|
Division 6 Week 8
|
| TonyM |
Posted on 23-07-2008 15:47
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 15
Joined: 04.11.07
|
Penge Conmen 2 Farley Small Potatos 8
A well deserved win by the Spuds, even though a bit of nit picking by them over a minor rule.
They do know how to have a cheap night out as a team, 1 glass of water a coke and 10 straws.
Well done to the Farley. |
| |
|
|
| TheComplexone |
Posted on 23-07-2008 16:48
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 23
Joined: 14.02.08
|
Wickham Wanderers 7-3 Elmer Lodgers
Wickham deserved the win but not necessarily but this margin.
Well done to John 'Biggy' Bigwood and Matt Ansell for another 2 out of 2. |
| |
|
|
| Foxy |
Posted on 24-07-2008 01:33
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 186
Joined: 04.11.07
|
[quote]TonyM wrote:
Penge Conmen 2 Farley Small Potatos 8
A well deserved win by the Spuds, even though a bit of nit picking by them over a minor rule.
They do know how to have a cheap night out as a team, 1 glass of water a coke and 10 straws.
Well did think that the rules state that regarding a Foul Snooker, the player must call it and not ask the ref...Ref saying Free Ball is surely not correct? But please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding the drink situation...think you'll find that there was slightly more bought than water and one coke, bearing in mind that a lot of the team were drivers that night and as we are all law-abiding citizens, wouldn't dream of over indulging the alcohol limits!
Still was a great result for the Spuds and we look forward to meeting you at ours |
| |
|
|
| Foxy |
Posted on 24-07-2008 01:47
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 186
Joined: 04.11.07
|
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!
  |
| |
|
|
| cazza |
Posted on 24-07-2008 15:14
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 23
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Tried to keep from posting but couldn't help it sorry !
Firstly I would like to say well played spuds fully deserved comfortable win. Special mention to the Break and dish in I think frame three very good clearance.
However on the point of the foul snooker.
Player 1 fouls
Player 2 asks ref if that is a foul snooker free ball.
Ref agrees
Then says in a loud voice foul snooker free ball.
Player 2 asks for white to be moved
White is placed behind the line where Player 2 proceeds with 2 shots.
Not too sure what Player 2 did wrong, but if he has could someone tell me to which I sincerely and humbly apologise to all at the spuds.
Second Point, sorry to bring this up Foxy but frame 9 you were reffing Player snookers themselves after which point you look down the line call a full ball snooker without player asking. Is this right also ?
Its over reactions and accusations like this that I get fed up with and have made me realise I need a break after this season is over. Oops was going to let you know captain.
Responses are very welcome and will not offend I just waould like to get the misunderstanding cleared up.
Thx |
| |
|
|
| dee |
Posted on 24-07-2008 17:30
|
Just Popping In
Posts: 3
Joined: 21.02.08
|
[quote]cazza wrote:
However on the point of the foul snooker.
Player 1 fouls
Player 2 asks ref if that is a foul snooker free ball.
Ref agrees
Then says in a loud voice foul snooker free ball.
Player 2 asks for white to be moved
White is placed behind the line where Player 2 proceeds with 2 shots.
Sorry I don't post on this site, so I'm not sure if I've done used the quote option correctly, but I believe part of the problem lies in the terminology used. Correct me if I am wrong (which I'm sure people will), but the ruling is called a 'Foul Snooker', not a 'foul snooker free ball'. Unfortunately the Ref made it worse by incorrectly calling it a 'foul snooker free ball' as well (although personally I only heard the ref call and he actually said free ball). The correct/incorrect use of terminology is not flexible in the rules and therefore the ref should not have awarded the foul snooker until the player called it out correctly.
As for the comment made towards Foxy and her second reffing, I didn't hear or see anything wrong, but I wasn't always in the room, so I can't comment, although I know her to be a very reliable ref, who needs to know the rules for county and interleague matches.
Although other than this issue - it was a great night and the Penge are a great group of guys and the spuds look forward to the return visit from the Penge.
Edited by dee on 24-07-2008 17:34 |
| |
|
|
| Coneycueist |
Posted on 24-07-2008 18:22
|
Home From Home
Posts: 262
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Christ that's pedantic.
The Coney: The Home of Bread and Butter pool since 1999 |
| |
|
|
| TonyM |
Posted on 24-07-2008 20:47
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 15
Joined: 04.11.07
|
Foxy
Please don't take any of the comments personally, the comment about the drinks was from the Club not me personally.
This whole dicussion has taken away from the fact that the Spuds won fair and square. I agree with cazza the 7 ball clear up was amazing and the spuds team are a nice bunch.
Maybe our problem is we go out to try to win but if we don't we don't get upset. (you win, you win, you lose you lose)
we also treat the night out as a laugh and as you saw we spend most of our time barracking each other not the opponents.
If we were too serious none of us would play, we go to work for stress not pool.
So lets put this to bed and enjoy our games.
looking forward to a good night and a laugh at your place
Regards |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 24-07-2008 22:49
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
cazza wrote:
Player 1 fouls
Player 2 asks ref if that is a foul snooker free ball.
Ref agrees
Then says in a loud voice foul snooker free ball.
Player 2 asks for white to be moved
White is placed behind the line where Player 2 proceeds with 2 shots.
Not too sure what Player 2 did wrong, but if he has could someone tell me to which I sincerely and humbly apologise to all at the spuds.
If the player said the words 'foul snooker' no matter what he says with it, then he's called it correctly. The only thing I can think that he may have done wrong was that it isn't a free ball after a foul snooker; you have to nominate which of your opponents balls (or the black) you wish to hit/pot if indeed, you intend on playing one of your opponents balls. The nominated ball then becomes 'your' ball for the duration of that visit.
Second Point, sorry to bring this up Foxy but frame 9 you were reffing Player snookers themselves after which point you look down the line call a full ball snooker without player asking. Is this right also ?
No. The Referee cannot call a total snooker without the player asking the referee if it is or not.
Hope this clears up any grey areas you may have had. |
| |
|
|
| I C Cool |
Posted on 25-07-2008 19:56
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Sorry Donna but i still think your summery is incorrect Quote(The nominated ball then becomes 'your' ball for the duration of that visit.)
Surely the nominated ball is only yours to play in the very next shot not visit!!
|
| |
|
|
| I C Cool |
Posted on 25-07-2008 20:01
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 78
Joined: 05.10.07
|
And yes i know i spelt summary wrong!!! |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 26-07-2008 17:37
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
I C Cool wrote:
Sorry Donna but i still think your summery is incorrect Quote(The nominated ball then becomes 'your' ball for the duration of that visit.)
Surely the nominated ball is only yours to play in the very next shot not visit!!
Sorry Stephen, a 'visit' IS a shot. Why do you think when someone has 2 after a foul and they use one, the referee calls 'second VISIT'?!'
You'll never here a qualified Referee calling shots.
|
| |
|
|
| JugglingSpence |
Posted on 26-07-2008 20:02
|
Home From Home
Posts: 271
Joined: 05.10.07
|
They don't say anything if the player pots after the first shot. The call second visit is only called once the player misses.
For me a shot is the player striking the cue ball and a visit is a turn at the table.
And it's hear as not here 
As happy as a single man living above a chip shop |
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 26-07-2008 21:53
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
I agree with you Spence. A visit can be made up of one or more legal shots.
I think the issue here is that it is the nominated ball becomes a ball of the players colour group for the first turn of the visit and not for the entire visit. |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 26-07-2008 22:35
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Fair enough - maybe someone should write to Jason Davies and tell him the term 'second visit' should be changed to 'second shot of the visit'.
All I was trying to get across was that the term 'visit' is used as part of the calling procedure and the term 'shot' is not used.
|
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 27-07-2008 00:07
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Now you have lost me? If a player has two visits after the end of his first visit the second one begins hence the call. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying - it is hot!  |
| |
|
|
| Lils |
Posted on 28-07-2008 07:33
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 674
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Spence said for him, a shot was a player striking the cue ball and a visit was a turn at the table. So therefore, a player getting two 'shots' after some form of foul is only one 'visit' using that logic.
But the call is 'two visits' and after a player misses, they then get the call 'second visit' which denotes they have one shot left.
Anyway, I don't really care anymore; I think i've lost the will to live! |
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 28-07-2008 13:30
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Post something incorrect. Argue a couple of times then walk away. Sound familiar?  |
| |
|
