Prior to September 1995, there were two distinctly different sized tables, one in imperial and one in metric measurements. The set of metric measurememnts were abandoned as they caused problems with “set piece” shots, particularly in billiards. ALL tables are now of one size with their dimensions expressed in both imperial and metric terms.
Although the expression “cushion faces” is used in this section, it is not defined anywhere in the Rules. In case a discussion arises on the point, the face is that part of the cushion which is nearest the centre of the table or, alternatively, if a three inch square block was slid across the bed of the table, the first point of contact with the cushion would be the FACE.
For more information see separate sheet on “Tables and Templates”.
For the purposes of deciding which is “left” and “right”, the table is viewed from the Baulk End although, because of camera positioning, the converse is the case in TV commentaries.
The distance from the top cushion is pinpointed exactly by the spike at the front of a professional style Tournament Triangle. (See also “Tables and Templates”)
These tolerances could be eradicated but the result would be an astronomic rise in the cost. The definition of the weight of balls is most unclear but each ball will weigh in the region of 140-142 grams and this section is intended to stipulate that, within a given set, the difference in weight between the heaviest and lightest balls will be no more than 3 grams.
Makes it a Foul to play with a non-standard cue and it is as well to remember that the tip end of a two-piece cue, if under three feet in length and used without the butt section, would be regarded as “the cue” and would be “non-standard”.
Unfortunately the WPBSA do not publish a list of “approved designs”! For more information see separate sheet on “Accessories”.
This raises the question of whether a frame is considered to have started if the balls are NOT set as in 3.2. If, within the duration of the opening shot, a table setting mistake is discovered, a re-start is in order but, thereafter, it is condoned.
By stipulating that a player may only concede when he is the Striker, it becomes impossible for the Non-Striker to deprive the Striker of a potential “highest break” etc. (See also 4.5.)
“GAME” only comes into the reckoning in team events. For all others it should be disregarded and “MATCH” assumes the same definition as “GAME”. It is virtually unheard of to hear a Referee call “Frame and Game”
This wording is new from 2011, enlarging on what was there before, but fails to stipulate what should happen regarding any points scored by a non-striker while playing out of turn. This will only happen in four handed games. Until clarification is published, the only guidance must come from the ‘when discovered’ principle (Exp. Note 3.7). Any such points scored prior to the final stroke would be condoned. The final stroke would be deemed a foul and penalty points awarded as per Rule 3.10.a.iv.
Question and Answer as agreed at a WPBSA Rules Meeting held on 27th June 2013.
Q. Player comes to the table after his opponents turn and taps his cue on the table in appreciation of his opponents’ last stroke, but inadvertently touches the cue-ball which was still in motion from his opponents shot.
A. A foul has been committed, therefore the opponent is awarded either 4 points or the value of the ball on.
The exact definition in (a) seems elementary but is of paramount importance when applying other Rules, e.g 3.14.a(i) where one needs to decide whether an occurence was actually a stroke or not.
This expanded 2011 wording is a vast improvement on its predecessor in stating exactly what must happen before a mid-frame stroke may be made, thus avoiding potential argument.
As with 2.6c. this new wording safeguards against argument and is read in conjunction with 3.10.a.iv.
In the interests of correctness, it is always the CUE BALL that is “in hand” or, indeed, snookered. It is NOT the player or, in the case of a snooker, the “ball(s) on”.
This wording covers situations like the free ball situation where the ball on may NOT be struck by the first impact of the cue ball but may still be potted - i.e. by secondary contact. In an obscure sense, it also covers the three reds in the centre of an undisturbed pack which may not be struck - because that would constitute a jump shot but may nevertheless still be potted
“Indicates to the satisfaction of the Referee” is particularly important when awarding penalty points etc. An obvious example is when a player is clearly aiming at the Blue, but hasn’t said so, and fouls the Yellow. The penalty is five points, not seven.The inclusion of “when snookered” in 3.10.d.v should not affect 2.12.a. Although technically ‘snookered’ as per 2.17, the striker may be able to see enough of a ball on to pot it quite easily and will therefore ‘indicate to the satisfaction of the Referee’ as normal. The requirement to declare one’s selected ball on only applies after the striker has potted a Red or free ball nominated as a Red and all colours are totally obstructed by balls not on, i.e. other Reds.
EXAMINERS PREFER YOU TO USE THE WORD “DECLARE”, NOT “NOMINATE”
Whenever the Striker picks the Cue Ball up, it is considered “Forced off the Table” even if he puts it back down after realising his mistake.
Unfortunately this new Rule fails to mention the various examples, e.g. 3.14.h., where penalty points are awarded but, in the absence of a foul being called, the non-offender may not, for example, claim a free ball.
Another phrase that can be used to describe the existence or otherwise of a “snooker” is “when all PARTS (not sides) of a ball on are/are not AVAILABLE”
It is also important to remember that only “balls NOT on” may obstruct “balls on” when determining whether or not a “snooker” exists. When, usually with Reds, there is a group of “balls on” which make the situation difficult to assess, a Referee may use his ball marker(s) to remove one or more of them to afford himself a better view
It is also quite in order for a Referee (but definitely not a player) to take a previously potted ball out of a pocket to help him make a “Free Ball” decision. This is a particularly useful device in situations where a “ball not on” is actually BEYOND the ball on but may still represent an obstruction to a very file contact.
Sadly, for day to day use, the official definition of snookered is only deployed in evaluating a free ball situation but a player will seldom describe himself as snookered if perhaps he can’t see quite enough of a ball on for a stroke he wishes to make but can maybe see it “full ball”. This dual terminology can then prove ambiguous - see 3.10.d.v and Exp Note 2.12.
(For those with a bent for precise language, when a player has insufficient points available to him on the table to win the frame, it is often said he “needs snookers” but this is not really true. What he needs are PENALTY POINTS from foul shots made by his opponent and these might just as easily be from “in-offs” as from failing to get out of snookers.)
Should the term “Angled Ball” be raised, it ceased to exist from September 1995 onwards but it should be recognised that this wording does make it possible for a player with a delicate touch to avoid contravening 3.12.b.ii by depositing the cue ball so that a cushion jaw comes between it and a nominated free ball.
See also sheet on “Table Setting and Scoreboard Control”.
Is very useful for covering the “almost touching” situation.
The contents of this opening paragraph need to be visualised in the mind to extract the precise meaning of the “passes over any part of an object ball”. In literal terms for example, if the Cue Ball lifts off the bed of the table enough for the extreme 2mm of its right hand side to pass over the first 2mm of the object ball’s left, a “Jump Shot” should be called. In other words, if the Cue Ball would have struck the object ball if it had stayed on the bed of the table, a Jump Shot has occurred. It doesn’t have to necessarily jump right over the whole ball in the way a Jump Shot is popularly envisaged.
This is the basic ethic of the “Miss” which is expanded in greater detail under Rule 3.14 (Foul and a Miss)
A request to clean a ball (not always the cue ball) is often used to create time for thought without pressure. In a tense match the striker is permanently under pressure but, for the second or two that the referee is engaged in cleaning the ball, he knows nothing is expected of him and he can relax. It is also suggested that, in a very tight situation, players use cleaning as a tactic hoping that, in the process, they’ll gain a vital millimetre or two. Logically though this could just as easily worsen the position.
For referees, the words “reasonable request” are their insurance against having to attempt to clean a ball in a very difficult position, e.g. in a tight cluster of other balls. In such cases the player should be advised that it can’t be done safely and he should play his shot but that the ball will be cleaned as soon as it comes to rest in a more suitable position.
The “suitable device” is unfortunately not defined by the governing body but, historically, two large thick coins were slid together along the bed of the table until both were touching the ball to be cleaned. It was then quite simple to roll it back against them afterwards before sliding them away again. Any workable improvement on this would have to be deemed a “suitable device”.
The key phrase in the second sentence is:- “shall be penalised as if he were the Striker”. So, for the purpose of awarding penalty points, the ball marker is considered to be the ball concerned and the Referee then considers what he would have done if the Striker had committed a similar Foul. Whatever answer he comes up with determines the award against the non-Striker.
EXAMPLE - Player A pots a Red but feels he got a poor contact and asks for the Cue Ball to be cleaned while he decides which colour to go for. While the Cue Ball is off the table, Player B moves the ball marker in some way. Thus, using the above logic, if Player A had fouled the Cue Ball at this point, i.e. before declaring his choice of colour, the penalty would be seven points and that, therefore, is the award against Player B.
For the first time we have definite guidance on how a Referee should announce that a Penalty situation has occurred. Technically, he can’t call “Foul” as, in an appropriate situation, it could, by definition, give rise to a Free Ball. The only option would be to announce something like “Penalty! Player B has disturbed the ball marker. Player A receives x points”.
See also Rule 3.5.b.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) now nicely clarify this rather unusual occurence but (iii) wisely takes the opportunity to restore the balance of the game when circumstances permit.
These paragraphs have been rewritten entirely and now follow a far more logical flow. However, in “3.3.g.iv” the reference to 3.10.b.i should be 3.10.b.ii and in 3.3.h the reference to 18(b) should be 18(c).
This Rule is perfectly clear and well understood but defies logic in a sense and it is sensible to be forewarned in case a low grade player raises it.
Equally illogical at first glance is the practice of referees calling “Frame” when the Pink is potted leaving a difference in scores of 8 points or more. If the frame continued, one or more fouls by the leading player could bring his opponent to a position where he could pot the Black and win the frame. Whilst this might satisfy “logic”, it would also produce a host of long, boring finishes that would do nothing for the game overall.
The referee, however, is correct in calling “Frame” because, when only the Black is left, the first score or foul ends the frame anyway and, from 8 or more behind, a further 7 points will not alter the result. If the striker has compiled a sizeable break, it is wise to allow him to pot the Black and take the additional 7 points before calling “Frame”.
Although the first score or foul when only the Black is left will still end any preliminary frame in the normal way, each frame will be played right down to the Black, irrespective of the difference in scores. Obviously, even with a difference of 30 points, the 7 scored for a final Black could prove crucial at the eventual end of an aggregate scores match.
As in tennis, “on the line” is considered “in” and therefore, in answering a player’s question, a ball on the line will be “properly placed”. For this purpose the baulk colour spots are deemed to be part of the line(s).
This is probably one of the most difficult judgements to make and is made virtually impossible by the experienced player who plays such shots with extra pace in the knowledge that the Referee will not be able to decide. Unless absolutely clear-cut, the Striker should always receive the benefit of the doubt.
One situation not covered in (a), (b) or (c) is the hopefully rare, but nevertheless possible, case of no-one noticing a stray Red is still on the table when they start potting colours. The Red will almost certainly be pinned tightly against the top cushion by Black or Pink or both and will not be noticed until the Baulk colours have been pocketed. Positioning on the last two colours off the Blue will then spotlight the error.
If, say, the discovery was made after the Brown had been pocketed, the position would be as follows. The pocketing of the Yellow with a Red still on the table would have constituted a Foul which became condoned when a stroke was made at the Green. Similarly, the unlawful sinking of the Green was condoned by the stroke at the Brown which, being the last stroke, is now called as a Foul and the Brown ball respotted. Red must now be potted, with or without a colour, before the potting of colours is resumed on the Brown with Blue, Pink and Back in the normal way.
The following expansions are useful in this, hopefully, unlikely situation using Yellow as an example of a ball wrongly brought back on to the table:-
(i) If the error is discovered when the Yellow is still on the table, it should be removed immediately, i.e. using the same principle as, when a ball is found to be OFF the table, it is respotted. The same player remains in play with Green as the ball on but, if it happens to be snookered, that will be considered to be “rub of the green”. A “Free Ball” is not allowed as no Foul has been committed.
(ii) If the Yellow is potted but the error is discovered before another shot is played, the 2 points should be disallowed and the Striker invited to continue with Green the ball on.
(iii) If the Yellow is potted but the error is not discovered until further shots, and maybe pots, have been made, the matter is condoned and no action taken, even if the 2 additional points have a material effect on the game.
Any ball can become “incorrectly missing” if it drops quietly into a pocket whilst everyone’s attention is on another part of the table for some reason. The most likely probability, though, is when the Yellow is potted with the last Red but not respotted and the Green is taken next. The error will probably never be discovered unless the 2 missing points make a crucial difference to the final score which had been calculated in advance, e.g. Striker was aware he could win by one point but subsequently finds there aren’t enough points for him to do so. In such an instance it would be quite possible for colours to be potted Green, Brown, Blue, Pink, YELLOW, Black quite legally.
This Rule is regularly misunderstood and can best be clarified as:-
(i) If any of the balls to be spotted may be placed on their OWN spots, then do so.
(ii) Of any left, take the highest value ball and place it on the highest available spot. Repeat this procedure, resorting to (f) and (g) if necessary, until all balls are back on the bed of the table.
If a touching ball situation is found to exist after a Red has been potted, all six colours, including any that are touching the Cue Ball, are potential “balls on”. By declaring and then playing away from a touching ball, one is considered to have hit it but, equally, another colour can be nominated and, as long as one plays away from the touching ball, it is deemed NOT to have been hit. With this new wording it will probably be a wise precaution to automatically add “Please declare” to the obligatory call of “Touching ball”.
The Rules require the Referee to “indicate” which “balls on” are touching. This is normally done by pointing to the relevant ball(s) but, where the Cue Ball and touching “ball(s) on” are clearly separate from all other balls, a verbal “Touching (both) ball(s)” would be equally acceptable.
The most common example is when a spot, through wear, has become a dent in the baize and the two touching balls are each stopping the other from rolling into it. However the Cue Ball is played, the other ball will inevitably settle into the dent and it would obviously be unfair to Foul the Striker for it.
The second sentence is new and can help to cover all eventualities.
Question and Answer as agreed at a WPBSA Rules Meeting held on 27th June 2013.
Q. The referee declares “Touching Ball”. The player comes to the table and says the balls are not touching. After many attempts, the referee is not able to get the balls touching, as he had previously declared. What to do next?
A. If the referee declares “Touching Ball”, the player must play away from this, as if it was a touching ball.
For many people in snooker, this is known as the “Vibration Rule” insofar as vibration of some sort is virtually the only action, other than physical contact, that can make a stationary ball move. The proximity of a venue to a railway line, trunk road or airport can often have a bearing.
Most people take an interest in snooker because of its foundation on total integrity and the Rules seek, where possible, to preserve this spirit. Whilst no compensatory measure could be devised to overcome “fluke” pots and poor contact (kicks), it IS possible to counter vibration by, effectively, voiding the shot and starting again as detailed in this section.
The only concession is when a Foul forms part of the shot - see 3.9b(ii). - and, because of their similarity, this section and 3.15 could well be merged into one.
Question and Answer as agreed at a WPBSA Rules Meeting held on 27th June 2013.
Q. Player pots a red but fouls the green with his cuff. The cue ball is travelling on towards another red that is hanging over a pocket. Before the cue-ball arrives, the red falls into the pocket. What is the decision?
A. A foul of 4 points and all balls to be replaced as before the shot was played.
There are some “funnies” that can happen, both at the start of a frame and when “in hand” at other times. “Definitions” in Section 2 become important. A frame commences with “the first stroke” (Rule 2.1) and a stroke is made when the Cue Ball is struck “with the tip of the cue” (Rule 2.6). Therefore, until that first contact of cue tip and Cue Ball, the table is effectively dead and a Foul cannot take place. The Striker can thus knock the Yellow off its spot as he positions the Cue Ball in the “D” and it would be merely replaced. He could drop the Cue Ball, make a grab for it and send it flying up the table to smash the pack - without penalty, and, even if he were to nudge one of the Baulk colours while rolling the Cue Ball round the “D” with his cue, he would still suffer no penalty.
However, playing from a mid-frame “in hand” situation, the table is very much “live” and all these occurrences would now definitely become Fouls but the Referee, having made that judgement and called it, then needs to know what happens to the Cue Ball.
It has been suggested that, if the Cue Ball is OFF the bed of the table when the Foul occurs, it is still “in hand” but, if it is on the baize, it should be considered in play and left where it is. After further consideration, however, this may not be the complete answer. One player will place the Cue Ball straight on the table exactly where he wants it, whereas another will put it on the baize and slide it forward, sometimes as much as a foot, to the required position but, in BOTH cases, the Cue Ball is definitely BEING HELD by the player and this is probably a better deciding factor. Until it is clearly released from the player’s grasp, it is prone to some degree of further movement, if only as he takes his hand away, and should be regarded as still “in hand”. So :-
Example 1 - Player slides the Cue Ball towards the front of the “D” and, in so doing, his hand, still holding the White, knocks the Yellow off its spot. Decision - Foul, and the next player is “in hand”.
Example 2 - Player positions the Cue Ball to his satisfaction and releases it but brushes the Yellow as he takes his hand away. Decision - Foul, and next player plays from where the balls are.
Questions and Answers as agreed at a WPBSA Rules Meeting held on 27th June 2013.
Q. If the non-striker unscrews his cue or removes his tie or starts clearing personal items from the table during the closing stages of a match, is it to be concluded that he is conceding?
A. Yes - dependant on the circumstances, the referee’s decision is final.
Q. Another query is in the docking of a frame where a player is warned for a second time for an act of ungentlemanly conduct. The player committing the act requires a large amount of snookers in that particular frame, effectively having lost the frame anyway (barring penalty points). Should he be docked the frame he has more-or-less lost anyway (and which is still live and he is playing on) or should he be docked the next frame ensuring he is effectively punished?
A. The referee may only dock the live frame. The rules state that after one warning, then the frame can be awarded to the opponent.
To avoid confusion there is NO situation where a ball marker may be touched at all.
This rule acknowledges the increased existence of gadgetry and seeks to preserve the game as one of visual judgement.
“Plays at” has particular significance in a situation where a Red has been potted and the Striker mis-cues on his colour shot causing the Cue Ball to hit another Red. As long as the Striker was definitely “playing at”, say, the Green (by declaring or indicating), the penalty would be four rather than seven.
Again, to avoid confusion, ALL strokes must involve the White as the cue ball (See rule 3.1.a)
As per Explanatory Note 2.12, the use of snookered in this context may be somewhat misleading. This rule will only be used after a Red or free ball nominated as a Red has been potted leaving all colours totally obstructed by the remaining Red(s). Clearly, in order to continue, the striker must play at one of the colours but, because he will have to either “bend” the cue ball around intervening Red(s) or play off one or more cushions, the Referee must be made aware of his selection. With this new requirement and using the established principle that Referees must not offer advice to players, it will be inappropriate to add, e.g., “Please declare” when announcing the previous score line (See Rule 5.1.b.ii)
Severe problems can occur when a Striker continues with his shot after “Foul” is called. Consider Player A, 34 in front, bridging awkwardly over a colour to pot a very easy last Red and virtually clinch the frame. As so often happens, he touches the colour with his hand or cue and the Referee immediately calls “Foul” but, knowing his opponent can now win with the gift of an easy red as his first shot, he carries on and pockets it. With the red gone, the opponent is now 30 behind with 27 on the table and needs the help of penalty points to stand a chance of winning.
Clearly, Player A should have come away from the table as soon as the Referee called “Foul” and his subsequent action would definitely be called “ungentlemanly” or, “unfair”. See rule 4.1. In the interests of fair play the opponent deserves to have the Red back on the table but this can’t be done without a Rule that allows it.
By using 3.11.a - we ascertain that, if Player A commits a foul, “his turn ends immediately”. He is therefore no longer the Striker when he plays the shot at the Red and 3.15 - “Ball moved by other than Striker” - gives us the authority to re-create the original shot for his opponent.
There is a possibility that this new addition was composed in response to a specific incident that arose in a professional tournament. It is just this sort of thing that, quite rightly, encourages the Rules Committee to investigate ways of overcoming such problems but, whilst acknowledging the principle they have tried to achieve for fairness, there may be some uncertainty in the wording used.
As mentioned in other Notes, the use of an italicised snookered automatically refers to Rule 2.17 for its definition and we are left without any guidance as to what constitutes “hampered”. Each word poses its own problems in terms of practical application, and the subsequent use of “choice” may cause uncertainty, It is furthermore unclear as to why snookered or hampered” needs to be dealt with differently to normal “foul situations. Clarification will, no doubt, be forthcoming and we look forward to that, whereupon this Note will be amended accordingly.
Referees should be aware that this Rule can be set aside where a player uses Rule 2.17.e to his advantage. Given a light enough touch, he can play a nominated free ball towards the ball(s) on and leave the cue ball against a pocket jaw. Even though the free ball is directly in line with the ball(s) on, the obstructing jaw removes it’s status as the “effective snookering ball”.
For some, it is difficult to understand why potting a Free Ball plus a Red in one stroke scores 2 points, i.e. BOTH balls, but when the same thing happens with a colour, e.g. the Brown, only 4 points, not 8 would be scored.
The explanation doesn’t stand up very well under scrutiny, but a useful way to remember the Rule is that, because a set of balls contains 15 Reds, it is possible to pot 2 in one shot but, there being only ONE of each colour, only ONE set of points may be scored.
By including the request to replace balls after a Foul and a Miss call, another potential “hole” is thankfully plugged.
After 16 years of applying the more exacting “modern” Foul and a Miss Rule, a variety of minor imperfections are tidied up in this 2011 revision. There are, however, those who still regard it as “That XXXXXX Miss Rule” and the following basic principles will hopefully illustrate that, complex and difficult though it may be, without it the game would be dead. Snooker’s popularity is mainly due to TV coverage with sometimes exhaustive comments from ex-professional players allowing the viewer to fully understand the ethics and strategies behind each stroke. The fact that even low ability players will then try to emulate the pros. in such ways as “not leaving anything” in safety play, means that they inevitably tend to err on the side of caution. Such “erring on the side of caution” is the most regular cause of a Foul and Miss being called in the modern game at all levels.
So, why should this be? Maybe because it is the striker who is at the table, there will tend to be more focus and understanding for what he’s trying to do, but a good Referee will need to pay equal heed to the rights of the opponent in his chair. Each player should come to the table to begin his turn after a lawful stroke or, if not lawful, one that represented a fair attempt by the player concerned. Thus, for example on the basis that even a ten year old can hit a cue ball hard enough to send it up and down the table twice, an stroke that falls short of its object ball will automatically be a Foul and Miss and, by making that call, the Referee will hopefully encourage the player to apply more power (if his opponent asks for the balls to be replaced) and so produce a lawful stroke for his opponent to inherit. In a season’s snooker there will be many instances where players can be seen to err on the side of caution and there should be absolutely NO compunction in calling a Foul and a Miss when they occur.
The DANGER TO REFEREES in applying the second sentence of the opening paragraph is that, because the shot doesn’t necessarily have to be direct, a cute player can invent a most sophisticated six-cushion escape route with a lot of side which would be extremely difficult to contest if challenged. It is therefore advisable to be doubly sure of one’s ground before adding “and a Miss” to the call of “Foul” and, if such a call is not fully justifiable, the unfortunate player should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.
The insertion of (ii) is new but the last 11 words of this paragraph can be of considerable importance as most players will only have absorbed the part about “needing snookers” (or penalty points). Take a situation where the Striker comes to the table 36 points behind with one Red left and he’s badly snookered behind the Yellow on its spot. The Red is against the top cushion and he’s almost certain that, whatever he does, he won’t hit it so, because he “needs snookers”, he just prods the Cue Ball out from behind the Yellow and leaves it against the side cushion on the Baulk line, i.e. not within 9 feet of the ball on.
The player’s intention was obviously one of damage limitation with no thought whatsoever of getting anywhere near the Red and the Referee would be quite in order calling “FOUL AND A MISS” because the failure was “intentional”.
BEYOND THIS, THERE’S NO SIMPLE ANSWER OR SHORT CUT TO UNDERSTANDING THE MISS RULE. The flow chart after page 30A may make it easier to follow BUT don’t forget you can’t take it to the table with you!
One example of a Miss that will NOT be called. This involves the situation where, having potted a Red, the Striker can’t see any real prospect of a break and tries to roll up behind a colour - usually one of the Baulk three. If he doesn’t reach, no one would ask to have the Cue Ball put back so that his opponent has another chance of getting the snooker he wanted, and hence the decision no to call a Miss.
In putting the Cue Ball back, one re-creates the position that existed immediately after the last fair shot and, if that shot was a potted Red, the player concerned has the choice of six colours at his disposal. His choice of colour for the first attempt - deemed a Foul and a Miss and therefore void - has no bearing whatever on any second or subsequent attempts and, indeed, if he hit the wrong colour on the first attempt, he is quite entitled to choose that as his colour for the second and play exactly the same shot again. Players should bear this in mind when deciding whether or not to have the balls replaced.
In this case “different position” means where the cue ball has come to rest, i.e. one of the normal options after a Foul and, should the question arise, the striker may have two more Misses before being warned about the consequences of a third.
Quite sensibly, this section now includes ALL such occurrences and is far more clear than before and in 3.14.e.iii it reinforces the fact that the striker may choose a different colour if he wishes.
This is usually deemed to apply to Misses where no part of the “ball(s) on” can be seen. It CAN be used, though, in any case where a player makes absolutely no attempt but Referees should never forget that all Misses are Fouls anyway and the opponent will always have the option of asking the offender to “go again”.
If is difficult to understand why the wording used after “unless” is different to that in 3.14.b. Until an official statement is available, it may be less contentious to standardise on the 3.14.b wording for both.
The opening paragraph provides guidance on what to do if anyone other than the striker, INCLUDING THE STRIKER’S PARTNER by not excluding him, directly causes a ball to move without any involvement of the striker. So, e.g. a spectator leaves the room, and allows his coat to swing out over the table, in so doing, moves a ball. Sub-paragraph (a) expands this principle to cover incidents where, this time, someone OTHER THAN the striker’s partner perhaps nudges the striker’s arm in passing and, in so doing causes the striker to move a ball. What we are NOT told is what happens if the striker’s partner is the one who nudges the striker’s arm and, until an official verdict is issued, it may be advisable to delete “other than the stiker’s partner” from (a).
Of all the forms of snooker, this is the one that benefits most from having a colleague on the scoreboard. By prior arrangement, he can be left to monitor the order of play so as to leave the central Referee to concentrate on the table.
To avoid possible confusion, in the second sentence “lose a turn” might be better as “lose that turn”, i.e. he may not come to the table immediately after his partner has been fouled for playing out of turn.
By using “partners” in the plural and “confer”, there is a strong suggestion, at least, that BOTH players need to be involved in a dialogue for a breach of the Rules to occur. What, then, if the non-Striker says something to his colleague at the tabe but receives no reply? Is this an item of “Unfair Conduct” from Rule 4.1 or are they deemed to have “conferred”, in which case they are penalised as in 3.10.a.xi in spite of the fact that the Striker, the one who’ll be fouled, hasn’t said a word?
Our guidance is that, as in TV quiz games, “conferring” may be one-sided if thought of as prompting a colleague and, in such cases, the fact that the Striker has received the information is enough to justify calling a Foul on the partners as a team.
Even if kept in this section, this point should also be added to 5.4 for completeness.
This slightly expanded wording covers such things as rustling sweet or crisp wrappers etc.
The deputy ONLY has the right to claim a foul, (i.e. not detected by the referee) to prevent the striker from continuing unchecked. Having done so, all subsequent decisions await the return of the absent player.
Q. In the deciding frame of a match, player A pots the final red which puts him 29 ahead with only 27 on the table. Player B offers his hand as a concession, which is accepted. However, the cue-ball is still moving and enters a pocket. What is the decision?
A. The game has already been conceded so the concession would stand.
The main reason for this is to protect the Striker’s right to continue a break well beyond “Frame Ball” if he (a) feels he needs the practice or (b) stands to win a “Highest Break” prize. Similarly, if the opponent chooses to pot the last few balls to exercise his cue arm in readiness for the next frame, he is perfectly entitled to do so.
Now stipulates that a player may not concede a frame if there are sufficient points on the table for him to win. If a player does concede in this manner, rule 4.1.a.iv/v applies and the player must be warned that a second offence will result in the loss of a frame.
“Snookers” should almost certainly be ‘penalty points’ but, having set something of a precedent in 3.14.b.i and ii, it is a little surprising that the opportunity hasn’t been taken to be more exact. Having said that, this sort of concession happens very rarely.
Specialist pages at the back of this book contain in depth advice on various aspects of refereeing as developed over the years. The information they contain is purely advisory and attempts to lay down a blueprint for ‘Good Refereeing Practice’
Q. A player is in a sequence of potting red, black, red, black etc. When the referee spotted the black next time, the player checks and now sees that the black will not pass a red. When the referee removes his finger, the ball just slightly rolls off the spot, so as not to be able to be potted. Now, regardless of the fact that the referee probably incorrectly spotted the black in the previous occasions, what should happen next?
A. The referee’s decision is final, and therefore play should continue as long as the referee is satisfied that the ball is on the spot.
Q. With just one red left on the table and the difference in the scores being 33 points in favour of player A who believed that he could strike the final red by playing between the yellow and blue, but struck the yellow on the way through. The referee immediately called “foul and a miss” but the cue ball goes on and collided with the red which entered the pocket. Now player A is 29 up with 27 on the table. His opponent asks for the balls to be replaced which the referee duly does and brings the red back to the table. Was this the correct decision? There were two possible answers which were:
1. No Foul and a Miss should have been called because of the difference in scores.
2. Yes, it should be a Foul and a Miss because under these circumstances, player B is now at a distinct disadvantage by now requiring penalty points by an unfair (though not unlawful) manner.
The committee feel the referee acted appropriately in this instance. The decision by the committee is that a referee should refer to the Rules Section 5.1(a)(i), Page 30.
Is amended to allow the use of camera or video recordings to assist the referee. This will be seen mainly in matches which are being televised and balls are being replaced following a call of Foul and a Miss by the referee.
Recording has its own separate sheets at the back of this book together with a sample recording sheet.
Listed in greater detail under 3.19.b including advice to colour-blind players.
The inclusion of the following paragraphs may prevent misunderstanding. If someone were to consult the table of contents at the front of the Rule Book and find a section entitled “Assistance by Officials”, they should rightly expect that ALL instances of such assistance would be listed. They should not have to go off hunting through the rest of the book for others.
A player may be told, when “in hand”, whether or not the Cue Ball is “properly placed”. See 3.5.a.
Referees may advise players whether or not “balls not on” are touching although it has little bearing on the game. See 3.8.d.
A player may ask what balls the Referee intends to replace, if asked, following a call of Foul and a Miss. See 3.14.i.
Note - There are two good reasons why, particularly in public, the word ‘disabled’ should be used in preference to ‘handicapped’. There are, of course, open competitions where players are ‘handicapped’ according to their known performance and given ‘x’ points start over their more able opponents. These have nothing to do with physical disability but the second reason for using ‘disabled’ relates to the origins of the word ‘handicapped’ where those who were prevented from earning a living because of their disabilities were obliged to beg on the streets. This invariably involved them holding their ‘caps’ out in their ‘hands’ and the association can prove offensive to a more sensitive disabled person.