Nomination Clarification

[Billy]

Just watching a repeat of the Williams Vs Robertson match. Williams plays a pot on a red into the left black pocket, cannons the black after the pot and nestles into the pack of reds. He's now snookered on all colours.

Now it's quite obvious to every man and his very stupid dog that his next shot will be to play off the side cushion and roll up to the black - which he does successfully. The only thing is he didn't nominate the black.

Would the referee have been in his right to call a foul? And if so what would the penalty have been?

[ADR147]

the ref was in no doubt what he was trying?

[Billy]

the ref was in no doubt what he was trying?

No, as I say it was obvious what his next shot would be, but I thought the ruling was black and white under these circumstances, i.e if a player is snookered on all colours, he must nominate ?? No?

[Kyra]

You can nominate a ball verbally by telling the ref, what colour you're about to play or by simply aiming in the direction of the ball. If the ref is in doubt what ball the player had nominated, he will ask for a verbal nomination.
If I'm not mistaken the player must declare (verbally) when there is a touching ball situation. The ref will ask the player to declare, after he called "touching ball". If the player fails to do so, a foul will be called.

[DeanH]

The rule states:
Sec 2.12 Nominated Ball
(a) A nominated ball is the object ball which the striker declares, or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee, he undertakes to hit with the first impact of the cue-ball.
(b) If requested by the referee, the striker must declare which ball he is on.

The rule is not "black and white" as such but the important words are "or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee", the indication can be verbal, can be pointing with a finger, can be the lining up and addressing the cue ball (nearly 99% of shots are so indicated), as long as the referee is satisfied that "without clear doubt" that the player is playing "that" ball. If the referee has doubt, and the player has not clearly indicated, then the referee should request the player to "declare" the nominated ball.
In this scenario of the OP, as you said yourself, it was clear to everyman and his dog that MJW was going to play the Black, so even to you the player's actions had indicated his nominated ball as ball on.
A guy I play sometimes verbally calls out every colour he is going for for EVERY shot!, I have asked him why he does this, "habit" he replied, I said to him that he doesn't have to as it is clear to me (non-striker acting as ref) which ball he is nominating and only do so when there could be doubt (two colours close to each other, etc), so "EFFING STOP IT!"

he now does not verbally declare every ball

I wonder if any of the registered refs on TSF could mention what they would do if they had aplayer that declare every shot, or if they have had similar situations?

[ADR147]

No, as I say it was obvious what his next shot would be, but I thought the ruling was black and white under these circumstances, i.e if a player is snookered on all colours, he must nominate ?? No?

not sure - might be the same as touching the ball with any part of the cue - the way the players move the cue ball after a foul using the cue is actually a foul.

[DeanH]

not sure - might be the same as touching the ball with any part of the cue - the way the players move the cue ball after a foul using the cue is actually a foul.

Actually it is not a foul AS LONG AS the player has not made contact that would be a considered a Stroke. The definition of a Stroke is "(a) A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue." so using the shaft is not a Stroke so not a foul when the cue ball is In Hand.
Often I have said to my pool mates that when they do the adjusting of cue ball when In Hand is to ensure that you use the shaft at least an inch down from the tip so the ref doesn't claim a foul - which actually did happen once

[Bigmeek]

Dean/ADR. Just adding a bit here to clarify. Moving the ball about in the D after an in-off is NOT a foul but moving the ball with your cue when the White is still in the table IS a foul.

[DeanH]

Dean/ADR. Just adding a bit here to clarify. Moving the ball about in the D after an in-off is NOT a foul but moving the ball with your cue when the White is still in the table IS a foul.

Correct
when cue ball is In Hand, it is no foul to use hand and/or shaft to move the cue ball around, the thing is the cue ball may not be in the "D" at the time the player moves it, the usual scenario is the Ref will place the cue ball on the bed of the table by the bottom (baulk) cushion, this is outside the "D" but the palyer is In Hand so can move the cue ball around until it is played (is a stroke with the tip) or a foul is committed (touching another ball). So the player could after the Ref has placed the cue ball on the table for them, hold the cue ball in their hand and walk down to the Black end and have a look around, whilst doing this they could "bounce" the cue ball in their hand on the bed of the table, then return to the baulk, maybe even rolling the cue ball on the bed all the way down the table. The player is still In Hand so still no foul

[Billy]

The rule is not "black and white" as such but the important words are "or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee", the indication can be verbal, can be pointing with a finger, can be the lining up and addressing the cue ball (nearly 99% of shots are so indicated), as long as the referee is satisfied that "without clear doubt" that the player is playing "that" ball.

Well you learn summat new every day. Thank, Dean.

[SnkrRef]

The same rule about nomination equally applies after a free ball has been declared. As long as the referee is satisfied as to which colour you are aiming at, you need not verbally declare... although most players do most of the time.

[hotpot]

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 .

[DeanH]

Would the referee have been in his right to call a foul? And if so what would the penalty have been?

In this scenario the ref would not call a foul as discussed above. Obviously if Mark had missed the Black or hit a Red then seven away. But for example if the player in the same situation (snookered on all colours) played a stroke up towards to baulk area (obviously away from the Black ball and where multiple colours are) and had not nominated (and the ref had not called Declare because the player shot quickly) the referee would call foul and seven penalty points, even if the player hit a colour. In the rules there is a sub-section in the Penalties section that defines unusual seven point fouls and this scenario is one of them.

[Billy]

The same rule about nomination equally applies after a free ball has been declared. As long as the referee is satisfied as to which colour you are aiming at, you need not verbally declare... although most players do most of the time.

Now this does surprise me.

In this scenario the ref would not call a foul as discussed above. Obviously if Mark had missed the Black or hit a Red then seven away. But for example if the player in the same situation (snookered on all colours) played a stroke up towards to baulk area (obviously away from the Black ball and where multiple colours are) and had not nominated (and the ref had not called Declare because the player shot quickly) the referee would call foul and seven penalty points, even if the player hit a colour. In the rules there is a sub-section in the Penalties section that defines unusual seven point fouls and this scenario is one of them.

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.

[jrc750]

Now this does surprise me.

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