Snooker Rules---Deliberate Foul

[kenny1234]

If a player who requires a snooker with only pink and black remaining,is left with the pink hanging over the edge of a pocket,(meaning it is virtually impossible to keep it out, would he not be better off following through--giving his opponent another 6 points but at least the frame would be still alive [two snookers required).Would the referee frown on the shot as unfair play?
A second scenario ---what if the player (in trying to keep the pink on the table went in-off somewhere else on the table?

[Calibax]

Doesn't the opponent have the right to make him play again (and again until he plays a legal shot)?

[dannyk13]

How would the referee know that the follow through was deliberate?

[aelmpvw]

i think etiquette would required you to forfeit the frame if you needed a snooker and the pink was over the pocket

[-Talbot-]

It would be frowned upon by the crowd, never mind the ref. And fooling through whilst bent over a snooker table is never a good thing anyway!

[DTCwordfan]

second scenario, 6 points away

first scenario - a corner jam is a legitimate snooker, the other player can make him play - if the referee thinks that he is not making a reasonable attempt, then he can award the frame away.

[-Talbot-]

Following ...bloody iPad

[DTCwordfan]

follow though 6 points away and how is the ref to know its deliberate? Giving another six though means that it is probably a lost cause - concede the frame and move on.

[dannyk13]

//then he can award the frame away.//
Unless the rules have changed the referee in this case would call a deliberate foul and make the player take his shot again.

[DTCwordfan]

three and out, danny......

[dannyk13]

Thanks.

[New Judge]

“Doesn't the opponent have the right to make him play again (and again until he plays a legal shot)?”

Yes he does, but only by playing the balls from where they come to rest (or respotted if appropriate). There would be no advantage to him in these circumstances. Only after a “miss” (where the ball “on” is not the first struck by the cueball) can the opponent have the balls replaced in their original positions and have his opponent play again. And in any case the “miss” rule is not applied when snookers are required.

In both the situations you describe a foul will be called, six points awarded to the opponent. In the first scenario (both balls potted) the pink will be respotted and the white played from hand. In the second (assuming the pink was kept out) the white would be played from hand.

There is no such penalty as a "deliberate foul" and in any case in the circumstances you describe (and any others I can think of) it would be virtually impossible to adjudicate fairly.

[dannyk13]

NJ. //“miss” rule is not applied when snookers are required.//
If when snookered the referee thinks the player did not make a genuine attempt to hit the snookered ball, he will call a foul and make the player take his shot again.

[jim360]

In at least one situation, the commentators felt that a deliberate foul was probably the only good shot. I can't remember quite what situation this was, but I think the black was covering a pocket from a whole bunch of reds and with no good safety shot available the suggestion was to hit a red onto the black, potting it, while ensuring that the white lay safe, leaving no pot for the opponent. In the event I think the player tried something else -- but "deliberate" fouls are probably regarded by the rules as "accidental", even though everyone knows better. I mean, he *might* not have meant to do that, and players generally get benefit of the doubt about motivations.

I find this infuriating in pool, where it really is a part of the game to deliberately foul, eg knocking your ball onto an opponent's, potting it but leaving your ball covering the pocket in its place. There, the only penalty is the usual one for a foul. Frustrating as it is, it can be useful to know about the option.

[New Judge]

There seems to be some confusion.

“Unless the rules have changed the referee in this case would call a deliberate foul and make the player take his shot again.”

Not so. There is no such thing as a “deliberate foul” (or if there is my copy of the rules must be out of date). There is a “miss” (which I described in my first answer) and that is not applicable here.

“… three and out, danny......”

Not so. The “three and out” rule again applies to “misses” and it only applies if a player fails to hit the object ball in three attempts and he is not snookered (as happened to Shaun Murphy last Sunday).

[dannyk13]

The miss rule outlined:-
http://www.euronet.nl/users/cor/miss.html

[DTCwordfan]

Here is the WBSA rules on misses, chapter and verse given.

14. Foul and a Miss
(a) The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a
ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. If the referee considers
the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless:
(i) any player needed penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke
being played;
(ii) before or after the stroke, the points available on the table are equal
to the points difference excluding the value of the re-spotted black;
and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.
(iii) a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the
ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with
sufficient strength, in the referee‟s opinion, to have reached the ball on
but for the obstructing ball or balls.
(b) After a FOUL AND A MISS has been called, the next player may request
the offender to play again from the position left, or at his discretion, from
the original position, with all balls being replaced, in which latter case the
ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table; or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a
Red had been potted.
(c) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a
clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is
or could be on, the referee shall always call FOUL AND A MISS unless as
described under paragraph (a)(i) and (a)(ii).
(d) After a miss has been called under paragraph (c) above when there was
a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or
could have been on, such that central, full ball, contact was available (in
the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not
obstructed by a colour), then:
(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the
original position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless
of the difference in scores;
(ii) if asked to play again from the original position, the offender shall be
warned by the referee that a third failure will result in the frame being
awarded to his opponent; and
Section 3 - Snooker
(iii) if asked to play from the position left, the FOUL AND A MISS
situation starts again.
(e) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, and the striker fouls
any ball, including the cue-ball while preparing to play a stroke, a miss will
not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate
penalty will be imposed. The next player may then elect to play himself or
ask the offender to play again from the position left or the original
position. If being asked to play again, the ball on shall be the same as
prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table; or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a
Red had been potted;
If the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls as described
under paragraph (d), any warning concerning the possible awarding of
the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.
(f) When any ball is being replaced after a miss, both the offender and the
next player will be consulted as to its position, after which the referee‟s
decision shall be final.
(g) During such consultation, if either player should touch any ball in play, he
shall be penalised as if he were the striker, without affecting the order of
play. The ball touched shall be replaced by the referee, to his satisfaction,
even if it was picked up, Section 3. 10 (d) (iii).

[DTCwordfan]

sorry, 'here are'

[New Judge]

14(a)i and 14(a)ii explain that a miss is not called if snookers are required. 14(a) iii explains that a miss shall not be called if the player is snookered (provided he plays with sufficient strength). Which I think is near enough what I said (though I missed off the bit about "sufficient strength). 14(d) explains the “three miss” rule and explains that it is not applicable if the player making the miss is snookered (which again I think is near enough what I said).

However, none of this is relevant to the question. I only raised the “miss” rule because there seems to be some confusion between a “foul” and a “miss”. In the scenario described by Kenny a “miss” does not feature. He describes only fouls. There is no term used in snooker such as a “deliberate foul” and no special penalty is applicable. Following a foul the player committing it can be asked to play again but the balls are not replaced (bar those which may have been potted illegally which are respotted – unless they are reds which are never replaced).

The “three and out” rule (i.e. the foreiture of the frame) only applies to “misses” and only then if the player making the misses is not snookered. It does not apply to fouls. he situation in kenny’s question is quite clear. Both his scenarios involve foulTs. The appropriate penalty points are awarded (in this case six); the pink, if potted, is respotted; the white, if potted is played from hand; the player committing the foul can be asked to play again but the balls are not replaced in their original positions.

[kenny1234]

I understand everything that has been said. My original point was that the player who needed a snooker has gained an advantage by following through (he has kept the frame alive) and has [albeit slim ] the chance to obtain two snookers with the balls now out in the open.

[New Judge]

Yes and he's been punished under the rules for his transgression by giving away six points.

The "deliberate foul" rule that you seem to be suggesting would be impossible to adjudicate. How can the referee be expected to say whether a player has fouled deliberately in those circumstances (especially the "in-off" you describe)? Add what be be the penalty?

The "miss" rule is more straightforward - a miss shall always be called unless either player needs snookers. There's not really much to judge (though I accept that under rule 14(a)ii the referee must be satisfied that the miss was not intentional). I cannot see how a "deliberate foul" rule can be managed.