Coaching the rules
Snooker and Carom, two old dogs at the pool games, are playing on different teams in tournament play. Carom is breaking. Carom scratches on the Break. Snooker picks up the cue out of the ball return and places the cue ball completely and obviously outside the kitchen and is getting ready to shoot when his team mates yell “in the kitchen”. Carom immediately calls a foul, but it is not acknowledged by Snooker. You are the referee called to the table. You make the call!!!!
Carom says that it is a coaching foul because Snooker’s team mates yelled “in the kitchen” and that Snooker was going to take a totally different shot shooting out of the kitchen. Snooker responds that it is just rule information and that his team mates were just clarifying the rules and there should not be any foul. Snooker is totally wrong here. Compare it to a situation where the teams are patching the pocket, and one of their team mates forgets to patch the pocket and is about to shoot the 8-ball. If the shooter’s team mates yell “patch the pocket”, it is a coaching foul. No different here. It is a coaching foul. You as the referee leave the table having made your call correctly. Carom picks up the cue ball and places the cue completely and obviously outside the kitchen and shoots an object ball. Snooker jumps to his paw and declares a foul. Carom does not acknowledge the foul. You are the referee being called back to the same table to make the second call. You make the second call!!!! Things are a little different now. Snooker is claiming that since the second shot was never taken by him because of the coaching foul called on him, that Carom had to shoot behind the headstring. Because Carom didn’t, it is a foul under Rule B.5. However, Carom says it can’t be considered the shot after the scratch since she was the breaker, there was an intervening incident/shot because of the foul call, and that she is in reality shooting the third shot which means she can place the cue ball anywhere on the table and shoot any direction. Unique situation and each shooter is making a good argument.
The correct call: The “coaching foul” constitutes a “shot”. When the “coaching foul” was called on Snooker when he was at the table, that did constitute a “shot”. Carom was coming to the table after a “shot” had occurred after the break; therefore, Carom was entitled to place the cue ball anywhere on the table and shoot in any direction. Carom did not commit a foul when she place the cue ball completely and obviously outside the kitchen and shot.
by Fred A. Johnson
Comments
Post a Comment