Post a reply

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby Andre147

Can I answer number 1?

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

mick745 wrote:Can it be a foul and miss if there are only two reds left and difference of 49? The miss rule wouldnt apply would it?


You are correct Mick for most circumstances. However, AlfGit did specify the Rule Set in use in 2020 (which I am not a particularly strong fan of by the way). Under previous Rule Sets, FAAM would not be called in this circumstance. And even today, FAAM will still not normally be called. But by the recent revision of the Rules, the Referee MAY call a FAAM even with this score difference if the fouling player in the Referee's opinion did not make a genuine effort to make a fair stroke.

Edit: After just a little more thought, I realized that this could still be a FAAM situation even under the old Rules. To thumbnail the "old" Rule.....a FAAM will NOT be called if a Player cannot WIN the frame with balls available on the table either BEFORE or AFTER the stroke is played. So think about it......BEFORE Player A had the initial miss, he had a colour and two more Reds available, i.e. up to 50 points; that is plenty. AFTER the initial miss, the point difference was 49 points and Player A if balls were replaced had 50 POINTS available......still enough to win the frame from that position without requiring snookers/penalties. Obviously, because the break ended up being 50.
Last edited by acesinc on 25 Mar 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby mick745

I think i remember a situation when Ronnie was about 90 points ahead in a frame (may have been v Holt) and his opponent didnt concede. Ronnie starts messing around, hitting the wrong ball, making no attempt to play properly and Alan Chamberlain called a foul and miss?

If i'm remembering this correctly anyway.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby mick745

So player is on a break, pots third last red, snookers himself on the pink nominates pink anyway, misses it and is called for foul and miss as didnt make genuine attempt to hit the ball.

Balls replaced. Decides to play a different shot, say black, pots it, last two reds and colours then six colours at end, break of 50?

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

mick745 wrote:So player is on a break, pots third last red, snookers himself on the pink nominates pink anyway, misses it and is called for foul and miss as didnt make genuine attempt to hit the ball.

Balls replaced. Decides to play a different shot, say black, pots it, last two reds and colours then six colours at end, break of 50?


That sounds correct to me but Andre seems antsy to get involved so perhaps I am overlooking something and maybe there is a different answer....

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby Andre147

mick745 wrote:So player is on a break, pots third last red, snookers himself on the pink nominates pink anyway, misses it and is called for foul and miss as didnt make genuine attempt to hit the ball.

Balls replaced. Decides to play a different shot, say black, pots it, last two reds and colours then six colours at end, break of 50?


Correct!

I was going to answer but you obviously have figured it out!

If no genuine attempt has been made to hit the ball on, the referee shall always call "miss" regardless of the frame difference. In this instance, he would declare "black" after the first attempt and actually pot it, so he would now be on a break of 7, and then would pot last 2 reds with blacks, plus the colors, making a break of 50.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby Iranu

Andre147 wrote:
mick745 wrote:So player is on a break, pots third last red, snookers himself on the pink nominates pink anyway, misses it and is called for foul and miss as didnt make genuine attempt to hit the ball.

Balls replaced. Decides to play a different shot, say black, pots it, last two reds and colours then six colours at end, break of 50?


Correct!

I was going to answer but you obviously have figured it out!

If no genuine attempt has been made to hit the ball on, the referee shall always call "miss" regardless of the frame difference. In this instance, he would declare "black" after the first attempt and actually pot it, so he would now be on a break of 7, and then would pot last 2 reds with blacks, plus the colors, making a break of 50.

That’s mental

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

mick745 wrote:I think i remember a situation when Ronnie was about 90 points ahead in a frame (may have been v Holt) and his opponent didnt concede. Ronnie starts messing around, hitting the wrong ball, making no attempt to play properly and Alan Chamberlain called a foul and miss?

If i'm remembering this correctly anyway.


I remember seeing that as well and I also have Michael Holt and Alan Chamberlain in mind. I am not sure about the FAAM being called, maybe, maybe not, but I do know that Alan gave Ronnie a warning about proper play. Having fun and being cheeky is one thing, but messing around like that is not worth losing the frame. So Ronnie had to settle down and "play nice".

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

Prop wrote:Question 2:

In potting the red, you play a push shot. Ref calls foul. Black is half a ball width off its spot, and obscuring another red which is the last red and only ball on for your opponent. Ref uses the red you’ve just potted to aid in determining whether your opponent can see both sides of the other red, and whether to award a free ball to your opponent, by placing it alongside the obscuring black (and by chance exactly on the black spot).

No way that’s right but I like these riddles!!!


A very creative answer, but for the purposes of the question, the red stays on the table and is in play.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

acesinc wrote:Hi all, and Welcome AlfGit!

I am on the case...............


Thank you for the welcome, and for your thorough analysis. Wow!

All I want to say for now is that you have some great insights. :bowdown:

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

acesinc wrote:
Edit: After just a little more thought, I realized that this could still be a FAAM situation even under the old Rules. To thumbnail the "old" Rule.....a FAAM will NOT be called if a Player cannot WIN the frame with balls available on the table either BEFORE or AFTER the stroke is played. So think about it......BEFORE Player A had the initial miss, he had a colour and two more Reds available, i.e. up to 50 points; that is plenty. AFTER the initial miss, the point difference was 49 points and Player A if balls were replaced had 50 POINTS available......still enough to win the frame from that position without requiring snookers/penalties. Obviously, because the break ended up being 50.


Are you saying that the referee has to assume the opponent will have the balls replaced after the penalty? Surely, that cannot be the case, especially because in that scenario there does not seem to be any incentive for the opponent to do so.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

AlfGit wrote:
acesinc wrote:Hi all, and Welcome AlfGit!

I am on the case...............


Thank you for the welcome, and for your thorough analysis. Wow!

All I want to say for now is that you have some great insights. :bowdown:



And all I want to say is.......High Break of 92? If you EVER come stateside to the Chicago area, you must set aside at least a day for a long session at ACES Snooker. I have only ever played a handful of players with the capacity to run a century (or at least very near in your case) and I relish the opportunity on the rare occasion when it arises. More to follow...


AlfGit wrote:
acesinc wrote:
Edit: After just a little more thought, I realized that this could still be a FAAM situation even under the old Rules. To thumbnail the "old" Rule.....a FAAM will NOT be called if a Player cannot WIN the frame with balls available on the table either BEFORE or AFTER the stroke is played. So think about it......BEFORE Player A had the initial miss, he had a colour and two more Reds available, i.e. up to 50 points; that is plenty. AFTER the initial miss, the point difference was 49 points and Player A if balls were replaced had 50 POINTS available......still enough to win the frame from that position without requiring snookers/penalties. Obviously, because the break ended up being 50.


Are you saying that the referee has to assume the opponent will have the balls replaced after the penalty? Surely, that cannot be the case, especially because in that scenario there does not seem to be any incentive for the opponent to do so.


Good morning AlfGit. Morning to me anyway as I am a Yank as you just found out. As it is now Friday, I do have some time today to give you a proper response. You already know that I tend to be long winded in my posts and I expect that my response to this query will be so as well so I will return some time later today with a proper answer. I may open up several more cans of worms in the process.

Also, I am still considering scenario 2); it's a doozy. As it does seem that you are deliberate in your terminology ("potting" is only applicable to a fair stroke) and you have not acknowledged as correct any of the previous posts speculating that the Red was pocketed on a foul stroke and returned to its previous position which just happened to be on or very, very near the Black Spot, I am assuming this question is still open. It will continue to gnaw at the back of my head for a bit yet.

I will return with a proper response soon...

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

acesinc wrote:And all I want to say is.......High Break of 92? If you EVER come stateside to the Chicago area, you must set aside at least a day for a long session at ACES Snooker. I have only ever played a handful of players with the capacity to run a century (or at least very near in your case) and I relish the opportunity on the rare occasion when it arises. More to follow...


Thank you for the kind invitation. My 92 was in 1995! There was one red left and I ended high on it. I tried to roll it in dead-weight to hold for the black for the century, but I underhit it slightly and left it hanging over the pocket. I should have made sure of the red and taken my chances with the pink or blue to yellow. It has been about 5 years now since I have made a 50, but I will certainly remember your offer if I get down your way any time.

acesinc wrote:Good morning AlfGit. Morning to me anyway as I am a Yank as you just found out. As it is now Friday, I do have some time today to give you a proper response. You already know that I tend to be long winded in my posts and I expect that my response to this query will be so as well so I will return some time later today with a proper answer. I may open up several more cans of worms in the process.

Also, I am still considering scenario 2); it's a doozy. As it does seem that you are deliberate in your terminology ("potting" is only applicable to a fair stroke) and you have not acknowledged as correct any of the previous posts speculating that the Red was pocketed on a foul stroke and returned to its previous position which just happened to be on or very, very near the Black Spot, I am assuming this question is still open. It will continue to gnaw at the back of my head for a bit yet.

I will return with a proper response soon...


I will end the misery and tell you that you did get it. I was wrong to say 'pot'. :emb:

I will post a full explanation shortly, and you will see that my mistake was even more unfortunate now I know that you are American.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

AlfquGit wrote:Are you saying that the referee has to assume the opponent will have the balls replaced after the penalty? Surely, that cannot be the case, especially because in that scenario there does not seem to be any incentive for the opponent to do so.


I will start with this (but will probably ramble off in several other directions in time, as I am wont to do), ......

You may heard a phrase in the past something like, "In following the Spirit of the Law, one didn't follow the Letter of the Law." I believe this is such a case. That is not to say that a Referee would or should call Foul and a Miss in this instance, but that he or she could call FAAM.

Myself, I still play by the Rules of 2014, prior to this most recent revision. Most everything is the same of course, but in several respects, I believe the Rules of 2019 are a step backward. Putting that aside though, let's look at the Spirit of the FAAM rule and possibly look at its precise wording and what those words actually mean.

The first misconception that spectators of the game seem to have is that FAAM is a relatively "new" rule. (To us old timers, the early 1990's is still "recent history".) In fact the Rule has been in place for a very, very long time. It has been called by various names and has been implemented differently over the years and decades, but in fact the Spirit of the FAAM rule can be seen in a Rule Set that I once found as far back as the late 1800's. That is not a typo....1800's. But in the early 1990's the Rule changed as to how it would be implemented and that created some unintended problems for which (unsuccessful in my opinion) attempts have been made to correct ever since.

So let's talk about the Spirit of this Rule as it applies to your query above. The reason this Rule is applied in the first place is that because over time, it eventually dawned on players of the Game that sometimes it is advantageous to purposely accept a foul and penalty rather than playing a proper, fair stroke which may have a more disastrous result than the few points lost to a foul stroke. This way of thinking completely annihilates the Prime Directive of the FAAM rule, that being, "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on." So over time, discretion has been gradually taken away from the Referee and calling FAAM has now become more objective than subjective. This concept of "objective rather than subjective" is good but the manner in which it has been implemented within the Rules so far is terrible.

Trying to stick with the subject matter at hand, let's reference the specific rule then from the "old" Rules (2014), Section 3, Rule 14., Foul and a Miss:
---------------------
".......
(b) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS, unless:
(i) any player needed penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke being played; (see (b) (ii))
(ii) before or after the stroke, the points available on the table are equal to the points difference excluding the value of the re-spotted black; ......"
---------------------

Rule books in general are not light, easy reading. The words don't roll off the tongue. Like "legal-speak", the words written attempt to be precise and perfectly clear, but often end up a difficult, tangled mess that can be easily incorrectly interpreted. And I freely admit that my own interpretations of the written words of the Rules may well occasionally be incorrect. No matter how many times you read that passage up there, it may never make itself clear in your head. It is still not perfectly clear in my own head so when I am faced with such confusion about the wording of a Rule, I try to look at precedence of how I have witnessed the Rule applied at the professional level in order to come up with my own wording of the rule so that it is easier for me to remember. And so for this particular rule, the FAAM, I think to myself, "If EITHER player requires snooker penalty points in order to WIN the frame whether BEFORE OR AFTER the foul stroke, then a Miss will NOT be called (under normal circumstances)." Even my simplified version there comes with qualifiers and isn't perfectly clear by any means. And it is probably not exactly correct....it is just my own interpretation to help me keep the Rule organized when I am faced with a qualifying situation in a frame with someone. So to break down my own interpretation, it is two parts; let's deal with the second part first.

"(Under normal circumstances)"......this means that (at the Professional level at least), FAAM may possibly be called anytime, anywhere, by any Referee IF that Referee is under the impression that the player INTENTIONALLY and PURPOSEFULLY played a Miss stroke. Why would a player do that? As stated above, players over time learned the hard way that it may sometimes be better to leave balls undisturbed and give the opponent penalty points rather than playing a fair stroke, and opening up balls for the opponent to possibly pot and win. So if a Referee interprets a situation this way, he or she can AND SHOULD call Foul and a Miss no matter the frame situation, no what the current score may be.

As for the first part of my "simplified" rule, I won't go into too much detail as that would defeat the point of "simplified", but in essence it states that as long as either player is capable of WINNING the frame utilizing ONLY the value of the points of the balls remaining on the table, then we are DEFINITELY in a circumstance in which FAAM can and should be called.

And there, in a nutshell, you have it. Your posited scenario falls exactly under the scenario of the above paragraph. Granted, that above paragraph is based on my own "simplified" interpretation of the Rule and I freely admit the possibility that my interpretation has flaws, but IF the paragraph above is correct, then yes, whether old Rules or new, FAAM should be called in this case.

We have only speculated non-specific situations so far so let me posit a very specific situation. If we were standing and talking at a snooker table, I would just set up balls for you and it would be obvious, but due to current social distancing guidelines keeping us at the moment probably thousands of miles apart, I will need instead to give you some tedious description of the table situation. I will make it as simple and painless as possible:

All colours except Black resting on their own spot. Black ball is very near the jaws of one of its natural pockets, let's say it is about 3 inches out from the exact center of the drop of the Top Right pocket (that is the Black pocket on the Yellow side of the table for any not familiar with common Billiards Table anatomy descriptions). The third to last Red has been potted by Player A and the White comes to rest exactly mid point between the Pink Spot and the Black Spot. The two remaining Reds set on either side quite close to the White so that the White is snookered on every colour. Referee requests Player A to declare which colour he is on. The current score is Player A 1, Player B 46. With this description, the table and frame situation should be crystal clear.

Player A, fully snookered, might declare any colour since none of them will be simple to contact. The Black is probably the easiest to contact because it is close, straightforward angle and close to a cushion creating a "big ball" effect. However, a foul would mean seven penalty points rather than four and the Black being so close to the pocket means the White may easily go in off. Player A thinks, and thinks, and thinks some more. For a full six minutes (a la some unnamed mentor), Player A ponders his situation and finally declares "Yellow" and crouches to strike. Cue is pointed at the Green side Black end cushion, Player A just strikes gently and rolls the White to contact the nearest side cushion, thus avoiding a Free Ball situation (a strong possibility had he played the White into Baulk) but also blocking the possibility of his opponent potting a Red as the Black ball is still blocking the natural pocket of either Red.

The Referee can AND SHOULD call Foul and a Miss, four points away. The Ref is not obliged to say why he called FAAM, but it could have been for either or both of two reasons: 1) Player A's intent was clear; he never endeavoured to contact the Yellow and at the same time, he was purposefully avoiding leaving a Free Ball for his opponent. and 2) There really truly are enough points on the table still for Player A to win the frame in the event of a Foul and a Miss.

I think you are correct though that the Referee would call FAAM for reason # 1 more so than reason # 2. If Black was sitting on its spot rather than the jaws of the pocket, perhaps the Ref would not call the Miss at all, especially if Player A tactfully made his stroke appear to be a miscue and also still managed to avoid leaving a pot on or a Free Ball situation. In fact, Player B would probably be a fool if he had the balls replaced in any case. The now current score of 50-1 means that not only one, but in fact likely TWO penalties will be required for Player A to win if Player B chooses NOT to replace and simply allows the frame to advance. With the Black sitting so close to the pocket, we now all know that there is quite a good possibility that it might just pot and it might just leave White well positioned on one of the Reds to continue on for the clearance.

So after writing and reading through all this mumbo jumbo, the short answer is most likely, "They never thought of that when they were actually writing down the Rules." And I will also add that at the Professional level, it is very rare for a player to put himself or herself into a "snookered" situation as is required in this scenario. Happens all the time among amateurs of course. While it is clearly possible for a striker's break to begin with pot of colour then followed by pot of Red, I don't believe I have ever actually witnessed it to happen myself at any level. I would be interested to know if ANYONE reading this (either of you two :-D ) has ever seen this happen ever.

And that I think is going to bring me to my next post which will be an effort (though probably incorrect) of answering your quiz question # 2).

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

acesinc wrote:So after writing and reading through all this mumbo jumbo, the short answer is most likely, "They never thought of that when they were actually writing down the Rules." And I will also add that at the Professional level, it is very rare for a player to put himself or herself into a "snookered" situation as is required in this scenario. Happens all the time among amateurs of course. While it is clearly possible for a striker's break to begin with pot of colour then followed by pot of Red, I don't believe I have ever actually witnessed it to happen myself at any level. I would be interested to know if ANYONE reading this (either of you two :-D ) has ever seen this happen ever.

And that I think is going to bring me to my next post which will be an effort (though probably incorrect) of answering your quiz question # 2).


My only exposure to the professional game has been through TV (lots of it!), but I do not remember ever seeing a player blatantly foul to gain an advantage, even at the club. This is one thing I dislike about pool, where such behaviour is a normal part of the game (I still play pool with a snooker mentality). There have been many deliberate fouls for entertainment though. Back in the '80s, I remember Steve Davis landing fairly tight behind the blue with brown on. Instead of trying to escape, he took the rest out and potted the difficult blue into the yellow pocket. The frame was long since won, and he just wanted to keep potting!

I hope you did not miss my reply to your previous post. I am working on the follow-up.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

Thank you everyone for your interest. The riddles have been solved and it is clear that ACESINC had both even though I messed up a bit. <doh>

1: As several people said, you commit a foul-and-a-miss while playing the colour after the third-to-last red, and your opponent has the balls replaced. You then start your visit with the ball on being a colour which, if you choose the black and pot it and the remaining balls, allows you to score 50 points. I was hoping for an answer that did not say you were snookered on the colour though, because then the FAAM is at the discretion of the referee, and this is important because unless it is a blatantly deliberate foul, a miss will not given when the penalty leaves the player needing a snooker. However, if the player has a clear path to the centre of a ball on and fails to make contact, FAAM must be called, even if the player needs a snooker as a result of the penalty. So, in the right circumstances, it is possible to start a break with a colour even when there are reds still remaining. ACESINC and MICK745 got this one first, although I have no doubt that ANDRE147 knew it too.

2: I must apologise for inadvertently misleading people with my flawed wording. I am still kicking myself. Originally, I wrote ‘You come to the table and make a red’, and that would have been fine. Unfortunately, right at the last minute, I thought it sounded Americanised (I live in Canada), and I changed it to ‘pot a red’ without thinking about the consequences to the meaning. I realised very shortly after, but the post had to be approved so I could not edit it, and being 7 hours behind UK time, when I got back the next day it had been approved and there were already quite a few answers. I read ACESINC’s detailed response, and I knew he was right but if I changed the wording then, it would have made the solution obvious. Fortunately, CHENGDUFAN and DAN-CAT had earlier given the exact answer I was looking for. While on a red, you ‘pocket’ a red off the black spot after first making accidental contact with a colour, FAAM is called and your opponent has the balls put back. ACESINC clearly had the answer to this one too, and he did not commit to it only because of my poor wording. Also, kudos to ACESINC for picking up that I was careful not to say the red is ‘spotted’.

Here is some background to the questions. The basis of the first question came to me in a dream years ago. I was both a player and the referee (alright, my dreams are messed up!). I had played position for the black but ended up on the top cushion. I tried the very thin cut on the black and missed it altogether. FAAM, of course. The balls were put back but this time I decided that the cut was not on so I played a double to the middle and got it (I should have known then that I was dreaming). My problem was that as the referee, I did not immediately know how to call it and I woke up. Thinking about it awake, it seemed that it must be the case that you can start a break with a colour even if there are still reds left. I posted a message on alt.rec.snooker and received a reply from none other than Eirian Williams (using the handle TopRef). He not only confirmed that it was correct, but said that something similar had actually happened during the pre-televised stages of a tournament, only with the green ball instead.

The second question was inspired by an incident early in frame 3 of the O’Sullivan v Higgins Tour Championship match last Monday. Ronnie attempted a safety off the side of the pack but brushed the pink first and a red went into the top-left pocket. Brendan Moore immediately called FAAM. I do not remember ever seeing that happen before, but neither Alan McManus nor Dave Hendon on commentary even mentioned it. As it turned out, John Higgins did not ask to have the balls replaced, but if he had, the pocketed red would have been replaced too. The only other time a red can be put back in play is through the so-called vibration rule, but that would only put the red on the edge of a pocket, so I said the black spot to eliminate any possibility of the vibration rule being involved.

As another Mark Williams used to say, “I’ll get me coat.”

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby SnookerEd25

Yes, brilliant thread, and shows the level of intelligence we have on the island <ok> (when we can be bothered :chuckle:)

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

AlfGit wrote:....

I hope you did not miss my reply to your previous post. I am working on the follow-up.


Not at all. It's just that this has been a surprisingly busy Friday so I haven't had time to respond. I am often on the snooker table by now to start my early weekend.

First, fantastic back stories on your questions! Very interesting read. Second, I won't accept any credit for solving scenario 2); I believe others had already come up with that answer before I had even had a chance to read the original post. Still, I like SnookerEd's answer best, i.e., English Billiards, even though it was not the intended answer, but it is arguably the most accurate answer for the wording of the question.

Third, so you are a Canuck then, mere hundreds of miles away rather than thousands. Perchance we will meet one day then as I occasionally (not often but occasionally) travel up in the Toronto area if you happen to be around there.

Fourth, you did unwittingly answer my earlier query which you construed that I was asking about witnessing deliberate fouls. They used to happen all the time back in the 70's and 80's. "Professional misses". In fact, I was asking if anyone had witnessed, been involved in, or at least heard about some frame, somewhere, sometime in which a player began a break on a colour with Reds still remaining and you relayed a yarn from I think a very credible source in Eirian Williams. If it CAN happen, then at some point in space and time, it WILL happen.

And finally, despite you changing the rules of the quiz from the original wording of "potting" the Red and acceptance of the subsequent answer, I can indeed imagine a scenario outside English Billiards in which a red ball could in theory be "potted" and indeed it could also be "spotted" on the Black spot although you only require for it to be placed on the black spot. It is a wacky scenario and would certainly never, ever occur in the Professional Game but under the Rules of Snooker in place as of 2020, it could hypothetically happen. But you must keep an open mind because it is wacky. You have been warned.

To set the stage required, imagine a small, one table club (like mine!) playing the Club Championship. As funding is limited and suppliers are scarce, there is only one proper set of snooker balls available. (I have two good sets and a third really old set that could still be put to use if necessary.) So in this championship match, adequately refereed by one of the Rules knowledgeable members, one of the finalists is overly boisterous and goes Judd Trumpian on a Black ball stroke the force of which splits the ball quite cleanly into two major hemispheres and several smaller satellite chunks of debris. Uh-oh! What to do? There are no spare parts, how can the match continue?

There is an important catch all rule in Section 5. which basically gives the job description of the Referee and other officials for a match or tournament. It is scripted as follows:

"1. The Referee

(a) The referee shall:
(i) be the sole judge of fair and unfair play;
(ii) be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by these Rules;..."

....and a little bit more but that is the important part for what I will say here. The framers of the Rules of Snooker very early on recognized that unusual, unforeseen things were certain to happen at times in the course of frames, games, matches, and tournaments. And so, also early on in the documentation of the rules of the game, they empowered the simple match Referee with this major power of how to deal with a situation which falls outside common experience, which maybe has never, ever happened before on a snooker table. And to the best of my knowledge (feel free to chip in an official point of view here Andre), that Referee is the sole arbiter of the situation and will decide exactly how it will be handled. You may think, "But there is the tournament director, or there is this or that executive, or there is Lord Barry Hearn himself, or there is the ghost of Joe Davis wandering the halls. There must be a higher authority." As I said, to my knowledge, when something occurs and a decision must be made, the match referee has the authority. Now to be clear, he or she can gather information from wherever they wish to before making that decision. They may go to the TD, or they may disturb Barry Hearn on his mobile phone on his yacht, or they may hold a seance to summon up Joe Davis in order to best reflect on every opinion before making the decision. But in the end the match referee has the sole authority. It's in the Rules.

Now, back to our circumstance....remember our one and only tournament Black ball has split in half and is now unplayable. What will the referee decide? Seems obvious to me.....one of the already pocketed Reds will become the "Black" and remain so for all remaining frames. Any more frames to be played will simply be set with 14 Reds instead of 15. To differentiate this red ball is easily done. Since the dawn of Billiards and especially the Pool games, players have been marking balls when required with simple stain of some sort. Many of the old time games, each of the players would use their own cue balls so they would need to know whose was whose. That is how our Snooker colours of today originated......the various ivory white cue balls would be stained with the colours available at the time. Today, in this situation, we would not "stain" the red ball to make it actually black. All we need to do is put a little Sharpie dot or several on it to differentiate and we begin to call it the "Black". This is not unprecedented. In proper old time English Billiards, there are two cue balls used and both are white in colour. One of them is named White and the other is named Spot. And this is why I capitalize names when I am talking in Snooker parlance. A normal red ball in a frame of snooker is referred to as "Red" and the ball that is yellow in colour is named and called Yellow. So our new "Black" will actually be a red ball with one or more black dots on it. If a player needs to verbally declare that ball, the declaration will still be Black because that is its name. And when the red ball (not capitalized) is potted during the course of the frame, it will naturally be spotted precisely on the Black Spot because it is indeed the Black ball until such time as a new proper black ball can be acquired.

A second option the Referee would have to consider is to simply play the remaining frames with no Black ball at all. Personally, I don't like that option at all as it would change the texture of the Game of Snooker significantly. To play the game with 14 Reds wouldn't be a big deal.....frames are commonly played with 10, or 6, or even 3 Reds to start and the Game is still basically the same. But if there is no Black ball, I think it is a different game entirely, not Snooker anymore.

Sorry that is a stretch of the imagination but I think it does adequately match up to the question posed. :-D

Congratulations on a tremendous "opening break" of a thread.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

Dan-cat wrote:Who are you Alfgit? Did you get the Fast Show in Canada? Or are you from these fair shores? I have questions. <laugh>


<laugh>

I am originally from England, and still fly the flag whenever I can. You might tell from my refusal to use anything but British spelling!

I am pretty sure The Fast Show has been broadcast here, but I have never paid much attention to Canadian TV. The CRTC (Canadian TV regulators) allow channels 22 minutes per hour for commercials! It is painful to watch. BBC Canada is available, but even the programs we do get are usually a few years behind the UK. I moved to Canada in 1997, so I already knew The Fast Show from England.

Also, Alf Git was a character from Harry Enfield & Chums' 'The Old Gits'. In series 1, Paul Whitehouse was Alf Git and Harry Enfield was Fred Git. For some unknown reason it was the other way around from series 2 on.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby Prop

AlfGit wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Who are you Alfgit? Did you get the Fast Show in Canada? Or are you from these fair shores? I have questions. <laugh>


<laugh>

I am originally from England, and still fly the flag whenever I can. You might tell from my refusal to use anything but British spelling!

I am pretty sure The Fast Show has been broadcast here, but I have never paid much attention to Canadian TV. The CRTC (Canadian TV regulators) allow channels 22 minutes per hour for commercials! It is painful to watch. BBC Canada is available, but even the programs we do get are usually a few years behind the UK. I moved to Canada in 1997, so I already knew The Fast Show from England.

Also, Alf Git was a character from Harry Enfield & Chums' 'The Old Gits'. In series 1, Paul Whitehouse was Alf Git and Harry Enfield was Fred Git. For some unknown reason it was the other way around from series 2 on.


I remember those characters! Horrible nasty old men with yellow teeth (and you’d imagine stinking of beer and snake hiss) <laugh>

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

acesinc wrote:Still, I like SnookerEd's answer best, i.e., English Billiards, even though it was not the intended answer, but it is arguably the most accurate answer for the wording of the question.


I fully agree, and to be honest, I now wish it was my intended answer.

acesinc wrote:Third, so you are a Canuck then, mere hundreds of miles away rather than thousands. Perchance we will meet one day then as I occasionally (not often but occasionally) travel up in the Toronto area if you happen to be around there.


I am English, but I have lived here for over 23 years. According to Google, I am about 1,400 miles from Chicago. I am more inclined to visit Chicago now, knowing there is a snooker hall there. There is nothing around here that is worth playing on, and certainly no organised competitions. Pool is much bigger of course, and I play in a couple of leagues.

acesinc wrote:Fourth, you did unwittingly answer my earlier query which you construed that I was asking about witnessing deliberate fouls. They used to happen all the time back in the 70's and 80's. "Professional misses". In fact, I was asking if anyone had witnessed, been involved in, or at least heard about some frame, somewhere, sometime in which a player began a break on a colour with Reds still remaining and you relayed a yarn from I think a very credible source in Eirian Williams. If it CAN happen, then at some point in space and time, it WILL happen.


Oops! I am sorry about that. I thought I had read your comment carefully. Yes, the professional miss, when players would be warned for 'ungentlemanly conduct' and threatened with loss of frame if they did it again.

acesinc wrote:And finally, despite you changing the rules of the quiz from the original wording of "potting" the Red and acceptance of the subsequent answer, I can indeed imagine a scenario outside English Billiards in which a red ball could in theory be "potted" and indeed it could also be "spotted" on the Black spot although you only require for it to be placed on the black spot.


Another ingeniously contrived scenario. It reminds me of the old days in England, playing 8-ball on coin-op tables when someone accidentally knocked the black in early. To get your money's worth, you would have someone catch the next ball to go down, and use that as the black. The British pool tables more often had plain red and yellow balls rather than the US-style 'stars and stripes' which are numbered, so you had to pay close attention.

acesinc wrote:Sorry that is a stretch of the imagination but I think it does adequately match up to the question posed. :-D


I would not call it a stretch. In fact, I would bet it has happened far more often than starting a break on a colour! However, I cannot agree that it is a good match up to the question because it specified "You come to the table and pot a red". If the red is acting as the Black, it would not be your first shot.

Unless ...

No, that could NEVER happen!
Last edited by AlfGit on 28 Mar 2021, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

Prop wrote:
AlfGit wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Who are you Alfgit? Did you get the Fast Show in Canada? Or are you from these fair shores? I have questions. <laugh>


<laugh>

I am originally from England, and still fly the flag whenever I can. You might tell from my refusal to use anything but British spelling!

I am pretty sure The Fast Show has been broadcast here, but I have never paid much attention to Canadian TV. The CRTC (Canadian TV regulators) allow channels 22 minutes per hour for commercials! It is painful to watch. BBC Canada is available, but even the programs we do get are usually a few years behind the UK. I moved to Canada in 1997, so I already knew The Fast Show from England.

Also, Alf Git was a character from Harry Enfield & Chums' 'The Old Gits'. In series 1, Paul Whitehouse was Alf Git and Harry Enfield was Fred Git. For some unknown reason it was the other way around from series 2 on.


I remember those characters! Horrible nasty old men with yellow teeth (and you’d imagine stinking of beer and snake hiss) <laugh>


Err, none taken! <laugh>

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby AlfGit

acesinc wrote:So in this championship match, adequately refereed by one of the Rules knowledgeable members, one of the finalists is overly boisterous and goes Judd Trumpian on a Black ball stroke the force of which splits the ball quite cleanly into two major hemispheres and several smaller satellite chunks of debris.


Or it could be that you had Len Ganley refereeing and you chipped the ball and hit him in the groin with it. <laugh>

I am showing my age. :-(

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby mick745

AlfGit wrote:
acesinc wrote:So in this championship match, adequately refereed by one of the Rules knowledgeable members, one of the finalists is overly boisterous and goes Judd Trumpian on a Black ball stroke the force of which splits the ball quite cleanly into two major hemispheres and several smaller satellite chunks of debris.


Or it could be that you had Len Ganley refereeing and you chipped the ball and hit him in the groin with it. <laugh>

I am showing my age. :-(


Bet he drinks C....(oh never mind!)

Re: Rules Riddles

Postby acesinc

AlfGit wrote:...
I would not call it a stretch. In fact, I would bet it has happened far more often than starting a break on a colour! However, I cannot agree that it is a good match up to the question because it specified "You come to the table and pot a red". If the red is acting as the Black, it would not be your first shot.

Unless ...

No, that could NEVER happen!



Good catch on the "come to the table..." point, you are correct.

It took me a moment to understand, "Unless ..." but now I get it! And you are exactly correct. As Douglas Adams phrased it, "A whelk's chance in a supernova." And as fellow Canuck (I now know you are not really a Canuck but I will say it nonetheless) Jim Carrey says in "Dumb and Dumber" : "So you are saying there is a chance...." :chin: