hit black with rest

[P.Rook]

When we re-wrote the rules (up to the end of 2008) John and I looked carefully into playing before a colour spotted, no foul if not noticed until later, but foul if not enough time for referee to spot colour.
Occasionally there may be something seen by the referee that distracts him from spotting a colour while he sorts that out (it could be to do with a spectator, trying to fix a pocket runner that has come loose or any of a number of other things. Until the referee has completed all things necessary and called the score after spotting the colour, the striker should not play his next stroke. As Alexander the meerkat would say . . . simples!
As to the disturbance of balls by the non-striker, if the referee considers it to be similar to the instance of a ball marker, he should call the foul and then replace balls disturbed. This is seen in amateur play when replacing balls after a miss has been called, such as the non-striker picking up any ball and moving it while saying something like "No ref, this ball was here" but if the disturbance is such as playing before balls are at rest following an opponent's stroke, then it is not a foul (and should be prevented). Many other instances could be quoted but commonsense should prevail most of the time.
I don't know why I didn't think of it before—many of the points I made are there in the B&S Referees' Handbook that I wrote with John Street in 1998 and which is now back in print since March. The bit on striking when a ball is not at rest in Rule 12(b)(i) is there fully explained and shown to be redundant on page 78.

[P.Rook]

But that would not cover the case when the referee has failed to spot a colour, when play can continue without penalty until the absence is noticed.

[dantuck_7]

Would it be worth wording (iv) along the lines of:

(iv) the referee has spotted any balls and called any score relevant to the stroke.

But that would not cover the case when the referee has failed to spot a colour, when play can continue without penalty until the absence is noticed.

The referee could forget to call the score as well?! Getting pedantic now.

[The Statman]

Hi Peter, reading this particular passage, I think either I am misunderstanding you or you are misunderstanding me. Not sure which!

When we re-wrote the rules (up to the end of 2008) John and I looked carefully into playing before a colour spotted, no foul if not noticed until later, but foul if not enough time for referee to spot colour...

The point I am making is that, if the shot is deemed not to have finished until the colour is spotted and the score announced, then the foul for "Playing a stroke before the referee has had time to spot a colour" becomes redundant. It will now become a foul (on the previous shot at the colour) for striking the cue-ball again before the shot is completed.

I think I am talking sense but it is quite possible that I am not! I see it as this:
1 Player pots red. Referee calls "One"
2 Player goes for, and pockets, the pink. Balls come to rest and no other foul occurs.
3 Referee retrieves pink and before he has time to spot it, the player is down on the next shot.
4 Player plays next shot before the referee has finished spotting...

Referee will call foul, One scored, Six away.

This means that the shot on the PINK has been called foul – which is not a foul for playing before the referee has had chance to spot the colour; it is (apeaking nontechnically) a foul for striking the cue-ball a second time during the same stroke.

Thus, it seems to me that the "playing before referee has time to spot the colour" is no longer required, now that the re-wording specifies when the shot is completed.

[P.Rook]

Peter Rook

Hi Statman
I suppose that there is some merit in what you say but the easiest way to word the rule was as stated. In the old rules, it would have been playing with a ball not correctly spotted which is now not a foul except when the referee has not been given sufficient time to do the spotting.
We phrased the rule to encompass all the things that should happen before a stroke can be considered to be finished.
Peter

[P.Rook]

Peter Rook

Statman,
Having slept on the matter, the sub-paragraph (iv) to Section Rule 2(c) as put to WPBSA does have a relevance that had slipped my memory. It was, after all, written something like four or five years ago and, as I am about to turn 76, my memory is not so good for then as it is for 50 years ago.
The referee's calling of the score tells the striker that as far as he is concerned, the stroke is at an end and the striker may play his next stroke.
This may well be when a colour has not been correctly spotted.
Of course, either player may then point out (or not) any such oversight.
I hope this helps.

[s1ivv3r]

Well, if all the balls have come to rest, then the shot on the yellow has come to an end and it must be allowed to stand because no foul has taken place.

Once the balls have come to rest the player is then on the green and, if the rest hits the black, that's a foul on the green – 7 points because of the black's involvement – so the striker would score 2 for legally potting the yellow, with no infringement of the rules; and then be fouled 7 for touching the black when on the green. In these circumstances there are no grounds for the yellow's being respotted because it has been legally potted in the ascending order of the colours once the reds have gone.

I don't agree with this... i thought that the shot was not classed as complete until the rest was returned... or at least... if he was going to play both the yellow and green with the rest... then he would have to have at least addressed the green for it to be the ball on!!

So i will say foul 7 with the yellow respotted!!

[The Statman]

I don't agree with this... i thought that the shot was not classed as complete until the rest was returned... or at least... if he was going to play both the yellow and green with the rest... then he would have to have at least addressed the green for it to be the ball on!!

So i will say foul 7 with the yellow respotted!!

I agree with you. There is not much doubt that that should be the correct conclusion.

My argument was that, reading the rules strictly as they were written, you would have to conclude that the foul was on the green.

It is this re-wording of the definition of exactly when a shot has finished, that clears it all up and actually brings the wording of the Rules into line with what you describe.