Nomination Clarification

[SnkrRef]

Velly interesting! I suppose the thought process what that the foul had to be either 4 or 7, if it wasn't clear what colour the player intended to play, and someone decided 7.

The rules state that if a player fails to declare which ball he is on when asked to declare by the referee then the penalty is seven points. It also says the penalty is seven points if a foul is committed before nominating a colour.

Dean's last post raises a couple of issues. If a player has played a stroke WITHOUT being asked to declare which ball he is on, then the referee should NOT foul him. He can only foul him if the striker has failed to declare after being requested to do so by the referee. In this scenario the referee would have to accept that the player had played the ball he hit!

Secondly, if a foul should occur before the player has nominated a particular colour (eg by touching a ball close to the cue ball with his cue), once it is obvious that he is playing one of the baulk colours, then referees tend to exercise some common sense, and limit the penalty to the maximum amount that would have been likely. So if he's obviously playing for a baulk colour, the penalty would be only four points, not seven. I know some referees will disagree but this is fairly standard practice as far as I can tell.

[Billy]

Well it shouldn't
I always wonder why players nominate a ball when it's so obvious what they are aiming at, just no point

Sorry

I suppose it would seem odd to have a player nominate a ball when it was obvious which he was planning to play. I think I'm getting confused... and I am pished, to be fair.

I've noticed Higgins and Ebdon (Ebdon especially) are two players who will randomly nominate a colour for no apparent reason.

[DeanH]

The rules state that if a player fails to declare which ball he is on when asked to declare by the referee then the penalty is seven points. It also says the penalty is seven points if a foul is committed before nominating a colour.

Dean's last post raises a couple of issues. If a player has played a stroke WITHOUT being asked to declare which ball he is on, then the referee should NOT foul him. He can only foul him if the striker has failed to declare after being requested to do so by the referee. In this scenario the referee would have to accept that the player had played the ball he hit!

Secondly, if a foul should occur before the player has nominated a particular colour (eg by touching a ball close to the cue ball with his cue), once it is obvious that he is playing one of the baulk colours, then referees tend to exercise some common sense, and limit the penalty to the maximum amount that would have been likely. So if he's obviously playing for a baulk colour, the penalty would be only four points, not seven. I know some referees will disagree but this is fairly standard practice as far as I can tell.

As I was typing my post I was thinking along the same lines, thanks for the clarification

[cantpotforshíte]

Why did i think it is not a foul when the cue ball is in hand and a player touches it with his tip when rolling the white around with his cue .

Probably because of this matey:

5. Playing from In-hand
To play from in-hand, the cue-ball must be struck from a position on or within the lines of the “D”, but it may be played in any direction.
(a) The referee will state, if asked, whether the cue-ball is properly placed (that is, not outside the lines of the “D”).
(b) If the tip of the cue should touch the cue-ball while positioning it, and the referee is satisfied that the striker was not attempting to play a stroke, then the cue-ball is not in play.

[hotpot]

Probably because of this matey:

5. Playing from In-hand
To play from in-hand, the cue-ball must be struck from a position on or within the lines of the “D”, but it may be played in any direction.
(a) The referee will state, if asked, whether the cue-ball is properly placed (that is, not outside the lines of the “D”).
(b) If the tip of the cue should touch the cue-ball while positioning it, and the referee is satisfied that the striker was not attempting to play a stroke, then the cue-ball is not in play.

Ah right thanks muck