Post a reply

Definitions

Postby elnino

a) When is a ball said to be "potted"?
b) When is a ball said to be "pocketed"?
c) Whether you potted a red or pocketed a red would you score 1 in each case?

Re: Definitions

Postby Sickpotter

Potted and pocketed are basically one in the same, just depends on your commentator. Being the same, both score 1.

Re: Definitions

Postby acesinc

elnino wrote:a) When is a ball said to be "potted"?
b) When is a ball said to be "pocketed"?
c) Whether you potted a red or pocketed a red would you score 1 in each case?


Getting to understand Elnino's personality a little bit, I have a feeling that this is a trick question. :chin:

Being an American, I am continuously subject to my opponent "pocketing" balls. They also regularly "play a shot down the rail", or "try the cross-side". God forbid, it still happens way too often that they decide to "take the five" after potting a "cherry". But I still absolutely draw the line and must intervene when they declare that they are playing the "eight ball". I admit that I do give up the fight when they change that nomination to "the seven"...it is just not worth the bother; my words fall on deaf ears.

We all have our crosses to bear. Now that you have allowed me to vent some, I will get to the answer that I believe is being sought here...

"Potted" is specifically defined in the Rules of Snooker. To paraphrase the Rules, "potting" is strictly a positive thing; one is scoring points without any breach of the Rules when "potting" a ball. "Pocketing", on the other hand, is not defined at all in the Rules. However, the term is frequently used throughout the Rules with its definition implied and presumed to be understood by all readers. So what I infer from the usage of "pocketing" throughout the Rules is that there is no negative or positive connotation attached. In other words, "pocketing" a ball could be a good thing or a bad thing. A "pot" is a fair stroke scoring points for the striker and allowing him to continue his turn at the table (unless he has ended the frame with his final pot), to "pocket" a ball may be a fair stroke or a foul stroke. It is sort of like "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square."

So I think a) and b) are covered above. As for c) then, a red that is "potted" of course scores one; a red which is pocketed may score one, but may just as well be a foul with whatever penalty required attached to it.

sickpotter wrote:Potted and pocketed are basically one in the same, just depends on your commentator. Being the same, both score 1.


I agree with you that the commentators exchange these terms as being equivalent all the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it correct. If every commentator in the world started using the phrase, "It ain't gonna go in the pocket," that doesn't mean we are hearing the correct usage of language. One of my biggest pet peeves in the snooker world is when a commentator refers to one of the Black pockets as a "bottom pocket" simply because that is the way they happen to be oriented for the current television view. The "top of the table" is still the top of the table as far as I see it. It has been that way since before television was invented, since before Snooker was invented even, going back hundreds of years having been defined within the scope of English Billiards. I don't care how many punters would like to change that definition, it is still the "top right corner" even if it appears on the bottom left of the telly.

So, Elnino, how did I do? Do I get a gold star on my paper?

Re: Definitions

Postby Sickpotter

I don't think there's any actual difference in the definition but I suspect some commentators will refer to pocketing a ball when it's unintentional or a foul and refer to a pot when it was a legal shot.

Given the question I felt bringing that kind of interpretation into the equation would simply complicate things ;-)

Re: Definitions

Postby elnino

Acesinc the rules of the game are not devised to trick the participants.

Sickpotter one should take what commentator says with a pinch of salt.

Potting and pocketing a ball are entirely different concepts.

Section 2 Rule 7 _ “A pot is when an object ball, after contact with another ball and without any infringement of these Rules, enters a pocket. Causing a ball to be potted is known as potting”.

If you pot a red you score 1 and your break continues.

Section2 Rule 10(b) _ “Object balls are in play from the start of the frame until pocketed or forced off the table”.

Section 3 Rule 11(e) _ " All points scored in a break before a foul is awarded are allowed but the striker shall not score any points for any ball pocketed in a stroke called foul."

Lets examine the scenario where you are playing Sickpotter. You are in play and have made a break of 28. You've nominate blue ball after potting a red and inadvertently knock a red into a pocket. You have committed a FOUL. In this case the red is said to have been pocketed. The Referee would declare "Foul, Acesinc 28, Sickpotter 5"

If you pocketed a red, it is a FOUL, you forfeit the appropriate penalty and your turn ends.

In this scenario you can't say red is potted because it would imply that you have played a legal stroke see Section 2 Rule 7 above.

To conclude potting a ball is in accordance with the rules and pocketing a ball is an infringement of the rules.

Re: Definitions

Postby acesinc

elnino wrote:...

To conclude potting a ball is in accordance with the rules and pocketing a ball is an infringement of the rules.


Sorry Elnino, I cannot agree with you on this one. "Potting" is specifically defined in the Rules so its meaning is clear. "Pocketing" is just a generic term used throughout the Rules and is assumed to be understood by the players and I believe that most players will accept this meaning to be simply "a ball entering a pocket". That can be a fair stroke or a foul stroke. You can "pot" a ball to receive points and it has been pocketed. If the white goes in off, it has been pocketed. If you are playing at Red, and Red falls into a pocket but sadly, the Black also falls into a pocket on the same stroke, it is a foul, and two balls have been pocketed, none were properly potted (at least not according to the Rules--many players will say they potted the Red and fouled the Black which is perfectly understandable, but not technically correct), and only one of the two balls will be appropriately spotted.


At every single instance where the word "pocketed" is used throughout the Rules, you can replace that word with the phrase, "entered a pocket" without any reference at all as to whether it was in the course of a fair stroke or a foul stroke and the rule will still mean exactly the same thing and will still make perfect sense (except that the word "pocketed" is a much more concise linguistic tool).

I travel all around the US for my work and I understand perfectly well that sometimes the meanings of words will be different in different regions. So it may be possible that in your area and/or among your group of players, there may be this accepted difference in terms "pot" vs. "pocket" as being a "fair stroke" vs. a "foul stroke" but I don't believe that these are the generally accepted meanings among most snooker players. And since there is no specific definition in the Rules, there is no real "correct" answer, just what people generally accept to be true.

Similarly, we all believe that we know what the word "fluke" means. However, "fluke" does not receive even a single mention in the Rules. There is no need for it to be there. And consequently, different people may have different meanings for what is or is not a fluke and no one can say their definition is any better than anyone else's because there is no "official" definition of the word in the Rules because there doesn't need to be.

Re: Definitions

Postby elnino

Sadly Acesinc we shall have to continue to disagree.

Section 3 Rule 11(e) is a clear indication of the different use of the terms in question:

" All points scored in a break before a foul is awarded are allowed but the striker shall not score any points for any ball pocketed in a stroke called foul."

If the words were interchangeable then the rule would read:

" All points scored in a break before a foul is awarded are allowed but the striker shall not score any points for any ball potted in a stroke called foul."

Applying your logic results in contradiction of Section 2 Rule 7 which clearly states:

“A pot is when an object ball, after contact with another ball and without any infringement of these Rules, enters a pocket. Causing a ball to be potted is known as potting”.

Are you seriously suggesting that Section 2 Rule 7 conveys the meaning of a legal stroke as well as an infringement of the rules?

I suggest you contact a Class 1 referee for clarification.

Regional experiences and colloquialisms aren't sound basis for for engaging in discussions concerning definitive interpretations of the rules.

Re: Definitions

Postby acesinc

elnino wrote:Sadly Acesinc we shall have to continue to disagree.

...


If we must disagree on this minor point, that is okay. In the grand scheme of things, it is insignificant as we can certainly agree on nearly everything related to Snooker.

However, based on your full post, you are not stating (and therefore, I assume you are not understanding) my position quite correctly. So let's address that first.


elnino wrote:...

Applying your logic results in contradiction of Section 2 Rule 7 which clearly states: ...



You are not applying my logic at all. You are applying your interpretation of my logic which appears to not be an accurate reflection of my opinion. I agree completely with you that "potting" and "pocketing" are not the same thing; they are not completely interchangeable. If you believe that I have earlier stated that the two terms are interchangeable, perhaps you need to go back and re-read my earlier posts. I will attempt to explain my position one more time, but after that, if my position is not clear, then there is nothing further that I can do.

As you know, the Rules of Snooker have an entire section, Section 2., dedicated to "Definitions". Not everything is defined, only terms or phrases that are important to be clearly understood and used only in a certain way in other sections of the Rules. Many snooker related terms and phrases, including "fluke" and "pocketing" are not defined at all. They are not defined because either a) they don't appear at all in the text of the Rules or b) when they do appear later in the Rules, it is only in a generic, commonly defined way that is not critical to the specific context of the specific rule. "Fluke" never appears in the Rules because there is NEVER a situation in which the ruling hinges on whether or not a shot was a fluke. No matter how someone may define "fluke"....it simply does not matter, the ruling will be the same so there is no cause to ever mention or define "fluke" in the Rules. "Pocketed" or "pocketing" appears many times in the Rules but not in the Definitions section. One cannot say something like, "'Pocketing' is defined as...." because, according to the Rules of Snooker, "pocketing" is not actually defined anywhere. It is used in many places. You have pointed out several examples of where it appears already. There are some examples of "pocketed" that are referring to a specific foul stroke situation such as your example:

elnino wrote:
" All points scored in a break before a foul is awarded are allowed but the striker shall not score any points for any ball pocketed in a stroke called foul."


But in most usages throughout the Rules, the term "pocketed" is referring to a situation that may either be in the context of a foul stroke or a fair stroke, either way does not matter, the ball was still "pocketed". I will give you an example that you found yourself and had quoted in an earlier post:

elnino wrote: Section2 Rule 10(b) _ “Object balls are in play from the start of the frame until pocketed or forced off the table”.


Now, if we are to apply your logic to this example, then a red which has been "potted" is still in play even though it is now sitting in the bottom of a pocket and that of course doesn't make any sense at all. Either that, or we have discovered a mistake in the Rules and this statement should read, "Object balls are in play from the start of the frame until pocketed, potted, or forced off the table”. It is my opinion that the rule is correct as it is written with no mistake; there is no need to include "potted" as part of this list because if a ball has been "potted", then it has also been "pocketed".

The reverse is not true: if a ball has been "pocketed", then it may have been "potted", but it might have also entered the pocket some other way. It may have entered the pocket during a foul stroke. It may have been brushed into the pocket by the striker's elbow before he played his stroke--also a foul of course. It may have been on the edge of the pocket and fell in by vibration--not a foul, but that ball is "pocketed" and out of play until the referee returns it to where it belongs. The point is, if a ball has entered a pocket by ANY means whatsoever, then that ball has been "pocketed". But a ball has only been "potted" if it entered the pocket in the course of a legal, fair stroke.

If you are good with mathematics, then you can think about this as a Venn diagram: "potting" is a subset of "pocketing" so the little "potting" circle of the Venn would appear completely enclosed within the larger "pocketing" circle. In other words, EVERY ball which has been "potted" has also been "pocketed", but a ball that has been "pocketed" may or may not have been "potted". Exactly the same as EVERY "square" is also a "rectangle", but a "rectangle" may or may not be a "square".

If you still don't agree with this version of the topic, that is perfectly okay. I believe your knowledge and love of the game both run deep.

Re: Definitions

Postby elnino

Acesinc _ Well done you.
I knew you wouldn't disappoint.
Your argument is correctly based on the definitions contained in the rule book and not on what idiosyncrasies people may adopt in West Virginia!
The use of Venn diagram to explain your conclusions is well thought out. It couldn't have been better put verbally.

Re: Definitions

Postby TheSaviour

Never mind. Just collect your winnings and be happy :hatoff:

Re: Definitions

Postby elnino

If only Acesinc! Rule the world?

Whilst idling my time away this morning, I came across the following:-

"Some uses of words in the rule book appear contradictory. The term “potted” consistently refers to the result of a legal stroke. Most references to the term “pocketed” in the rule book seem to be made when an infringement of the rules has occurred.

A “Pot” is to intentionally cause an object ball to fall into a pocket by a legal stroke.
“He potted the red and then potted the black.”

A ball (any ball) is pocketed when it falls into a pocket. It is commonly employed when referring to a foul shot because no one “Pots” the white ball or a ball not on. Nevertheless, the ball (despite not being POTTED, has still been “Pocketed.”

This is not contradictory, merely an attempt to be clear about the distinction between a legally potted ball and a foul stroke in which a ball is pocketed.

It’s not that the words cannot be used however you like – if you were to say, “He pocketed the red ball and then pocketed the black ball,” everyone would understand your meaning…but someone (like me) might point out that for the sake of more certainty the rules used the terms “Potted” and “Pocketed” in the manner described."

Re: Definitions

Postby acesinc

elnino wrote:If only Acesinc! Rule the world?...


"Rule the world?"...that sounds rather brash. I think I said, "...leaders of nations," and I would prefer that to mean to guide the world, not rule it. I don't wish to rule anyone.

Like a carpenter's saw or a surgeon's scalpel, language is but a tool. It can be used to convey ideas and encourage cooperation, or it can be used to simply butt heads like young mountain goats trying to establish their place in the pecking order. How language is used, then, is in the hands of the users. A guiding document such as the Rules of Snooker tries to simplify communication by defining the critical terms used within the boundaries of the document. Non-critical terms are not defined and therefore, may be the subject of debate. So the users of the document will often naturally come to agreement on the meaning of those non-critical terms:

elnino wrote:... pocketed...is commonly employed when referring to a foul shot because no one “Pots” the white ball or a ball not on. Nevertheless, the ball (despite not being POTTED, has still been “Pocketed.”...


Potting is a critical term because it is the indicator of whether a striker's turn at the table will continue. If the striker has potted a ball, he remains at the table. If he has not potted a ball, it is now the other striker's turn. Since so many terms are not specifically defined by the Rules (because it is not important for them to be), then it is not unusual for there to be some disagreement as the the exact meaning, but that is mere minutiae and not critical to our communication.

elnino wrote:...
It’s not that the words cannot be used however you like – if you were to say, “He pocketed the red ball and then pocketed the black ball,” everyone would understand your meaning…but someone (like me) might point out that for the sake of more certainty the rules used the terms “Potted” and “Pocketed” in the manner described."


I exactly agree with this, which is why I stated in an earlier post:
acesinc wrote:...If you are playing at Red, and Red falls into a pocket but sadly, the Black also falls into a pocket on the same stroke, it is a foul, and two balls have been pocketed, none were properly potted (at least not according to the Rules--many players will say they potted the Red and fouled the Black which is perfectly understandable, but not technically correct)...



And to finish, a quote from the great Douglas Adams (I may be paraphrasing slightly; going from my memory here) which sums up how simple words can have very different meanings between the communicants (from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy):

Ford Prefect: "It is rather unpleasantly like being drunk."
Arthur Dent: "What is so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford Prefect: "You ask a glass of water."

Re: Definitions

Postby elnino

Acesinc Rule the world was questioned marked.

Tongue in cheek remark.

No such desires.

My 16 July 2015 contribution was sent to further support your views expressed on 12 July 2015.

Douglas Adams _ ah secret of the universe and all that! If only Ford Prefect had the freedom to ramble on about the Rules of the game of Snooker!