Interesting 'foul'

[barbelman]

Dear all

In the recent Witney B v. Portsmouth game an interesting quandary arose. Alan Chalenor was on the break and he missed the ball completely on the break shot (it was subsequently found that his tip was falling off) and this left the red ball on the spot. Paul Laithwaite absent mindedly (and probably mistakenly) picked up the red ball and replaced it on the break spot whereupon the chalker called foul and Paul's break was over. Paul questioned this and in the ensuing discussion it was accepted that Paul had fouled but time was then against Alan beating him and Witney took the point.

Paul's point was that the ball was not live as it had not been struck by another ball so he was allowed to touch it. In the rare situations where this happens we tend to just play the ball and carry on as normal but thinking about it...
1 Was the ball 'live' and playable? Is it only in play after it has been struck and as such be returned?
2 Should it have been returned to the tray (effectively what happened when Paul respotted the ball) under AEBBA rule 27o which reads "Rule 27 O) If the cue ball 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 returned to the tray and the player loses his break. (this does not apply to the last ball of the game)." But this only refers to the cue ball.
3 was the chalker right (under what rule?) to foul Paul's actions..
4 Do we need a new rule!! :D

What do the panel think? Discuss....

cheers
Tony

AEBBA Playing Rule 31 states thus:

31. If the balls are disturbed in any way other than in the normal course of play, then the scorer should replace the balls in what he/she considers to be their original positions and play should continue. If, in the opinion of the scorer, a ball on the edge of the hole falls due to any accidental or deliberate table movement by the player, that the ball be replaced and will not count and the break will end.

My view is that a player's break starts with the cueball on the D, and we know that there are penalties for miscueing from here.

What you described is a dead ball situation, ie before the player has started his 'go'. If I had been the scorer I would have said "Ahh ah ah, put that back immediately" and let him proceed. Otherwise he is being penalised immediately after the opponent's foul !

My angle - what do others think ?

[iang]

I would tend to agree with Tommo the red ball should stay where it is & the next player is entilted to hit that ball I would have told them to leave it where it is.

[Mark James]

I don't agree with tommo's view above. I believe that the incoming player has committed a foul by handling a live ball in play (I'm assuming here that this was not the second break of an even break game, in which case it would not have been a foul).

Player A has commenced the game with his break, which has come to an end following the foul shot of missing the ball. Player B comes to the table, and should play from whatever position has been left. If the ball that had been missed were anywhere else on the table, the idea that it could be handled would not be entertained for an instant, it's no different just because it happens to be sat on the red spot.

The other interesting aspect of this situation is that the incoming player could have legitimately potted both balls 4 times in succession, and this would not have been a foul. Because the first such shot would not have been classified as a break shot, it would have been a shot at a ball in open play which just happened to be sat on the red spot.

.......and I in turn beg to disagree with Mark. ;)
The whole crux of whether or not a penalty should be applied relies on the scorer's opinion as to whether a ball (or peg) has been deliberately handled: In the case in question the second player could have been said to have picked the ball up purely 'by accident'.

I do however agree with your last sentence that the second player could legitimately pot both balls 4 times in succession, although that has no real bearing on the debate above.

[Q]

I think that Mark has got it spot on apart from one thing..
I'm presuming that when the ball was missed the white ball also stayed on the table, the red ball was picked up and played onto the white so the scenario of 4 breaks couldn't happen. :P

But definately a foul.

From reading Barbelman's report of the scenario I don't think the scorer gave the second player the chance to attempt a shot, Q.

[Mark James]

Apr 28, 2010 22:49:19 GMT tommo III said:

The whole crux of whether or not a penalty should be applied relies on the scorer's opinion as to whether a ball (or peg) has been deliberately handled: In the case in question the second player could have been said to have picked the ball up purely 'by accident'.

I agree that whether or not handling/disturbing is intentional is relevant in determining whether or not a foul has been committed, but cannot see how an instance such as this could be interpreted as "accidental".

Surely the concept of unintentional interference is to cover such occurrences as (for example) the player being jostled by a passer-by so that hand or cue inadvertently touch a ball or peg.

Reaching out with the hand to adjust the position of a ball sat on the red-spot might be judged unthinking, but I'm hard-pressed to see how it could be classed as accidental.

[milhouse]

I agree with Mark, it is a foul, plain and simple!

[BB Warrior]

Apr 29, 2010 7:36:27 GMT milhouse said:

I agree with Mark, it is a foul, plain and simple!

I agree with both Mark's...... a player would never pick up a ball and then replace it before a shot anywhere else on the table, why should a ball that happens to be on the red spot be treated differently..... the scorer was correct to call a foul.

Guy's, you've now convinced me.

Disturbing the table as a prelude to a shot could be classed as deliberate, and absent-mindedness would be no mitigation: the same way as it's a foul if you play the red and white round the wrong way on the break. (A Singles final was once lost by Trevor Trevett doing just that, although of course it wasn't intentional!)

[bigjimsilverfox]

I had the misfortune of handling a live ball some years back in the Redhill League! I thought that the ball near the "D" had rolled back onto the playing surface so I reached out to retrieve it! The scorer called foul replaced the ball and my opponent who had not been watching did exactly the same ::) So it ended up back in the same position for me to play!

I always ask the scorer now if I do not see how the balls finished before playing!!

[Chris_Sav]

Had a busy week so not had time to enter this debate.

The general opinion is that this was a foul.

Can anyone justify this by explaining

1) Exactly what AEBBA rule has been broken to call a foul please?

2) Why this does not come under the heading of rule 31 of the balls being disturbed in any way other than the normal course of play.

My opinion is that what we may logically consider a foul may not be under the rule book we play by and must adhere to,

Sav.

Sav,

Your impression seems to be that there is a 'grey area' here which could do with clarification within the AEBBA rules as regards:

a) what constitutes an unintentional/accidental act;
b) at what stage does 'mishandling' become deliberate;
c) at what stage does a ball become 'live' ie when does a player's break actually start - before or after he has struck a ball ?

Something purposeful for the 2010 AGM to discuss ? ;)

[vinny]

............ and if a chicken was to run across the table, that would definitely be a foul ;D