Another Ball on Edge of Pocket Question

[DawRef]

Reading the thread below about the ball on edge of pocket, I have come up with another scenario which I think is NOT covered.

Black on edge of pocket. Player pots a red and as the cue ball travels towards the black, the black drops into the pocket. The cue ball does NOT hit the black (therefore no foul). However, the cue-ball then stops on the edge of the same pocket.

According to Rule 9(a):
(a) If a ball falls into a pocket without being hit by another ball, and being no part of any stroke in progress, it shall be replaced and any points scored shall count.

If the cue-ball is on the edge, the black cannot be replaced. So where does it go?

It would, IMHO, be unfair to place the black in front of the cue-ball, as the player is being penalised without making a foul. I guess, though, that this is where it would be put and it is just the 'rub of the green'.

[Souwester]

Sorry to disagree, Dawref, but para (b) comes into play, surely:

(b) If it would have been hit by any ball involved in a stroke:
(i) with no infringement of these Rules, all balls will be replaced and the same stroke played again, or a different stroke may be played at his discretion, by the same striker.
(ii) if a foul is committed, the striker incurs the penalty prescribed, all balls will be replaced and the next player has the usual options after a foul.


The referee would have to replace all balls and let the same player play again, since no foul has been committed.

[dolphin72]

Totally agree with Souwester.

[DawRef]

OK. So what would happen if it stopped a balls width from where the black was, but the referee assumed the black would not have been hit by the cue ball, but cannot replace the black as it will not stay on the edge of the pocket, without either falling in, or touching the cue-ball? Does para (b) still come into effect?

[The Statman]

OK. So what would happen if it stopped a balls width from where the black was, but the referee assumed the black would not have been hit by the cue ball, but cannot replace the black as it will not stay on the edge of the pocket, without either falling in, or touching the cue-ball? Does para (b) still come into effect?

I think the referee might move the cue-ball a touch so that he can place the black, if he is certain that the cue-ball would not have touched the black in the original shot. I think this would be fair to both players.

[Souwester]

OK. So what would happen if it stopped a balls width from where the black was, but the referee assumed the black would not have been hit by the cue ball, but cannot replace the black as it will not stay on the edge of the pocket, without either falling in, or touching the cue-ball? Does para (b) still come into effect?

In this case it's a very fine line between whether the cue ball would have touched the black, and I think that in light of the cue ball obstructing the replacement of the black it would be quite a brave call to say that the balls would not have touched. It's probably more likely that they would at last have been touching.

I raised the question of another ball obstructing the replacement of a ball on edge of pocket with both the EASB Director for Tournaments and the EASB representative on the R&R Committee only last week, and they agreed with me, that the obstructing ball should be moved sufficiently to allow replacement of the ball which dropped into the pocket.

[DawRef]

Thanks Sou'wester & Statman. As you say, it would be a brave call to assume that the cue-ball would NOT have touched the black. I guess that it is one of those scenarios that will probably never happen. However, whatever the referee decides (either to replace the black or all balls), his decision is final.