O/T A Snooker question

[ReadWarbler]

A goalkeeper is within the 18 yard box when a ball is crossed towards the edge of the box. One of his defenders and an opposing forward go up to head the ball. The goalkeeper goes up with them and punches the ball away and although he is inside the box when he punches the ball, the ball is not. Has he fouled or is he only committing a foul if he had handled the ball - with his feet outside the area?

If a keeper steps back into the goal but holds the ball out so it doesn't cross the line it isn't a goal. If a player runs out of play but leans in to head / kick a ball to stop it crossing the side line, it isn't a throw in. Following these two examples surely it is the position of the ball that counts and therefore in your senario it is a foul outside the box for deliberate handball. Although i doubt you will see any ref give that decision.

[seriouspie]

Stiil awaiting the World Snooker reply.

Finally one I do know the answer to, it happened when I was officiating at Collingham three years ago.

The scores are tied and it is the last ball of the match with 9 wickets down. The batsman plays and misses and I call a wide. The keeper whips off the bails with the batsman out of his crease and appeals for a stumping (you can be stumped from a wide). My colleague at square leg calls not out .......... Why?

[sidders]

Stiil awaiting the World Snooker reply.

Finally one I do know the answer to, it happened when I was officiating at Collingham three years ago.

The scores are tied and it is the last ball of the match with 9 wickets down. The batsman plays and misses and I call a wide. The keeper whips off the bails with the batsman out of his crease and appeals for a stumping (you can be stumped from a wide). My colleague at square leg calls not out .......... Why?

he didn't have the ball in his hand?

[ReadWarbler]

It's a no ball for any of the following possible reasons

A full toss - a ball which does not bounce - from a seam bowler reaches the batsman at waist height.

If the ball bounces more than twice before it reaches the batsman, or rolls along the ground towards him.

If the wicketkeeper encroaches beyond the stumps before the ball has been struck by the batsman or has passed the stumps.

there could be others

[seriouspie]

he didn't have the ball in his hand?

No Sid ......... as soon as the ball passed the stumps I called a wide (1 run extra) and the game was automatically over.The one run penalty would still have stood even if the batsman was out ...... which he couldn't be in this case as that one penalty run finished the game on my call. My colleague was correct.

ReadWarbler: The question was concerning wides not no balls. You are correct regarding your examples of no balls - but yes there are several more.

[LaughingMagpie]

Any snooker fans out there that can answer this?

Possibly a nightmare scenario if it happened in the deciding frame of a championship!

Player 'A' flukes a snooker with the cue ball left between the jaws of the pocket and another ball (not the object ball) has rolled to rest in front of the cue ball. This must be the ultimate snooker and impossible to escape from. Does player 'B' have to concede the frame? I don't know the answer.

I don't know for sure but I would say that because a legitimate shot is not possible then a re rack would be called

[60YearsAPie]

I don't know for sure but I would say that because a legitimate shot is not possible then a re rack would be called

I think Laughing is right.

Rule 9 states:
Legal Shot is impossible to play - Referees are advised that the rule that determines this re-rack situation is worded 'a legal shot is impossible to play'. No allowance should be made for a player’s ability or lack of it. The referee should not pick-up a ball to see if it will go through a tight gap.

[seriouspie]

Thanks, this answers the question ..... I obviously missed it when reading the rules

[seriouspie]

Just received an email from Brendan Moore (senior referee) at World Snooker.

" Where it is impossible to escape a snooker in the case mentioned, a player may intentionally strike the cue ball onto the obstructing ball providing the referee thinks the attempt is struck with sufficient force and direction to reach the object ball. A foul shot will be called and penalty points awarded according to the value of the obstructing ball. No miss will be called and the frame will continue".

[60YearsAPie]

Just received an email from Brendan Moore (senior referee) at World Snooker.

" Where it is impossible to escape a snooker in the case mentioned, a player may intentionally strike the cue ball onto the obstructing ball providing the referee thinks the attempt is struck with sufficient force and direction to reach the object ball. A foul shot will be called and penalty points awarded according to the value of the obstructing ball. No miss will be called and the frame will continue".

That's interesting, serious. So they don't class that situation as one where it is impossible to play a legal shot.