confusion in Rules of 4 handed snooker?

[lk8]

trying to locate a rule but the wording is a bit vague...



if a player plays out of turn, and no one "notices" it until many shots into the break, is it no longer a foul as it was "condoned" and the break continues?

Or does each following following strokes be still classified as an individual "foul" shot and the break ends when someone finds out the error?



I can imagine in the first case, then break continues and the normal order of play must be maintained as it's no longer a foul...

or if it's the second case, then most likely all the previously scored break must be count up and until the "foul" stroke (as all previously strokes are condoned"...




But obviously what happens depends on what the originally rulings are, but the wording for the four-handed snooker is too vague and I can't find a definate answer, any professional ref care to help out? Thanks!

[Souwester]

If you look at Section 3 rule 11, this is what it says:

11. Fouls
If a foul is committed, the referee shall immediately state FOUL.

(a) If the striker has not made a stroke, his turn ends immediately and the referee shall announce the penalty.

(b) If a stroke has been made, the referee will wait until completion of the stroke before announcing the penalty.

(c) If a foul is neither awarded by the referee, nor successfully claimed by the non-striker before the next stroke is made, it is condoned.

(d) Any colour not correctly spotted shall remain where positioned except that if off the table it shall be correctly spotted.

(e) All points scored in a break before a foul is awarded are allowed but the striker shall not score any points for any ball pocketed in a stroke called foul.

(f) The next stroke is played from where the cue-ball comes to rest or, if the cue-ball is off the table, from in-hand.

(g) If more than one foul is committed in the same stroke, the highest value penalty shall be incurred.
(h) The player who committed the foul
(i) incurs the penalty prescribed in Rule 12 below, and
(ii) has to play the next stroke if requested by the next player.

Rules (c) and (e) are relevant.

The player is continuing to play out of turn for each stroke he plays, and when (if) it is noticed, a foul will be called. As with any foul, the break up to the point before foul was called will be awarded, but nothing for the stroke where foul is called.

So, if the starting order is ABCD, but then B comes to the table again after C (instead of player D)and makes a break of 16, say, then a foul is called. BD will have 16 points added, and AC will have the appropriate points added to their score (the penalty being the value of the ball on when the foul was called).

Player A normally follows Player C whose turn it was, so it is player A who has the usual options after a foul. If he asks the other side to play again, then it is B (the offender) who comes back to the table, and then A will follow him, and then normal order.

Of course it is possible that several turns have been made 'out of order' and it is still a Foul when it is noticed, regardless of who actually first played out of turn (even if that is identifiable!). The procedures outlined in the last two paragraphs are then followed to get back to normal order.

[lk8]

this is what I want to get clear....

is whether

#1) each and every shot afterwards are considered foul shots for being played out of turn...

OR
#2) if no one notices it after the first shot, then all the followings shot will be considered valid...



because it's not clear in the rules, so I am wondering what the ref thinks, because it doesn't clearly say in the rules, and the part where it says "(c) If a foul is neither awarded by the referee, nor successfully claimed by the non-striker before the next stroke is made, it is condoned." can be interpreted differently obviously...

[Souwester]

As I said in my last post : "The player is continuing to play out of turn for each stroke he plays, and when (if) it is noticed, a foul will be called".

So your #1) is valid. Each and every shot is a foul, but obviously once the next stroke is made, the previous foul is condoned, hence (e) in the rules says that you will score any break you've made up to the point the foul is called, and indeed and scores made in previous turns by any of the players is valid should a number of turns have been made out of turn.

If you think about it, this has to be the case, otherwise one pair could deliberately change the order of play for a simple four point penalty, if they particularly wanted to play in a different order to the way the frame started. It wouldn't seem right if, once the wrong order was noticed, that the correct order is re-established without any penalty, not for the frame to continue with the wrong order being maintained.

[lk8]

I also interpret the rules the same way as you did, but someone at the club brought up a point which I feel was valid too, which he said, "what if" no one notices it until at least 10 shots into the break, can any body be "sure" that the player really did played out of turn...

your point where someone would deliberatey change the order wouldn't make too much sense as people are usually expected to spot the wrong order usually right away....

don't want to offend you, but do you mind if I ask are you a qualified ref? Because as I said, the rules can be interpreted either way, unless they change the wording to specify clearly that every shot afterwards are considered foul shots or vice versa if you know what I mean....

[Souwester]

Yes, I'm a regional tutor/examiner.

With starting order ABCD, if B came back to the table again after C but after a few shots nobody could confirm for sure that C had played the previous turn, then I don't see how a foul could be called, and I think B would have to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Having witnessed (and taken part in) quite a few pairs matches, the order of play problem comes up repeatedly, and at lower level, it's surprising just how often players do play out of turn. Some may consider it worthwhile to take a chance on trying to change the order, but yes, I guess most cases are spotted straight away.

[APK]

It should be remembered that there are only 2 orders of play in 4 handed snooker.
If there are 4 players A, B, C, D.
A & C are partners and B & D are partners.
The order will either be ABCD or ADBC. No matter who breaks.

That said, if there is no referee, it is much harder to say for sure if a player has gone out of turn after a lengthy break.

And, just because it hasn't been said yet, the Rules do state that the order of play shall be decided at the beginning of a frame and must be maintained throughout the frame.
So once it has been dicovered that the wrong player has played, the person who should play the next shot is not the person who would normally follow the player who went out of turn but the player who would normally play before him. This will mean that the partner of the player who went out of turn will miss a turn.

[lk8]

thanks Souwester, as I said, it makes perfect sense and that I agree with it fully, although my friend do have a point regarding not being able to tell for sure after a lengthy break, if anybody actually went out of turn, it's a pity it actually happened to him couple of weeks ago in the yearly doubles and they couldn't decide what the ruling was...

it would've been so much easier if the wording were clearer to specify that every shot after the initial out of turn shot, will still be considered a foul shot, then there can be no argument...

APK: the part regarding the partner of the player going out of turn missing his next shot is already clearly written in the rules, so we have no confusion there...

[DawRef]

I once had to referee a doubles match where one pair were identical twins! To make things even harder, they both wore similar shirts, ties, waistcoats, etc. To avoid confusion about which 'twin' was supposed to play, I told one of them to take his tie off.
It was only a local club match, so there was no real dress code involved.

[The Statman]

A quick point on this. If the playing order is ABCD - player A has played his shot and next up player D (instead of B) comes to the table, he may make a break of say 24, then misses his next shot and it is not noticed that he has played out of turn.

If player A then follows D, which is the correct order, am I right in assuming that player A cannot be fouled for playing out of turn, because he correctly followed player D?

Another quick point. If player D comes to the table wrongly, and pots a red, that is playing out of turn but let's say nobody noticed. He then carried on by playing the black, then another red. And at that point the opposing side notices the wrongful order. Since the foul on the opening red has been condoned, is there not a case for saying that Player D is no longer playing out of turn? All he has done is play the next shot after himself potting a ball in the previous shot. That is not actually out of turn!

[Souwester]

A quick point on this. If the playing order is ABCD - player A has played his shot and next up player D (instead of B) comes to the table, he may make a break of say 24, then misses his next shot and it is not noticed that he has played out of turn.

If player A then follows D, which is the correct order, am I right in assuming that player A cannot be fouled for playing out of turn, because he correctly followed player D?

Absolutely right. If, after someone has played out of turn, and the normal order is resumed thereafter without anyone noticing, then nobody is playing out of turn, so no foul is being committed. Th one player who did play out of sequence wasn't noticed and wasn't penalised.

If the frame started off in the order ABCD etc, then if you have the sequence ABCD ADABCD ABCD etc then as soon as A plays a stroke after D's out-of-sequence turn, then everything is hunky dory.

If, however, the order remains ABCD ADCB ADCB every shot after D's out-of-sequence turn is potentially a foul, and will be called a foul once the change of order is noticed.

[Souwester]

Another quick point. If player D comes to the table wrongly, and pots a red, that is playing out of turn but let's say nobody noticed. He then carried on by playing the black, then another red. And at that point the opposing side notices the wrongful order. Since the foul on the opening red has been condoned, is there not a case for saying that Player D is no longer playing out of turn? All he has done is play the next shot after himself potting a ball in the previous shot. That is not actually out of turn!

But who had the turn prior to player D? It was A, and B should have followed him, so all the while D is at the table he is playing out of turn, and can be called for a foul whenever it is noticed.

Although a turn is not defined in the rules, its accepted meaning is the period from when the previous player's last stroke has ended and he has left the table, until he commits a foul or fails to pot a ball, and all balls have come to rest and he has left the table.

Some might argue that it is illogical, therefore, to allow the break that player D might have made before the foul is called. My answer to that would be to give the following scenario. If AC are 60 points up with say 8 reds left, and D comes to the table instead of B and makes a break of 60 to level, and just as he's about to start on the colours he's called for a foul for playing out of turn. Imagine the uproar if he wasn't allowed to have his break because the frame would be out of reach. AC could have deliberately kept quiet, because if they knew the break would b einvalid, they'd be quite happy for D to build as big a break as possible.

[The Statman]

Quite so, Souwester. Thank you.

[Hyperonic]

Some might argue that it is illogical, therefore, to allow the break that player D might have made before the foul is called. My answer to that would be to give the following scenario. If AC are 60 points up with say 8 reds left, and D comes to the table instead of B and makes a break of 60 to level, and just as he's about to start on the colours he's called for a foul for playing out of turn. Imagine the uproar if he wasn't allowed to have his break because the frame would be out of reach. AC could have deliberately kept quiet, because if they knew the break would b einvalid, they'd be quite happy for D to build as big a break as possible.

The break would count because at whatever stage of the break the foul is noticed, the points scored in a break before the foul would count, as the following rule states

11. Fouls
If a foul is committed, the referee shall immediately state FOUL.
(e) All points scored in a break before a foul is awarded are allowed but the striker shall not score any points for any ball pocketed in a stroke called foul.

[Souwester]

I'm quite aware that the break DOES count, (up to the stroke before the foul is called) but I was dealing with the nay sayers, who claim that because each and every stroke the player plays out of turn is potentially a foul, than none of them should be counted. The rule quoted is more usually applied and thought of in terms of an individual foul being committed in a particular stroke.