FORUM CLOSING ON 14th JANUARY

Kennington 7 - Tandem 8

We had to draft some new signings in last night to cover absent players

Peter - Working (although I did spot he played in the Ox league ?)
Mark M - personnel issues
Carl and Stuart also unable to make it for various reasons
Greg was going to play but wasn't well

The team in the end was

Sid, Milhouse, Julian, Kenny and Me

Good match until last leg when a certain persons shot selection was a bit borderline to say the least. Played a foul knocking in the one ball saving the game for our player and then started laughing at the result. I know the rules say you can play a skill shot but there wasn't any attempt at one in my opinion. I'm not getting dragged into a slanging match on here and the players involved have their own opinions on the shot played. (FTR I wasn't involved in the match or reffing it)

Thanks to Kenny for playing at short notice last night.

Stats

Sid 2/3
Keith 2/3
Mark 2/3
Julian 0/3
Kenny 1/3

Beefy wrote:

---

Kennington 7 - Tandem 8


Good match until last leg when a certain persons shot selection was a bit borderline to say the least. Played a foul knocking in the one ball saving the game for our player and then started laughing at the result. I know the rules say you can play a skill shot but there wasn't any attempt at one in my opinion. I'm not getting dragged into a slanging match on here and the players involved have their own opinions on the shot played. (FTR I wasn't involved in the match or reffing it)

Thanks to Kenny for playing at short notice last night.

Stats

Sid 2/3
Keith 2/3
Mark 2/3
Julian 0/3
Kenny 1/3

---

A Bit borderline ? There was nothing borderline about it, the shot was played to deliberately play a foul when going to the table, but as they hit their own ball first, a deliberate foul could not be called

Milhouse wrote:

---

 

 

---

A Bit borderline ? There was nothing borderline about it, the shot was played to deliberately play a foul when going to the table, but as they hit their own ball first, a deliberate foul could not be called

 

what was the f**king point  ... we had our arguments about the shot on the night ...as far as i was concerned and many of the other people that was dont with

 

PoolQueen wrote:

---

A "loss of frame" foul is when you make no reasonable attempt to hit your ball first. As long as you do this any foul following the shot is just a foul whether it's deliberate or not. It's part of the tactics of the game.

---

yes ... and we are all guilty of them

I couldn't agree more Hazel. People whinging about this rule are just illustrating that they are unfamiliar with the rules. I've got no pateince with it.


I do have a question for you tho Hazel, with your ref hat on, to do with playing your own ball.

I was playing a game for England in October, and the following happened. Btw there is no ref as the tourney operates under the roving ref situation where you call one if you need one.

I broke and didn't pot
My opponent came to the table and played their visit
I didn't realise she had potted, thought it was open, got down and potted a yellow.
My opponent points out she is yellows and the frame is claimed against me.
We asked the ref over and he agreed and gave it away.

Now, I have seen similar situations before, and I believe if this had happened at a later stage of the game then the claiming of the game would be fair. This is because otherwise you could just knock in your opponents key balls that might be covering a pocket and claim temporary memory loss!

However, in the absence of a ref I think my opponent had a certain responsibility to communicate the "on" colour, though I can't specifically find that in the rules.  The yellow I potted was nowhere near any other Red and my opponent said nothing, and the fact there was no ref assigned to our table from the beginning meant there had been no one there to announce "open table" or "reds in play" as I approached for my first visit following colours being selected.

Now I know I am a dappy mare for not noticing (saw her miss a yellow before coming away from the table and just assumed it had been her first shot!!!)
But having given up the frame without much of a protest at the time, I now believe the penalty should have been a normal foul, not loss of frame.

What do you think?




7c DELIBERATE FOULA player who clearly and intentionally plays a ball not on

has committed a deliberate foul resulting in loss of frame.

A player who clearly and intentionally fails to attempt to

play a ball from his/her own group, or play an on ball after

a foul, will lose the frame.

Failing to make a bona fide attempt to play a legal shot is a

deliberate foul and will result in loss of frame.

Beefy wrote:

---

Good match until last leg when a certain persons shot selection was a bit borderline to say the least. Played a foul knocking in the one ball saving the game for our player and then started laughing at the result. I know the rules say you can play a skill shot but there wasn't any attempt at one in my opinion.

---

  OMG not this old coconut again....

The tactic of playing your ball onto your opponents ball, potting it and giving a foul away has been going on ever since Federation Rules (now Blackball) came to be, some 20+ years ago.

What amazes me is that it's the "old farts" that winge about it when they should really know better (though perhaps it was the fact that it was done by a "bird" what upset Mr Wood so much).

Basically, as long as you play your ball/colour first you can do what you like and suffer the consequences of giving away a foul. Any reference to the "skill shot" as per Beefy's post is a red herring

That was my understanding of the rule and I knew at the time that I had played a shot that was perfectly acceptable and I made no attempt (quite rightly) to make the shot look like a skilled shot or to cover up the fact that I had purposely removed my opponents ball for my own benifit. I played a foul intentionally knowing I would give away a shot and a visit. It amazes me that my opponent clearly did not understand the rule and nor did his other team members. I think it is a shame that he behaved so appaulingly and unsportsmanly towards me by not shaking my hand and calling me a cheat and also towards other members of our team. I play on a Sunday night for enjoyment and not to receive abuse during a match due to somebody's or some peoples lack of knowledge. Perhaps the player(s) concerned will think before they speak next time and make sure they understand rules before they argue against them.

MING wrote:

---

Barney wrote:

---

This happened to me as a ref a couple of years ago in the Tuesday league I think.

I was reffing McIlroy against Jamey Street.  Kevin played a yellow/red plant to pot a red, so I called Reds In Play, then missed his next shot.  Jamey, I think because Kevin had played a yellow on to the red, thought he was red, and duly potted one.

Kevin called for the frame as Jamey had deliberately played his opponent's ball, even though the intention was otherwise.

After a bit of discussion the frame was given to Kevin.

---

  Absolutely, it's the players own responsibility to know what colour they're on or to ask their opponent or referee if unsure...

Although it would have been better in Jaz's case if her opponent had've mentioned it, she may have paid as much attention to Jaz's shot as Jaz had to hers. Though I would for the most part inform my opponent if it was obvious that they were cueing at the wrong colour...

---

OK - sounds very similar. And yes, I should've asked ideally...

BUT - in your game there was a Ref (Barney) and the colour in play had been called.  Is it not different in my situation because no one was there to make such a call?

Milhouse wrote:

---

 

Minx wrote:

---

7c DELIBERATE FOULA player who clearly and intentionally plays a ball not on

has committed a deliberate foul resulting in loss of frame.

A player who clearly and intentionally fails to attempt to

play a ball from his/her own group, or play an on ball after

a foul, will lose the frame.

Failing to make a bona fide attempt to play a legal shot is a

deliberate foul and will result in loss of frame.

---

So as Lauren has just said and as everyone knows, she made no attempt to play a legal shot, so is this not loss of frame ???????

 

---

READ THE BLOODY RULES
 
LEGAL SHOT DEFINED :To play a legal shot the player must cause the cue balls initial

contact to be with an on ball and THEN must either .

(a) Pot any on ball or balls ( see rule 6b ) OR

(b) Cause the cue ball or any object ball to contact a cushion( see exception, rule 5g, snookers ).

As Lauren hit her ball first she is fine. End of.

 

-- Edited by Minx on Friday 20th of November 2009 02:27:46 PM

Minx wrote:

---

Milhouse wrote:

---

 

Minx wrote:

---

7c DELIBERATE FOULA player who clearly and intentionally plays a ball not on

has committed a deliberate foul resulting in loss of frame.

A player who clearly and intentionally fails to attempt to

play a ball from his/her own group, or play an on ball after

a foul, will lose the frame.

Failing to make a bona fide attempt to play a legal shot is a

deliberate foul and will result in loss of frame.

---

So as Lauren has just said and as everyone knows, she made no attempt to play a legal shot, so is this not loss of frame ???????

 

---

READ THE BLOODY RULES
 
LEGAL SHOT DEFINED :To play a legal shot the player must cause the cue balls initial

contact to be with an on ball and THEN must either .

(a) Pot any on ball or balls ( see rule 6b ) OR

(b) Cause the cue ball or any object ball to contact a cushion( see exception, rule 5g, snookers ).

As Lauren hit her ball first she is fine. End of.

 
-- Edited by Minx on Friday 20th of November 2009 02:27:46 PM

---

Sorry Jaz, but i have read the rules that you have stated above and i refer to my previous comment of....

Failing to make a bona fide attempt to play a legal shot is a deliberate foul and will result in loss of frame.

 I take your point above about a legal shot, but the rule i quote above is the point about a deliverate foul! Regardless of whether your own ball was hit first, there was no attempt to play a legal shot and as per the rule above, it is loss of frame.

Milhouse wrote:

---

I take your point above about a legal shot, but the rule i quote above is the point about a deliverate foul! Regardless of whether your own ball was hit first, there was no attempt to play a legal shot and as per the rule above, it is loss of frame.

---

FOULS

5d Failing to perform a legal shot 

LEGAL SHOT DEFINED :To play a legal shot the player must cause the cue balls initial contact to be with an on ball and THEN must either

(a)Pot any on ball or balls ( see rule 6b ) OR
(b)Cause the cue ball or any object ball to contact a cushion( see exception, rule 5g, snookers ).

Once Lauren has played a ball of her colour first, she has fulfilled the requirement of a legal shot. Appendix's (a) & (b) are extra requirements implamented to open the game up and stop the fudging by rollin up behind a ball

Unfortunately, as is usual with these sort of small changes, the wording is a bit ambiguous.

Whilst Milhouse's point about her admitting to deliberately potting Hulio's ball could breach appendix (a) as she made no attempt to pot an "on" ball, if the wording was took as read. However, if Lauren hit her ball first and fulfilled appendix (b) then technically she has fulfilled completely a "Legal Shot". The foul committed by potting Hulio's ball is now irrelevant in the case of a "Legal Shot" and is just a foul as would being going in-off etc...

 

-- Edited by MING on Friday 20th of November 2009 05:29:12 PM

Did Lauren actually use her head for once?

Haha, Julian's never up to the job.

Julian is aware of the rules, he stated that after the match 

I would suggust the issue on Sunday night was around application and behaviour.