Measuring distances with cue - foul?

[Tommy68]

Hi snooker refs,

in my club we had a discussion about measuring distances with your cue and if it is a foul or not.

In detail: a player is snookered and wants to escape over one cushion (easy as we all know but beginners have problems with that). The player takes his cue and measures the distance from the middle of the object ball straight to the cushion and marks the distance on his cue with his finger. Now he draws the cue back until his tip is exactly on the rail and so he has the marked point on his cue in the free room. He is now able to spot the point on the cushion where the cueball has to hit it by viewing from the spot on his cue directly to the cueball.

In my optinion it is a seven point foul because there is a rule that says you are not allowed to measure distances with any object (and imo this includes a cue). Furthermore I think that this is not the spirit of the game to go and start to measure. It is about judging and not measuring or am I wrong?

Please clear me up. Foul or not?

Tom

[DeanH]

yes, seven point penalty
10. Penalties.
(d) seven points if the striker:
(i)...
(ii) uses any object to measure gaps or distance;

[DeanH]

now there is nothing wrong with using the cue to judge the angle and possible place on a cushion to aim at, but from your description where the cue was used and "marked" for the distance from ball to cushion, etc.; that is definite measuring and against the rules - and as you say, the spirit of the game.

[Tommy68]

Thank you for your replies. This is how it see it too. I'm a bit puzzled because a well known german referee gave the answer that he wouldn't call a foul as he sees it as proper judgement. Couldn't believe his answer - I was kinda shocked.

Any comments from referees of the 'holy snooker land'?

[DeanH]

I am surprised at that other ref comment.
If a player uses the cue up to a ball, then use a finger on the cue to measure a point, and move on to another position on the table - that is obvious measuring - so that us contavining the rule mentioned above.
Strange

[Tommy68]

Yepp! Luckily it was just a discussion to a hypothetical situation. That coincidence happening in a match with a ref not calling a foul would feed my demons of anger for hours...

[Terry Davidson]

What I've seen over here in Canada is a player who is snookered checks out the snooker by walking around towards the object ball or even looks back from behind the object ball and then casually places his chalk on the spot he's determined. It the casual (and hopefully innocent from his point of view) bit that gets me as he knows you can't do that.

There were some angry words when I called him on it I'll tell you!

Terry

[throtts]

There is also though many reference points at times that one can aim at when snookered, it can be where the nap is pulled up due to bridging of the hand or simple chalk marks. This is what I look for anyway on my first hit of out of a snooker, it can tell me if I am on the right line or not..

[Tommy68]

Shure, we all look at helping edges, raised nap, bits of chalk or similar. That's totally ok because you need that kind of helpers to correct your shot next time when a miss is called.

Terry: another very annoying thing I saw is a player who was aiming for the BOB, stepped behind the object ball, placed his cue tip on the cloth where the contact point of the object ball was and moved his cue just a tiny little bit forth and back to make sure he's left a little chalk mark on the cloth. Then he walked to the cue ball and lined up for the shot as he had a perfect helping mark on the cloth where to play at. First and second time I ignored it but the third time I called him foul because it was obviously on an intensional side. Can't give back the words he gave me...

To go back to the topic. I played a very weak player compared to me once and he measured with his cue. I let him do because he had big problems in visualizing the lines of aim. But I informed him in a friendly way that this is against the rules. That's why I was absolutely sure when it came to the discussion in our club as mentioned in my initial posting.
I really NEVER wanna encounter that situation in a real match and have a convincing discussion with the ref or the opponent. Would be very hard to keep up the concentration for the game... :snooker:

[Down the rail]

If you need to do this your in the wrong game. lol

[magicman]

To go back to the topic. I played a very weak player compared to me once and he measured with his cue. I let him do because he had big problems in visualizing the lines of aim. But I informed him in a friendly way that this is against the rules.

Original Source: http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...#ixzz2Vui6QcLa
- TSF - TheSnookerForum.com

I do a similar thing with weaker players in allowing them certain leeways while advising them that this wouldn't be allowed in a match scenario. Everyone has to learn somehow after all.

I also insist on playing the miss rule with them, as this helps them to learn about angles and more often than not they finish their visit to the table with a successful shot rather than an unsuccessful one. If they get to within an inch or two after a couple of attempts I let them off of course, but after playing like that with me a few times I've seen them trying to incorporate it into their sessions with other players.

I really NEVER wanna encounter that situation in a real match and have a convincing discussion with the ref or the opponent. Would be very hard to keep up the concentration for the game...

The only time I've ever argued with a ref during an actual match was because of the discretion given to refs with regards to the miss rule. My opponent twice failed to escape from a snooker (5 reds to hit, one cushion escape). After the second attempt the ref didn't call a miss. It was a county semi final, and at that level a miss of any kind, even 1mm, is always called a foul and a miss, and my opponent had missed by a considerable margin. A horrible scenario to find yourself in, when you genuinely believe the referee is making a mistake.

[tommygunner1309]

[QUOTE=Tommy68;715508

Any comments from referees of the 'holy snooker land'? [/QUOTE]


Quite clearly a 7 point penalty in the example you have given. Also, making a chalk mark is a foul. It is a quite blatant breaking of the rules. I would not only award a penalty - I would also warn the player that it was ungentlemanly conduct and any further occurrence and the frame would be awarded to his opponent. Any further conduct after that would be the match awarded to the opponent.
You have to be a bit careful in the Terry D example though. A player walking round the table, chalks his cue and puts the chalk on the rail is a bit of a dodgy one. However, in a competition match, I got over that one by asking the player to remove the chalk, as I did not want marks on my blazer - and a referee is fully entitled to do so. Also, in Terrys example, it is really fairly easy to see whether the player is making a reference point - or just putting it down after chalking. Personally, when I want to make a reference point on the cushion - I look past the table, to a point across the room - maybe to a certain pocket on another table - and I do this in foul and miss situations where I might have to replace the cue ball. Imagine my horror in a match when I lined up the cue ball with a lighter on a table across the room. Sure enough - had to replace the cue ball - only to discover that the geezer in the meantime had wandered off outside for a smoke. Gutted!!

[Tommy68]

Today I got an answer from a class III referee and he explained to me that this is no foul/penalty!
It is a discussed topic in the Tutors and Examiner Meeting of the highest European referees and they decided to no foul. The act is seen as a judgement as you have to go back to your position of striking. As long as no marks have been made on the table it is ok!

I will accept this but wished the paragraph in the snooker rules would have been written in an unmisleading way. Maybe 'any object but the cue'...

Tom

[DeanH]

As long as no marks have been made on the table it is ok!

marks or markers and also on the cue as well as the table

ambiguous wording in the rules - you are not the first to comment - lets say, the rule book wont win any prizes at the Plain English Campaign Awards

seriously though, ok so no marks or markers are left but what about the case of a player taking a potted ball to "measure a gap" then puts the ball back, then goes back to the position of striking? This is definitely a foul as it is defined as such clearly in the rules. The original scenario of using the finger to mark a position on the cue, this is then referenced in an other point on the table; is very close to "measuring". difficult one...

[tommygunner1309]

Today I got an answer from a class III referee and he explained to me that this is no foul/penalty!
It is a discussed topic in the Tutors and Examiner Meeting of the highest European referees and they decided to no foul. The act is seen as a judgement as you have to go back to your position of striking. As long as no marks have been made on the table it is ok!

I will accept this but wished the paragraph in the snooker rules would have been written in an unmisleading way. Maybe 'any object but the cue'...

Tom

Yes Tom I understand well what you have written here. The European referees and in fact the IBSF referees have different ideas about the rules than my examiner/tutor Derek Budde, who is on the committee of the WPBSA referees. But then, some WPBSA refs are not always in agreement with Derek. To start with, my examination for class 3 was a paper of 52 questions. When Derek showed this to the other committee members of the WPBSA (including Alan Chamberlain) they said the paper was too difficult and should only consist of 20 questions!!! The idea that Derek has, is that if someone is going to wear the uniform of a referee, he should be able to cope with all matters that arise on the table. I for one, am glad that I feel fully equipped to deal with any given situation at any time. Don't forget - you can't go home and mull the problem over - it has to be dealt with instantly. Even so, I have made a number of small mistakes during my first few months - but improvement comes with practice.

The other problem with the Euro refs etc, is that they seem to forget a couple of rules that are in the book. These rules would easily deal with the problem you posed in your first post on this thread. I am of course referring to :

Sect 5
(a) The referee shall:
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play:
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation NOT COVERED adequately by these rules:
(iv) intervene if he sees any infringement of these rules

Section 4 Conduct

(a) (ii) any other conduct by a player which IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE is willfully or persistently unfair
(iii) any other conduct by a player which otherwise amounts to ungentlemanly conduct

IMO, the above rules speak volumes about what a referee can do. Obviously, we should not be making the game a misery to play by warning players every five minutes, but there are two people playing the game, and fairness must be uppermost in any refs mind.

Getting back to what I said earlier about the exam for Ref grade 3. I was totally dumbstruck when Derek told me about the question paper. I had always believed that for each grade the exam was the same whether you took it in Brighton or Budapest!! Its really difficult for me to get my head round the fact that a grade 3 in Brighton may have taken a completely different exam to a grade 3 in Blackpool!! Personally I blame the various committees for not getting together and standardizing the whole system.
Cheers Tommy