Snooker ruling question

[Karabiner]

I vaguely remember hearing about an "Ascot Fats" who was a snooker and quiz-machine hustler to be reckoned with a few years back.

Red ball replaced and no penalty imo.

[tikay]

!

[Simon Galloway]

Many years ago (ldo) I remember watching a frame where Alex Higgins took a swipe at the cue ball as it was rolling towards him in frustration at a bad shot and scattered a near full table of balls.  The ref asked him if he wanted to concede, Higgins replied "no" and the ref made a fist of replacing the table as it was for a four point penalty.

On that occasion, I felt like that was ungentlemanly conduct and he should have forefeited the frame if there is any element of the rulebook that gave the ref the discretion to do so.

In Keith's example, I guess it is unlucky if there wasn't an obvious attempt to encourage the red to drop. 

[Karabiner]

^^^

Alex was a bit of a devil.

I distincly remember him getting down to play a shot close to the black cushion and when he realised it was dead straight asked the ref. to clean the white ball.

It was obvious to me at the time that he only did that because he was hoping for a slight angle when it was replaced.

[Young_gun]

Only just seen this pretty sure if its not done deliberately then the red stays down and a foul is given 4 away, although its harsh still

[I KNOW IT]

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......

Was the opponent you by any chance tikay? 

[Marky147]

Only just seen this pretty sure if its not done deliberately then the red stays down and a foul is given 4 away, although its harsh still

Ball just comes back up mate, no foul given.