Snooker ruling question

[The Camel]

Saw something at the World Championship which reminded me of a big argument back in the days when I played snooker.

I was 32 behind in a frame with 1 red remaining.

My opponent was a temperamental fellow and tried to trickle the tricky last red into the corner pocket.

It wobbled in the jaws but somehow didn't drop.

He banged the rail hard in frustration.

But the tremor from his temper tantrum caused the red to drop into the pocket.

Ruling?

A four point foul would leave me requiring a snooker, which seemed ridiculously unfair.

Replace the red?

Call it a pot?

Concede the frame?

I really didn't know what the fairest ruling was.

Any ideas?

[outragous76]

i want to say forfeit frame but doubt it is

[Micko]

I think you would be awarded the foul of four points and the red respotted over the pocket.

[outragous76]

from rules of snooker

Illegally Potted Ball: Reds illegally potted are not spotted; they remain off the table. Colors illegally potted are spotted. (See Spotting Balls.)

[The Camel]

from rules of snooker

Illegally Potted Ball: Reds illegally potted are not spotted; they remain off the table. Colors illegally potted are spotted. (See Spotting Balls.)

Must be some rule about gentlemanly conduct which supercedes this, because otherwise when a player was 32-35 up with 1 red remaining, he could just pick the red ball up and put in a pocket and his opponent would need a snooker.

[BorntoBubble]

Im wanting to say forfeit frame.

I wonder what i would say if say he tripped over the table and the red fell in. My feelings would be different then. Probably foul and replace.

Is there any option for you to have a "free ball" and shoot at any color? could this happen?

[lucky_scrote]

If the red ball sits over the pockets and doesn't drop then the ruling is that if it drops after a certain amount of time (perhaps a few seconds) then it is just replaced.

In this scenario it's tricky, there needs to be something in the rulebook to answer this one specifically.

[The Camel]

If the red ball sits over the pockets and doesn't drop then the ruling is that if it drops after a certain amount of time (perhaps a few seconds) then it is just replaced.

In this scenario it's tricky, there needs to be something in the rulebook to answer this one specifically.

I didn't know this rule, suggests the red should be replaced in this instance, possibly with a foul declared too.

We actually just replaced the red - after a big argument when I said I was refusing to play on if it was just a 4 point foul which he said he should be.

[buzzharvey22]

whatever the ruling is, you need to make sure you give him the old "does your husband play?"

classic

[Cf]

Forfeit frame surely.

Just had a look and found this...

SECTION 4 THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
(a) In the event of:
(i) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the
selection of a stroke; or
(ii) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is
wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(iii) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to
ungentlemanly conduct; or
(iv) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(v) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the
frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(vi) award the frame to his opponent; or
(vii) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious, award the
game to his opponent.

[tikay]

Forfeit frame surely.

Just had a look and found this...

SECTION 4 THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
(a) In the event of:
(i) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the
selection of a stroke; or
(ii) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is
wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(iii) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to
ungentlemanly conduct; or
(iv) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(v) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the
frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(vi) award the frame to his opponent; or
(vii) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious, award the
game to his opponent.

Not for me, no.

It was NOT, as described, "ungentlemanly conduct", or even deliberate.

This is what Keith wrote.....


He banged the rail hard in frustration.

But the tremor from his temper tantrum caused the red to drop into the pocket.

From that, it was just unfortunate, not intentional, not poor conduct. Unfortunate for Keith, too, but hardly deliberate, or ungentlemanly conduct.

A better solution is needed, because obviously, in these circumstances, it put Keith at a disadvantage. But it needs to be the right ruling.

[Marky147]

Pretty sure the ball just comes back up, and hopefully you clear up for his petulance

Checked with dad and it does.

[tikay]

Pretty sure the ball just comes back up, and hopefully you clear up for his petulance

Agreed. That would be the common-sense ruling, but "petulance" is a little harsh I think, the bloke was just a bit frustrated at his miss, it was not an unreasonable thing to do. You'd probably get frustrated if you were playing a hustler......

[Cf]

Forfeit frame surely.

Just had a look and found this...

SECTION 4 THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
(a) In the event of:
(i) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the
selection of a stroke; or
(ii) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is
wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(iii) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to
ungentlemanly conduct; or
(iv) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(v) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the
frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(vi) award the frame to his opponent; or
(vii) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious, award the
game to his opponent.

Not for me, no.

It was NOT, as described, "ungentlemanly conduct", or even deliberate.

This is what Keith wrote.....


He banged the rail hard in frustration.

But the tremor from his temper tantrum caused the red to drop into the pocket.

From that, it was just unfortunate, not intentional, not poor conduct. Unfortunate for Keith, too, but hardly deliberate, or ungentlemanly conduct.

A better solution is needed, because obviously, in these circumstances, it put Keith at a disadvantage. But it needs to be the right ruling.

I agree with the first two but I'd classify this as poor conduct personally.

If the rules allow it then yes just replace the red. Otherwise I just wouldn't like to see what I consider poor conduct result in an advantage.

[DungBeetle]

"after a big argument when I said I was refusing to play on if it was just a 4 point foul which he said he should be."

Take it there were a couple of shekels on this frame Camel?