Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deliberate foul

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • travisbickle
    replied
    Originally posted by Londonlad147 View Post
    All this discussion is irrelevant. As a result of this incident the rules were changed, and now if the cue ball is deliberately moved by hand then it is considered to be 'forced off the table' and therefore becomes in hand.
    And quite righty so.
    Thanks Londonlad.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Originally posted by Londonlad147 View Post
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    If he had asked the referee "can I pick this up?" the referee would not have answered Yes or No but "please play on"; and Selby would have fouled if he picked it up (as actually happened).
    What should have been clear to Selby is that the referee did not pick up the cue ball, give it a wipe and put it by the bottom cushion as they do when handing a cue ball to a player as a "ball in hand" situation
    Selby had the option to play the cue ball from where it was after knocked by Dott, or he could have asked Dott to play from where it was.
    As ref I would have said "I can't answer that, would you like me to clean the cue ball?" And then if 'yes' you'd mark the position of the cue ball which is effectivbely indicating that it is not in hand.
    Thanks for the clarification
    What if the answer to the clean the cue ball was "no".?

    Leave a comment:


  • Londonlad147
    replied
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    If he had asked the referee "can I pick this up?" the referee would not have answered Yes or No but "please play on"; and Selby would have fouled if he picked it up (as actually happened).
    What should have been clear to Selby is that the referee did not pick up the cue ball, give it a wipe and put it by the bottom cushion as they do when handing a cue ball to a player as a "ball in hand" situation
    Selby had the option to play the cue ball from where it was after knocked by Dott, or he could have asked Dott to play from where it was.
    As ref I would have said "I can't answer that, would you like me to clean the cue ball?" And then if 'yes' you'd mark the position of the cue ball which is effectivbely indicating that it is not in hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Londonlad147
    replied
    Originally posted by travisbickle View Post
    As it stands it is a grey area mate.
    Selby should have had ball in hand regardless. He wasn’t in the wrong and got punished for picking the CB up. Even if he didn’t pick the CB up he would be in a worse position then he should’ve been.
    So imo the rule should be changed.
    All this discussion is irrelevant. As a result of this incident the rules were changed, and now if the cue ball is deliberately moved by hand then it is considered to be 'forced off the table' and therefore becomes in hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Originally posted by JimMalone View Post
    Maybe there should be a rule like "unsportsmanlike conduct". Dott didn't do it on purpose in this case, but he actually profited from stopping the cueball going into the bucket. And any player could do this as well and gaining an advantage while just giving up four foul points.
    there is already, the whole section is called "Conduct"

    Leave a comment:


  • JimMalone
    replied
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    undisputed, the cue ball was near the bottom cushion near the pocket, of course a worse position than ball in hand
    Maybe there should be a rule like "unsportsmanlike conduct". Dott didn't do it on purpose in this case, but he actually profited from stopping the cueball going into the bucket. And any player could do this as well and gaining an advantage while just giving up four foul points.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Originally posted by travisbickle View Post
    Sorry Dean but I still think Selby is far worse off then he should’ve been had he had ball in hand.
    undisputed, the cue ball was near the bottom cushion near the pocket, of course a worse position than ball in hand

    Leave a comment:


  • travisbickle
    replied
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    I don't think there is a grey area in the rules and this scenario, there was misunderstanding by the players as to the rules; the rules are defined and clear as to the individual sequence of events.
    Selby was in the wrong because he picked up the cue-ball that had not left the playing surface (misunderstanding ).
    If Selby had not picked up the cue ball, he could have put Dott in to play (as always the choice) .

    But as said, many times on many threads, this scenario has been discussed, ad nauseum, and will probably be asked about many times in the future
    Sorry Dean but I still think Selby is far worse off then he should’ve been had he had ball in hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Originally posted by travisbickle View Post
    As it stands it is a grey area mate.
    Selby should have had ball in hand regardless. He wasn’t in the wrong and got punished for picking the CB up. Even if he didn’t pick the CB up he would be in a worse position then he should’ve been.
    So imo the rule should be changed.
    I don't think there is a grey area in the rules and this scenario, there was misunderstanding by the players as to the rules; the rules are defined and clear as to the individual sequence of events.
    Selby was in the wrong because he picked up the cue-ball that had not left the playing surface (misunderstanding ).
    If Selby had not picked up the cue ball, he could have put Dott in to play (as always the choice) .

    But as said, many times on many threads, this scenario has been discussed, ad nauseum, and will probably be asked about many times in the future

    Leave a comment:


  • travisbickle
    replied
    Originally posted by Billy View Post
    I don't think it's a stupid rule - there can be no grey areas in the rulings of snooker (although I'm sure there are a couple). The referee was not at fault and did his job properly.

    But, I do agree it was a little unfair on Selby. In the club this happens all the time, and the offending players is simply handing his opponent ball-in-hand, but rules is rules and the cueball did not go in-off (albeit because of Dott's intervention). As has been said, having had the situation explained, the sporting thing for Dott to have done at this stage would have been to simply pot the white directly into a pocket, thus awarding Selby the ball-in-hand he thought he'd had originally.
    As it stands it is a grey area mate.
    Selby should have had ball in hand regardless. He wasn’t in the wrong and got punished for picking the CB up. Even if he didn’t pick the CB up he would be in a worse position then he should’ve been.
    So imo the rule should be changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Billy
    replied
    Originally posted by travisbickle View Post
    Imo it's a stupid rule.
    So Selby is at a massive disadvantage through no fault of his own.
    The ref should have said to Selby he has ball in hand and warned Dott if it happens again he will forfeit the frame.
    I don't think it's a stupid rule - there can be no grey areas in the rulings of snooker (although I'm sure there are a couple). The referee was not at fault and did his job properly.

    But, I do agree it was a little unfair on Selby. In the club this happens all the time, and the offending players is simply handing his opponent ball-in-hand, but rules is rules and the cueball did not go in-off (albeit because of Dott's intervention). As has been said, having had the situation explained, the sporting thing for Dott to have done at this stage would have been to simply pot the white directly into a pocket, thus awarding Selby the ball-in-hand he thought he'd had originally.

    Leave a comment:


  • travisbickle
    replied
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    If he had asked the referee "can I pick this up?" the referee would not have answered Yes or No but "please play on"; and Selby would have fouled if he picked it up (as actually happened).
    What should have been clear to Selby is that the referee did not pick up the cue ball, give it a wipe and put it by the bottom cushion as they do when handing a cue ball to a player as a "ball in hand" situation
    Selby had the option to play the cue ball from where it was after knocked by Dott, or he could have asked Dott to play from where it was.
    Imo it's a stupid rule.
    So Selby is at a massive disadvantage through no fault of his own.
    The ref should have said to Selby he has ball in hand and warned Dott if it happens again he will forfeit the frame.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Originally posted by travisbickle View Post
    So in the case of Selby & Dott, could Selby have asked the ref if he could pick the CB up as it was going to go into the pocket before Dott intervened or does he still have to play the CB from where it is regardless?
    If he had asked the referee "can I pick this up?" the referee would not have answered Yes or No but "please play on"; and Selby would have fouled if he picked it up (as actually happened).
    What should have been clear to Selby is that the referee did not pick up the cue ball, give it a wipe and put it by the bottom cushion as they do when handing a cue ball to a player as a "ball in hand" situation
    Selby had the option to play the cue ball from where it was after knocked by Dott, or he could have asked Dott to play from where it was.

    Leave a comment:


  • travisbickle
    replied
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    From an earlier post, I am sure it will not be F&M but just a Foul and 4 or value of ball on if greater penalty points - but the non-offending player has the choice to put the offending player back in if the position of balls is not to their liking

    Rule 3.10 Penalties
    (d) seven points if the striker:
    (iii) touches any ball during consultation as described in Section 3, Rule 14(g).

    maybe this rule can be changed to include a 7 point penalty "if a striker touches any ball for any reason"
    So in the case of Selby & Dott, could Selby have asked the ref if he could pick the CB up as it was going to go into the pocket before Dott intervened or does he still have to play the CB from where it is regardless?

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Originally posted by travisbickle View Post
    I would’ve thought moving the CB or any ball with your hands would be called a foul & miss.
    What happens then, is it loss of frame?
    If it isn’t then if you find yourself in a really difficult snooker next time you could just move the CB or any other OB’s for that matter with your hand give away just 4 penalty points and carry on. That can’t be right, can it?
    From an earlier post, I am sure it will not be F&M but just a Foul and 4 or value of ball on if greater penalty points - but the non-offending player has the choice to put the offending player back in if the position of balls is not to their liking

    Rule 3.10 Penalties
    (d) seven points if the striker:
    (iii) touches any ball during consultation as described in Section 3, Rule 14(g).

    maybe this rule can be changed to include a 7 point penalty "if a striker touches any ball for any reason"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X