.
Click to expand...

I would like to restate that at no time was I seriously considering sweeping the table because of this shot.

The cue ball is frozen to the 3. I was on one foul. (In my last inning, I tried to freeze it and failed, so my friend took care of it.)
 

Attachments

  • inconceivable.jpg
    inconceivable.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 544
Safe

Play a safe by putting a lot of left hand english on the cue ball, thinly coming off the 3 ball going to the bottom long rail. The cue ball will turn up table hitting the top long rail and coming to rest up table near that bottom lower right corner.
 
Graze the three, shooting toward the long rail to which the one ball is near, and use some right masse to leave your opponent near the top rail. I'm not sure you're even behind in this safety battle. You made a mistake trying to freeze your opponent to the three, and they made a mistake freezing you to the three. Being frozen to the three makes this position very easy.
 
sjm said:
Graze the three, shooting toward the long rail to which the one ball is near, and use some right masse to leave your opponent near the top rail. I'm not sure you're even behind in this safety battle. You made a mistake trying to freeze your opponent to the three, and they made a mistake freezing you to the three. Being frozen to the three makes this position very easy.
Click to expand...

14-1StraightMan said:
Play a safe by putting a lot of left hand english on the cue ball, thinly coming off the 3 ball going to the bottom long rail. The cue ball will turn up table hitting the top long rail and coming to rest up table near that bottom lower right corner.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll try to keep these in mind next time I play (hopefully this saturday.) What if the one ball were in front of the side pocket more?


For the record, I shot at the lower, long rail with right english, trying to put the cue ball on the rail. I was unsuccessful.


-matthew
 
14-1StraightMan said:
I do believe that if a player "sweeps" the balls it is a lost of match. It would be at the top of Unspotsmenlike Conduct.

Maybe Bob Jewett can add to this. He is the one to go to for all the proper rules.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Mike.

This situation is part (b) of WPA rule 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct and is up to the discretion of the referee. If I had to rule on this, I would call it loss of game.
 
krupa said:
Thanks. I'll try to keep these in mind next time I play (hopefully this saturday.) What if the one ball were in front of the side pocket more?


For the record, I shot at the lower, long rail with right english, trying to put the cue ball on the rail. I was unsuccessful.


-matthew
Click to expand...

If the one were hanging, the position is far more difficult. Prior to playing the first foul, you should have tried to Kick it in if you're comfortable with that shot. Otherwise, take a foul behind the two obstructing balls (leaving the cue ball near the question mark on the cuetable. If opponent returns the foul without returning you to the cluster, you can jump in the one in the side. Otherwise, you'll surely end up with a kick shot that does not require any english.

Of course, all of this is dependent on your skill level and that of your opponent. Against a weak opponent, just freeze opponent to the bottom rail, from where they will have a pretty hard time finishing off this rack.
 
This is specifically covered in the rules. You would be moving the balls other than by a shot. The most severe penalty available is expulsion from the tournament and forfeiture of all prize money and ranking points regardless of how far you have progressed in the tournament. In a private match, I suppose evisceration would be appropriate.

If you want to play hand ball, get a court.

If the referee penalized you a point for the foul, plus 15 points to your opponent for USLC, and had you shoot the same shot again starting on one foul, it would be a reasonable penalty. The referee is allowed to do this by the rules.
 
Bob Jewett said:
... If the referee penalized you a point for the foul, plus 15 points to your opponent for USLC, and had you shoot the same shot again starting on one foul, it would be a reasonable penalty. The referee is allowed to do this by the rules.
Click to expand...
I got a PM asking for clarification. I meant that one possible penalty the referee could do is charge the fouler with a 1-point foul, add (not subtract) 15 points to the score of the non-fouling player and make the fouler shoot again from the original position. The wording of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule makes the penalty flexible.

Often in league neither player has any clue about what the rules say. In such a case it's best not to be too harsh and to try to get the game back to where it should have been. If the "move them all with your hand shot" situation came up among clueless players, I might charge the offender with a 1-point foul, put the balls back, and have him shoot again. There is no such explicit penalty in the rules, but it's probably a good solution for the given situation.

It's also good to say, "If you have a question about trying something bizarre, it's better to ask before the shot."
 
Bob Jewett said:
I got a PM asking for clarification. I meant that one possible penalty the referee could do is charge the fouler with a 1-point foul, add (not subtract) 15 points to the score of the non-fouling player and make the fouler shoot again from the original position. The wording of the unsportsmanlike conduct rule makes the penalty flexible.

Often in league neither player has any clue about what the rules say. In such a case it's best not to be too harsh and to try to get the game back to where it should have been. If the "move them all with your hand shot" situation came up among clueless players, I might charge the offender with a 1-point foul, put the balls back, and have him shoot again. There is no such explicit penalty in the rules, but it's probably a good solution for the given situation.

It's also good to say, "If you have a question about trying something bizarre, it's better to ask before the shot."
Click to expand...

Your solution here is consistent with a thread you commented on that discussed how my opponent shot at a ball in the kitchen when he had ball in hand. Your response was to try to turn in into a teaching moment, which I understand and can appreciate. However, I'm confused at why you would add 15 to the non-offending players's score as opposed to just subtracting 1+15 from the offending players score. I've never heard of penalizing someone by adding points to their opponent's score.
 
9BallJim said:
Your solution here is consistent with a thread you commented on that discussed how my opponent shot at a ball in the kitchen when he had ball in hand. Your response was to try to turn in into a teaching moment, which I understand and can appreciate. However, I'm confused at why you would add 15 to the non-offending players's score as opposed to just subtracting 1+15 from the offending players score. I've never heard of penalizing someone by adding points to their opponent's score.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose it would be better to subtract from the offender. The advantage of adding is that it gets the game over with sooner but it would be startling to the players. It is, however, within the penalties allowed for the referee.

At snooker penalties are by addition to the opponent's score but since total score is almost never considered at snooker it doesn't make any difference to the flow of the game whether you add or subtract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top