Transfer from Mid Sussex

[Sparky]

jock said:

And the mighty brewers stroll on!!!!

Another fine performance from the invigorated brewers team, good to see us competing for a change!!!

Graham Sparksman 1760 Trevor Rees 3220
Lorraine Hall 4140 Neil Burchell 1700
Colin Humphrey 1540 Geoff Fairs 450
Richard Jeffrey 3270 Chris Watson 2020
Andy FW 4020 Peter Burchell 180

A good night from the brewers point of view although it has to be said that the Greyhound lads had no luck what so ever on our top, where on the other hand we seemed to get it all! Sparky still struggled with his new 'home top' allowing Trev to take full advantage!! Mother Hall gave no quarter to a struggling Neil and noddy won his match with possibly the worst shot of the season, scores tied, noddy attempted the thin cross double to the 200 with red that was an inch or two off the right hand cushion, he got it all wrong and ploughed the white and then the black, leaving poor old Geoff with the red ball smack bang in front of the black peg, with enough air between red and black to slip a fag paper in. Geoff game fully tried to play the red but got too thick and black pegged, match to noddy!!! I didn't play particularly well, and Chris should have driven home his advantage, I lost the one up on my own top twice but managed to stay in front. AFW struggled to get going against Peter and was in danger of losing the tie until Peter managed the Greyhounds second black peg of the night to which Andy promptly took advantage off and killed the game off.

A good night as I say, but could have and maybe should have gone the other way, up until the black pegs those games were very close!!! Noddy undoubtedly wins the nights worst shot prize, but a wins a win as they say. The Greyhound lads took their defeat in good grace and full credit to them.

Brewers 4 Greyhound 1

[Sparky]

tommo said:

The 'incident' certainly sounds unfortunate, though not challengable as the rules stand.

You have raised a valid point though, TIR, and we could have done with you on our earlier discussions on the AEBBA Rules (see separate board exclusively for this.)

[Sparky]

q said:

Surely Geoff would have been better playing a 'miss' but then so could Colin and we would see the same thing throughout until the bar dropped.

Needs a rule

[Sparky]

nigels said:

q said:

Surely Geoff would have been better playing a 'miss' but then so could Colin and we would see the same thing throughout until the bar dropped.

Needs a rule

Surely it is the person who is behind that should attempt to clear the ball in question. If continuous misses are made then the person who is infront at the time will win, so he has not motive to move the offending ball.

[Sparky]

tir said:

I thought the scorer could call a deliberate miss or is that only at the end of the game.

[Sparky]

nigels said:

tir said:

I thought the scorer could call a deliberate miss or is that only at the end of the game.

This is AEBBA rule 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.

[Sparky]

tommo said:

True Nigel,

But I recall that when discussing it on the AEBBA Rules thread, it was pointed out that the wording is such that it only applies after the bar has gone. Which some of us thought odd.

As you say, the onus is on the player behind to 'do something' ie 'make the play' but then as Q says, in a situation where it is dangerous for either player it could go on like that for the rest of the game.

Definitely one that should be looked at amongst Sav's "What have we missed ?" items.

[Sparky]

nigels said:

I would have thought it is 'after the bar has gone' because a deliberately sunk ball without hitting another is not going to be able to be used by the opponent for scoring and therefore a bit unfair. During normal play though the ball will come back anyway.

If the score is close and the only ball on the table is touching the black peg then I can see a problem with how to proceed as neither player has an incentive to move the ball. How that is resolved by a ruling is very difficult as I am not sure forcing a player to attempt the offending ball is fair or realisitic (I am sure I could continue to miss a ball by a small margin each time if I wanted to).

[Sparky]

tommo said:

I think it needs a rule something like "if both players have failed three times each to make contact, the scorer will declare the frame void and the game will be re-started."
Much like a draw by repetition (stalemate) in Chess.

I believe such a rule exists in Snooker and Pool, where a re-rack is ordered.

Before you say that this disadvantages a player way out in the lead, he only has to touch a ball marginally once in three attempts to keep the frame alive. A reasonable challenge ?

[Sparky]

nigels said:

tommo said:

I think it needs a rule something like "if both players have failed three times each to make contact, the scorer will declare the frame void and the game will be re-started."
Much like a draw by repetition (stalemate) in Chess.

I think that would probably be ok. If someone was 10k down they could then deliberately miss the ball in the hope of a re rack. But if i was the one 10k in front I would just play a ball up the table and not pot it down a hole, if then my opponent deliberatly pots the next ball down a hole without contact I would simply hit the ball I had just left up to avoid the 3 misses in a row. Therefore you would be forcing the player with the lower score to make the play, as it should be.

If the scores are close both players could either leave balls up on the table to score from or miss three times and a re rack could be offered. Also we would need to make it clear whether a re rack should be offered or forced, if there is not long to go a re rack may not be appropriate, if over half the game remain a re rack may be the better option.

Not an easy one this, and fortunately very unlikely to ever come up as even if there is only one ball on the table and it is touching the black one player is normally in the ascendancy. However rules should cover every possibility, and strange things do happen on a bar billiard table!