White in middle of pack?

[Londonlad147]

I'll check the rules but I believe it's in there somewhere but I could be basing this on experience

The only mention of ball on being impossible to hit is in the opening paragraph of 3.14

14. Foul and a Miss
(a) The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a
ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless:
(i) any player needed penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke
being played;
(ii) before or after the stroke, the points available on the table are equal to the points difference excluding the value of the re-spotted black; and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.
(iii) a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee‟s opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls.

Since there is nothing specifically in the rules to say he can answer this question then he cannot, per s5:

SECTION 5 THE OFFICIALS
1. The Referee
(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;
(iii) be responsible for the proper conduct of the game under these Rules;
(iv) intervene if he sees any infringement of these Rules;
(v) tell a player the colour of a ball if requested; and
(vi) clean any ball upon reasonable request by a player.
(b) The referee shall not:
(i) answer any question not authorised in these Rules;
(ii) give any indication that a player is about to make a foul stroke;
(iii) give any advice or opinion on points affecting play; nor
(iv) answer any question regarding the difference in scores.
(c) If the referee has failed to notice any incident, he may at his discretion take the evidence of the marker or other officials or spectators best placed for the observation or may view a camera/video recording of the incident to assist his decision.

[MrRottweiler]

There is a provision in the rule book (s3.14) as Tim quotes below.

There is NO option for a re-rack (sic). The table will only ever be re-set and the frame re-started if there is a stalemate situation. The rules are quite clear on the 'ball on impossible to hit' scenario, so no stalemate needs to arise. You have to commit a foul, end of, but no miss if you meet the criteria.

Cheers that makes it clearer and the idea of a re-rack not being an option. What defines a stalemate situation where a re-rack is allowed by the ref? I'm not clutching at straws here but I thought there could be a re-rack if both players agree to it and the ref cannot object when both players want to restart the frame. If that is the case there could be a re-rack during an impossible shot scenario if the snookered player suggests it to the opponent and they agree.

[Londonlad147]

Cheers that makes it clearer and the idea of a re-rack not being an option. What defines a stalemate situation where a re-rack is allowed by the ref? I'm not clutching at straws here but I thought there could be a re-rack if both players agree to it and the ref cannot object when both players want to restart the frame. If that is the case there could be a re-rack during an impossible shot scenario if the snookered player suggests it to the opponent and they agree.

A stalemate is only ever seen when both players are repeatedly tip-tapping close to the ball(s) on, eg into a pack of reds. Neither is attempting to play a positive shot, and could carry on playing the tip-tap game for a considerable time. It has also happened (at an EBSA European event I believe) where a stalemate was called when only black remained on the table! The cue ball was close to the black, which was more or less tight on the top cushion, and both players were afraid to do anything other than tap the cue ball into the black.

The rules are very clear on the 'impossible' situation: ie you have to make a shot and play a foul. Else you get called for a Foul and a Miss, or even warned for ungentlemanly conduct (eg if cue ball is in the jaws of the pocket with a ball not on blocking its path out, and you play directly into the pocket!). There can't be a stalemate in the 'impossible' situation, the striker MUST make a stroke.

[DeanH]

the impossible scenario - one player has an advantage and the other, distinctly not; where a stalemate is where a player does not have a distinct advantage over the other.

16. Stalemate - If the referee thinks a position of stalemate exists, or is being approached, he shall offer the players the immediate option of re-starting the frame. If any player objects, the referee shall allow play to continue with the proviso that the situation must change within a stated period, usually after three more strokes to each side but at the referee’s discretion. If the situation remains basically unchanged after the stated period has expired, the referee shall nullify all scores and re-set all balls as for the start of a frame. The same player shall again make the opening stroke, subject to Section 3 Rule 3(d) (iii), with the same established order of play being maintained.

[jrc750]

... If that is the case there could be a re-rack during an impossible shot scenario if the snookered player suggests it to the opponent and they agree.

Maybe you are not getting this ? why in the World would the opponent agree to a re rack when the striker has to commit a foul ?????

[Londonlad147]

Maybe you are not getting this ? why in the World would the opponent agree to a re rack when his the striker has to commit a foul ?????

Indeed. Not in his interest at all.

[thecentralscrutinizer]

Maybe you are not getting this ? why in the World would the opponent agree to a re rack when his the striker has to commit a foul ?????

This ^^^. My pal was not having a rerack despite my whining...

[Londonlad147]

I believe that in old rules pool (and Black Ball?) there is an automatic(?) re-rack in an 'impossible' situation.

[MrRottweiler]

Maybe you are not getting this ? why in the World would the opponent agree to a re rack when his the striker has to commit a foul ?????

Of course I'm 'getting it' I'm just trying to be crystal clear on the rules.

[thecentralscrutinizer]

Yes in BB rules there is but you only use 3 of each colour and the black in the rerack LOL

[MrRottweiler]

I believe that in old rules pool (and Black Ball?) there is an automatic(?) re-rack in an 'impossible' situation.

This is what I was thinking of. I remember someone pulling this rule on me in a reffed pool match and I ended up losing the match. I was wondering if there are similar rules in Snooker where the player isn't forced to play an impossible shot hence my confusion. That's my excuse anyway

The rules on what constitutes a stalemate has really opened my eyes though.

[Terry Davidson]

If asked if it is impossible/unplayable the referee CANNOT answer. The referee must, of course, form his own opinion before the stroke is played, and make his call accordingly. He certainly cannot call 'impossible shot'.

A slightly related scenario. One of my colleagues has recounted the story (umpteen times) that one player was attempting to play out of a snooker to a particular red. He questioned the referee when he was warned that a third miss would lose him the frame. The referee couldn't say why he warned him, but repeated the warning. The player looked at the table again and it dawned on him that there was another red which he could see full ball. Now imagine the player thinks he's in an impossible snooker, and asks for the referee's confirmation. If there is another option, if the referee even was to simply to say 'no, not impossible' then that could well assist the player, which is a definite no-no in the rules.

OK, I checked with our senior referee here who is also an acknowledged expert on the rules and he said 'if the player asks the referee (before the shot is taken) if the referee considers it an impossible hit and in this case the referee is allowed to answer'. Then the player must aim at a ball on and strike with sufficient force to reach that ball on despite the intervening ball(s) and no MISS would be called.

I have only seen this happen once in a tournament where there was a very good referee on the match and he was asked and answered it was an impossible hit. That referee had worked in Britain and on TV in pro matches and at the time he was the chief referee in Canada.

[chessking]

OK, I checked with our senior referee here who is also an acknowledged expert on the rules and he said 'if the player asks the referee (before the shot is taken) if the referee considers it an impossible hit and in this case the referee is allowed to answer'. Then the player must aim at a ball on and strike with sufficient force to reach that ball on despite the intervening ball(s) and no MISS would be called.

I have only seen this happen once in a tournament where there was a very good referee on the match and he was asked and answered it was an impossible hit. That referee had worked in Britain and on TV in pro matches and at the time he was the chief referee in Canada.

So your saying, that when asked prior to the shot, and if the referee thinks its an impossible snooker, he can answer "yes", but if he thinks otherwise, he will simply refuse to answer the question. Answering with a "no" would be a violation of his responsibility?

[Londonlad147]

OK, I checked with our senior referee here who is also an acknowledged expert on the rules and he said 'if the player asks the referee (before the shot is taken) if the referee considers it an impossible hit and in this case the referee is allowed to answer'. Then the player must aim at a ball on and strike with sufficient force to reach that ball on despite the intervening ball(s) and no MISS would be called.

I have only seen this happen once in a tournament where there was a very good referee on the match and he was asked and answered it was an impossible hit. That referee had worked in Britain and on TV in pro matches and at the time he was the chief referee in Canada.

Sorry, really can't agree with your senior referee.

Here's what Brendan Moore and Eirian Williams had to say on a Facebook forum.

Brendan Moore I agree that the referee shouldn't tell a player whether he thinks it's impossible to hit or not. However, It's happened to me twice a few years ago in the same World Qualifier event as it happens. A player was in, what I considered an impossible snooker, he attempted to hit the ball on 3 times (and 3 different ways) before saying to me it's impossible to hit. At this point I said "there's a rule in the rulebook that covers this situation, but I can't tell you what it is". I spoke to Eirian about this after the game and he agreed it was the right thing to do. The player then realised what he could do, so played directly at the snookering ball with sufficient strength that he would have hit the ball on.

The second situation the player had potted a red and the cueball was in the middle of the reds, impossible to hit a colour. Straight away he said it was impossible, again I told him there was a rule in the book to cover this. He admitted he didn't know it, but I said I can't tell it him. His opponent said he didn't know what to do either, and he asked me to explain the rule to both of them. He said if i didn't we could be there all day. So, as he asked to tell them, I did.

Eirian Williams I remember the first of Brendans' incident as I was sitting assessing in the gallery at the time. I saw exactly what happened and I can honestly say that it could not have been handled better. As for the second incident Brendan refers to, I remember a TV match many years ago when the late John Street was in charge. I don't know the exact incident but, because neither player knew the particular rule in question, John asked both players if they were happy that he tell them both right then. They agreed and he did! I've not an issue with that but goes to show that players (pro's included) are ignorant of all the rules of the game. As for your comment Tim, the Referee MUST tell the player in the situation you describe because the rule book tells him/her that he must.

[DeanH]

As for your comment Tim, the Referee MUST tell the player in the situation you describe because the rule book tells him/her that he must.

which situation was this comment aimed at? Not the same we are discussing on this thread is it?