Rule 32, Deliberate foul shot

[milko]

32. Deliberately foul shot.



If, after the bar has dropped, a player in the opinion of the scorer deliberately plays a ball directly into a hole without touching another ball, then the ball should be retrieved and the other player allowed to play it. Any additional coins required to do so should be provided by the player deemed to have played the foul.


Do the words deliberately foul shot mean just the rule stated above or every deliberate foul shot. I know it is not easy for the marker to decide what is a deliberate foul shot, but sometimes it can be blatantly obvious, as in the case of the Sussex Open a few years ago when someone decided to stop me getting the break back by deliberately rolling three balls to the baulk line without getting anywhere near the object ball.
So should this not be penalised in some way to stop this happening to someone else.?
Nobody took any notice when I complained on the day!!



Keith

[Chris_Sav]

I've had that done to me as well Keith, first of only two times I have ever blown my crust in a game!! (the other was over blatant time wasting in a final when I walked out).

The current rule only applies after the bar has dropped and I have never seen it applied, in fact hardly anyone knows of it (until now).

Its a valid point though

Deliberate foul shot;

It could be reworded to be handled the same way as in snooker, that the balls are placed back in their original position (throughout the game). It would need to cover the situation where a player is forced into playing a foul shot by having to play a shot where he knows he will peg to clear a difficult ball.

Sav

[Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.)]

You need a simple rule addition Keith, if a ball fails to reach an imaginary line drawn at a tangent to the Black Peg without hitting another ball then it is end of break and the ball is returned to the next player, this will apply throughout the game.
This also stops a player rolling a ball up and resting on or near the Black Peg.

sav said:

It could be reworded to be handled the same way as in snooker, that the balls are placed back in their original position (throughout the game).

Agree that it should be handled thus as a "deliberate miss" (cf. Snooker).

I don't think you need to quantify it other than by using the words "in the opinion of the referee/marker".

[Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.)]

I am a little confused (nothing new then), if we dont quantify it, it then becomes a rule that is interpreted by the scorer and that is risky and asks for inconsistentcy from them. For example how many times can it be done or can they keep playing and 'missing' until the bar drops?

I thought the whole purpose of the rule changes is to bring them up to date but also take out any inconsistantcy errors that could be made by a scorer. I feel we need a set of rules that is a black and white ruling so there is no guesswork. IMO if a rule cannot be clear it should not be there.

I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this one, KP.
It is virtually impossible to quantify all the possibilities of how to offend in such a way.

I prefer to keep the rules as clear and concise as possible: That way a self-respecting scorer can quote key parts of the wordings with a certain authority. Saves scuttling off for a set of rules to look at at the slightest hint of a misdemeanor. ;)

[milko]

kpringle said:

You need a simple rule addition Keith, if a ball fails to reach an imaginary line drawn at a tangent to the Black Peg without hitting another ball then it is end of break and the ball is returned to the next player, this will apply throughout the game.
This also stops a player rolling a ball up and resting on or near the Black Peg.

Kevin, as you may know this same rule was brought into the Oxford League in the 1980s, as a player named Mick Bostock (George Littlemore) decided to do it to his opponent then.

[Chris_Sav]

We seem to be talking about two different potenetial rules here,

1) Not getting the ball past the black peg without hitting anything. Can someone give us the exact wording of the Oxford rule.

2) Deliberate miss in general.

My feeling is that 1) should be added.

2) Will be very difficult to legislate. One ball (or worse two) slap bang in front of and touching a peg is the most common one. You 'miss' close to it and your opponent pegs out and you are back on the table. However, you cannot risk multiple repeated misses by forcing the 'misser' to replay it repeatedly.

I certainly think that rule 32 as it stands should be extended throughout the game.

Sav.

Sav, forgive me if you find this a bit cheeky, but I find it necessary to quote your own quote back at you :

Remember, rules cannot be changed, my mandate is to officialise the current rules. The current rules must be committed to the rule book first. When that work is completed, discussion can start for proposals for rule changes at the next AGM.

The rule you want to adopt that KP and Milko quote above purely applies to Oxford from the sound of it, and if it hasn't been passed at an AGM can't be included.

Besides, not all counties want to be worried with sines, co-sines and tangents, and we certainly haven't heard of that one so far in these southern regions.

Agree with you that Rule 32 should be embellished/enhanced, so long as it doesn't deviate too far from what is accepted practice at the moment.

[Chris_Sav]

Cheers Tommo,

Not being cheeky!! (for once)

I also said (somewhere) that its obvious an EGM is going to be necessary.

The prototype rules have two sets of additions to them.

Green:- existing rule being clarified and can be adopted.

Red:- Rule change, needs EGM/AGM

I feel we should crack on and try for what we can whilst everyone is together at Bournemouth.

I'll give Dave Alder a ring and see what he thinks. The problem is we cannot legally (unlike the last one) call an EGM unless five counties call for it.

Sav.

[milko]

Sorry, it took me a long time to find an old rule book, we are also in the process of updating the rules.

The Oxford Rule

Fouls losing unregistered score.

(g) If the cueball fails to reach an imaginary line through the black peg and parallel with the top cushion and does not strike another ball, it will be taken out of play and the player loses his break. (This does not apply to the last ball of the game).

[Chris_Sav]

Thx Keith, that sounds good enough for me, I'll add that one, just leaves the deliberate miss rule for the rest of the table.

Sav

When you do add it make sure it's in red and not green, Sav. ;) ;)
Don't forget we already have these, which almost cover the soft shot miscued off the D.

27. Foul shots incurring loss of break score penalty.
C). Any ball returning over or obstructing the baulk line. A ball shall be deemed to be obstructing the baulk line if when viewed from directly above it obscures any part of the line. The ball should be returned to the rack.
D ). Any ball obstructing or hitting the "D". A ball shall be deemed to be obstructing the "D" if when viewed from directly above it obscures any part of the " D". The ball should be returned to the rack.
J). Knocking the cue ball off the "D" with the cue. The cue ball will not be considered to be in play until it is completely clear of the "D" and the baulk line as in rules 27c and 27d.

People are already well-aquainted with this wording, and talk of balls coming back if they don't go past level with the black peg is going to cause confusion - unless the topic receives an airing first to give everyone a chance to get to grips with what it all means.

[Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.)]

milko said:

... If the cueball fails to reach an imaginary line through the black peg and parallel with the top cushion and does not strike another ball, it will be taken out of play and the player loses his break. (This does not apply to the last ball of the game)....

Your wording is better than mine ;)

However I dont like the 'it will be taken out of play', would prefer to be 'it will be returned to the tray'. I feel someone being awkward about this, particularly after the bar has gone, could insist on the ball is now 'lost' stopping his opponent from scoring some more off it.

[Chris_Sav]

Done!!

Few people understand the ball accidentally leaving the "D" rule as it is!! A lot would foul shot it if it just dropped off the 'D' but was not completely clear of the 'D'. I certainly didn't until I got involved on this.

Sav.

[Chris_Sav]

I've added the Oxford rule, but no one seems in favour of extending the deliberate miss rule.

Last chance to post before I drop the idea.

[Sparky]

I agree about the Oxford rule (as amended)

I would like a more extensive 'deliberate foul' ruling but think it divisive if it is left to interpretation, which is only way I think this could be worded for clarity and to cover all occasions. Such an all encompassing rule would put enormous pressure on the scorer whose interpretation, required instantly, could decide the fate of crucial games. This could lead to bad judgements under pressure or deliberate manipulation by the unscrupulous (I regret to say it is possible). So I am undecided as to the best of these two inadequate choices.

[Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.)]

I am with you on this Graham, you cannot have rules which are down to the scorer to interpret how he/she feels fit. If it can't be a clear rule thenit should not be put in.
For example the new 'Oxford rule' as it is getting dubbed, could easily be clarrifed even further on the competition tables by actually having these marked with the line on the cloth as these will be used in the most important circumstances generally.
Leagues in conjunction with the table suppliers could decide if this was wanted or not.

kpringle said:

I am with you on this Graham, you cannot have rules which are down to the scorer to interpret how he/she feels fit. If it can't be a clear rule then it should not be put in.

Def. with you both on that one. There are situations where pure common sense is called for from the scorer and we shouldn't try to legislate that out of the game for obvious reasons: We could end up with something like the off-side rule in football. ::)

[Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.)]

I can't remember if there is a rule on this, but maybe there should be if there isn't.
'Whether at League, Competitions, National or Internationals a competent scorer should be used.'

I can understand the organisers problems in Opens getting people to score games, however it is important that the person scoring is aware of the rules and can count, there are a lot at league level who cannot !

[Sparky]

Mmmm....we are almost drifting onto another topic when discussing the competence of scorers as that, logically, affects the whole game not just this particular rule but in this context will require, perhaps, the very best from any scorer to know the rules, to recognise the offence, to have the guts to do something about it and to make the right decision...all based on the principle of that scorer being knowledgeable, experienced, honest, unbiased and unflustered....that is possible from some or even many but not from all scorers.