---

We haven't had some predictions for a while, so I'll kick off with some this week....

Hot Shots v Unpreds
Big win and vital one for the Unpreds last week and that should be enough for a while to keep them heading in the right direction. Last week Hot Shots seemed to signal a return for the Clarkes and from the innocent onlooker a keeness to defend their crown. They finished off the Rack Pack with the match poised at 2-2 and then were all seen beaming as news fell around Rileys that the Ego's had crashed and burned to a defeat. Home advantage tonight and Hot Shots now within spitting distance of the Ego's, home win. 5-2.

Eagles v Bloodhounds
1st league defeat of the season last week maybe not a surprise to some as Cuemasters are dangerous when firing on all cylinders. Eagles rarely do back to back defeats. Bloodhounds now have two horrible games to finish off the 1st half, tonight and then Hot Shots to come in week 11. A 6-1 loss last week was a big blow for them and the icer is now officially preparing to place some icing on their relegation cake. 7 points adrift of safety could easily turn into double figures come the start of the second half. Ego's to win 6-1.

Eden v Rack Pack
Both sides would have been smiling at the Bloodhounds loss last week, and there is now daylight of 7 points between both these sides and the final relegation spot. The January transfer window was one of the most successful in Eden's history and that should lift spirits at the Farley. Rack Pack are resilient, have held their own in the top flight but like the Eden have struggled this winter campaign for regular periods of form and individual consistency all the way down the order. Has 4-3 either way written all over this fixture.

Coney v Propeller
Think I am correct in thinking that the Coney have never beaten a Propeller side? Recent results for the Coney have been a surprise, a thumping by the Cuemasters and then turning up short v the Legion in the league cup, and again last week v the Patriots. All of sudden they have been dragged back to the fringes of being labelled relegation possibilities. The Coney are probably more interested on next Monday's QF clash with Propeller. So tonight is a dress rehearsal for a big night next Monday at the Elmer. Will Paul Maguire rest key players ahead of next Monday's K/Out Cup encounter as the Prop's best chance of silverware this season appears to lie outside of the league campaign. If both the Pope's play tonight and the Coney don't cope with them, it's all over rover. Prop to seal a 4-3 win.

Brom Cuemasters v Patriots
The first leg of what is surely going to be a battle for 4th spot this season. Cuemasters hot from toppling the Ego's last week and with home advantage must be slight favourites. The Patriots are not known as good travellers but overall have sneaked more 4-3 wins than any side in Div 1 this season. Cuemasters are flying at the moment and a 5-2 to them seems a fair prediction.

Ex-Drillers v SAS
1 point bye win to the SAS. So much hope before the curtain was raised on their first season in Div 1. That hope now seemingly dashed.

---

To be honest with you all the Coney are in somewhat of a mini crisis struggling for players turning up with 5. At the moment I feel like the only reason we are carrying on is to not leave another bye in the calendar. Will do our best to honour that but at this stage it is 50/50 at best. i was really hoping to not go out with a damp squib and with our tails between our legs. lets hope we can do that starting tonight where it looks like we have 5 again

---

Calling Saxton a damp squib is just plain rude . .

---

good summary alex always nice to read forcasts for the upcoming tues games. we are a few players short tonight from the heroics of last weeks win so with shanks at football and another one of our players girlfriends giving birth on monday( great news) were scratching for players a bit tonight! as for other results i will go
hot-shots 4-3 the unpredictables
red deer eagles 6-1 bloodhounds
farley eden 5-2 rat pack
coney cues(if short) 2-5 the prop

---

I going to travel to this one Berty, just sent you a text..

---

Hopefully my grammar will improve on the way.

---

good stuff we have 6 including a broken shoulder!!!!

---

Coney 3 - Prop 4. Well played the prop. Could have been better at 3- 2 up although good go into a game with at least 6 ;)

---

had a belter last night... rde 5 - bh 2

---

bromley cuemaster 3-4 patriots
deserved win for the pats last night, we was missing some key players but no excuses, was 2-0 then 2-3 down and lost the final frame shootout.

---

To what extent do people believe we should enforce the rules, by the way? Should it be the letter of the law each time or should there be allowance for common sense and an element of sportsmanship involved too?

The reason I say it because at 3-2 down the Prop's number 6 was given two and left in a position where he was very clearly foul snookered. He surveyed his position for a while before saying something like 'pick up the white?' to our ref who in turn picked up the white for him and he cleared up. No problem in my eyes. As he potted the black however he was criticised by his team and a few congregating spectators from other teams who were saying he should have said 'foul snooker?' to the ref first and as such should have been called a foul for not doing so. My argument would be that every single person watching knew he was fouled snookered. He communicated to the ref to make that point but in a way that didn't follow the perfect terminology. Isn't it getting a bit pedantic to call 'two shots' in that instance? This particular player is a quality pool player but I get the feeling does not play as much as others in the team so almost certainly forgot to call it correctly because he does not play as often as some. I would guarantee that I would not take two if someone did that against me. I would rather lose than win through a petty technicality. Is that naive?

---

Rules are rules mate.
Same thing happend to us last week and it ended up being a re-rack, to be honest its not hard calling for a foul snooker is it?
What would have happend if one of your lot had done it ? do you think Gary Swetts would have let it go .. I dont.

---

i could understand it in profesional circumstances but not on a tues night!l as long as everyone including the ref knows what the player means and intends to do then fair play in my book,once i was foul snookered and told the ref i was taking a free ball hence i pointed my cue at the intended ball and 3 shots later when i potted the black a member of there team said loss of frame because i didnt properly nominate the intended free ball. tues should be a social evening and enjoyable with it and to win is always nice but if players are goin to be penalised for a petty technicality then that will create a bad vibe that will spoil any night.

---

Well played the Prop who remain our bogey team. We should have beaten them and had chances to but it just didnt happen so well done.

in regards to the rules argument

come on guys whoever disagrees with Coneycueist on this one needs to remember this is a pub pool league. I would feel sick to the stomach for example if I called this "foul" against a nieve div 5 side who managed to struggle their way to a knockout cup q/f only to lose because of that. We have accepted changes over the years and embraced them and rolled with them. In this case as far as I am concerned could be used as a direct case in point why the interest in trhis league is dwindling. All we need now is the 60 second rule and it will all kick off big style. Luckily enough in this instance dispite saxton getting barracked for not calling it to be honest I have known Paul Adam for years and would have insisted he carry on without penalty regardless of the consequences and that I mean. The sad fact is that There are a few teams that would have used their superior knowledge to their advantage in that situation. I am sure rules are rules but no one around that table was in any doubt as to what paul was doing and that is good enough for me F*ck the rules

rant over lets get real

---

as an additional point. I would just like to say that as a team who are doing their best to remian together this season under very trying conditions, to try honour their fixtures to avoid another drop out in Din one to avoid further byes. if we would have lost because of the reverse decision last night I would have quit their and then. I agree with rules is rules principal but in this case if common sense would not have prevailed it would have been the tipping point for me. I would be interested to hear peoples opinions.

---

The refs response to Paul should have been if you pick up the white now it is a foul. Just use it as an opportunity to educate rather than let it go, otherwise people will never learn. You can't pick and choose which rules to follow, but sportsmanship to help people out is just as important as the rules.

---

Spot on.

---

Precisely . . It's a foul . . Simple.

Ask yourselves this question . . Do any of you out there not bother taking two shots when the cue ball goes in?

Cue ball goes in = Foul
Not calling a 'foul snooker' and then picking up the white = Foul

The problem you have got is that your referee picked the white up for him upon his request so he's just as much to blame as Paul not calling the foul snooker in the first place.

I have seen Gary Swettenham call a foul against, funnily enough, Paul Adams for calling a foul snooker and then not nominating a particular ball . . I am sure Gary didn't want to call a foul and I am equally sure that both teams knew what ball Paul was going for but it is a foul all the same and it turned the entire match . .

If it's getting to a point where people are not calling fouls because it's a 'pub league' really need to consider why they are bothering in the first place and whether you'd be better suited hacking about in Division Four where the white goes off the table, you have a laugh and joke about it, hug and kiss and then carry on like it never happened . .

---

Oi!!! :chair:

---

I just realised what I'd wrote :lol:

---

Thats fair enough Danny and I can see where you are coming from but in this particular instance I will never agree. Remember it was us that supposidly suffered!!! so this is not born out of sour grapes. The sad fact is that numbers are dwindling and whilst you will have a smaller number or better world rules teams I feel that in some cases common sense must prevail to avoid Tuesday nights becoming bitter affairs. Anyway I have no leg to stand on as it is written clearly in the rules and was never questioning that but it seems a bit of common sense and gentelmanly conduct wouldn't go a miss from time to time in situations such as this. Why else would he ask for the white under the current rules unless he was fould snookered? fand there was no free ball to take after he picked it up as the black was over the bag!!

anyway you are right and I am wrong however I shall take the Morale highground:nerner:

---

What a load of bollox - If someone had called a foul for not calling the correct snooker then they are a total MUG, ffs i know rules are rules but it is beyond a joke..

in a game a few seasons back in DIV1 against 1 of the top sides (After a new set of rules had come in) 1 of our team set-up the balls with the wrong colours & instead of saying prior to the break - they are set-up wrong called a foul - obviously we took this on the chin

Er no we didn't had a bit of a row - Ended up re-racking them correctly & the game continued

That to me is a form of cheating & is not right - Why not just let someone know (Especially if it is obvious & a clear mistake) try helping people out rather than truying to mug people off with a superior knowledge of rules -

Anyway on a lighter note

We beat the rack-pac 5-2 from 2 Zip down (they only had 5)
It seems more & more teams are struggling for players, so lets get the rules changed to help teams out & get a longer match format

---

Random question, as everyone is posting on here.. whats the max number of players allowed to be signed up to a team?

---

12

---

bugger.

---

I agree . . Common sense should always prevail in these situations but it doesn't deter from the fact that it is a foul and should a referee or player call it then they are well within their rights to uphold the rules . .

The same thing extends to the total snooker rule . . There have been situations where it's obvious that a player is in a total snooker but if they don't call it and then don't hit a cushion then it's still a foul . . I bet that wouldn't be treated in the same manner as above . . The rules are there so that there isn't a 'grey area' by where something is or isn't 'obvious' . .

I have seen numerous situations where the same thing has happened . . There was a situation in a frame Cliff was involved in where the exact same situation occured when we had just started playing Interleague . . Cliff was in a foul snooker situation and the conversation went something like this . .

Referee - "Foul . . Two Visits"
Cliff - "Total Snooker"
Referee - "Yes"
Cliff - "Can I have the white"
Referee - "No"
Cliff - "But I'm in a total snooker"
Referee - "Yes"
Cliff - "So I can pick the white up"
Referee - "No"

This continued for about 10 minutes until the referee pretty much told Cliff that he had to ask for a foul snooker . . Cliff then cleared up . .
The fact of the matter is that the referee didn't have to advise him and could have done him over with the rules but common sense prevailed . .

It would seem that common sense prevailed last night and as no foul was called there is no harm done . . If anything there is a lesson to be learned by the whole experience . .

Just out of curiosity, who was reffing for The Prop during this frame?

---

Interesting point . . You're playing in the KO Cup 1st Round . . It's 3-3 and you're reffing frame seven . . Player A from Random Div 5 Team A is on a tricky black so decides to roll up behind it and snooker but doesn't hit a cushion in the process . .

. . Do you call the foul? Your superior knowledge of the rules tells you that he has just played a foul shot but Player A wasn't aware of this even after playing the rules for two years . . After all, you'll be helping him out rather than mugging him off with your superior knowledge . .

Scenario A - You don't call the foul, Player A ends up winning, you go out of the cup 4-3 and your team-mates pat you on the back knowing you did the right thing in the spirit of the game . .

Scenario B - You call the foul because it's just that, a foul. You win the game as a result (as you were entitled to) and you win the frame and match.

I think we all know what one will happen . . It's a crude way of explaining it but it is exactly the same principle . .

Scenario C - You decide to pick Scenario A and Alex stabs you in the eye with a rusty fork.

---

I'd take two VISITS actually.

:nerner:

(and before you say it, yes, 'two visits' and 'two shots' very often amount to the same thing when I'm playing.. :lol:)

---

I've seen you play Mark and I reckon you'd need at least eight 'visits' :lol:

---

The rules are not there to catch people out or punish ignorance. They're there to clarify situations for the benefit of everyone.

Nowhere in the rules does it say it's a foul if you don't say 'foul snooker'. It's a foul if you pick up the white ball and it's a foul if you hit or pot your opponent's ball without nominating it. As far as I can see if you ask the ref to pick up the white and you're entitled to it he should give it to you.

The rules say you may ask the ref for a ruling. It doesn't say he should be an arse about how you ask him.

---

The only time a ref would be an arse about it is if they were trying to help the player otherwise they could easily just say no, let the player pick it up and then call a foul . .

---

Section E Para d:
If a player wishes to play from Baulk after a "Foul Snooker", "Foul Jaw Snooker", or "Time Foul" the player must verbally advise the referee of this choice and the referee will then recover the Cue Ball and hand it to the player or place it on top of, and in the centre of, the cushion at the Baulk end of the table for the player to retrieve by hand.

If he says 'no' he's an arse... :fart:

---

The important part there is "the player must verbally advise the referee of this choice and the referee will then recover the Cue Ball" . .

In the incident in question, the player didn't correctly advise the referee and therefore the referee is under no obligation to recover the cue ball . . This happened in the incident with Cliff . . He didn't correctly advise the referee and therefore shouldn't have been handed anything other than a rulebook :D

---

Golden: I accept your points although all of your examples relate to incidents that have already occured. Obviously if somebody has rolled into a ball or gone in off you are not going to be able put the balls back.

The point I would make is that if somebody is clearly going to make a mistake through lack of knowledge of the rules then the refs (or in an ideal world the player should be able to warn them.

Scenario: A team is short of players so calls upon a 9ball player in their local club to play rather than throw the game. He can hold a cue but has only had a brief tutorial of rules. You are playing him Golden and you go in-off. He picks up the white and puts it in the middle of the table (not behind baulk). He clearly does not know this rule. Do you let him play the shot and call two or tell him to put the ball in the correct place?

---

I wouldnt want to call a foul, but I would expect the person to at least explain why they were taking that action. 'Foul Snooker', 'Freeball', 'I cant hit both sides after the foul and want to pick the white up', are all good enough for me.

Total Snooker isnt sufficient as that has other meanings, ie you dont have to be totally snookered to be 'foul snookered' etc.

I would never call it against a new or lower division team, but I would at the end of the game make sure they new what they had done could have easeily been called elsewhere, and what the procedure they should take. However, its fair to say that if a person has been called once he will never do it again. Knowledge = Power Grrrr.

---

You have all made this so complicated when it is clearly so simple, as i will explain.

If you are playing the Eden, its a foul

All other scenario's, its not a foul as gentlemenly conduct should prevail.



PS :- My expected response........"This is a 1st division thread, what are you doing on it" hee heee heee heeeeee

---

Of course I let him play the shot . . I'd probably laugh after he does it and then clear up . .

I'm not in the habit of making allowances . . For fear of sounding arrogant, I've gone out of my way to learn the rules and spent years practising to give myself an edge. . Not to then give allowances for someone or some team who haven't . .

Not only that but it wouldn't be down to me to call the foul . .

This happened in the Croydon A v Croydon B Interleague match back in 2006 . . Mick Saunders did just that . . He had roll-ins and put the ball down the wrong end of the table . . We all knew Mick and have done for some time but the bottom line is that it's a foul . .

---

Shaggy wrote

However, its fair to say that if a person has been called once he will never do it again. Knowledge = Power Grrrr.



You say that, but doesn't this thread mention Paul Adams twice in this exact situation.

---

It wasn't exactly the same situation but the exact same principle . .

Gary was reffing at the time and called the foul against him . . It was obvious what ball he was going for but the rules state that he has to specifically point the ball out . . He didn't do that and therefore it was a foul . .

---

If teams like the Coney are going to survive they will have to recruit new players next year. In all probability these players will not know the rules. If opponents are comitted to ensuring the league prospers long term I believe there will have to be some flexiility in terms of allowing certain errors/ learnings with the rules. If I was playing in the Croydon League for the first time and anything happened to me along the lines detailed in Truey or The_Shark's posts it would be my first and last time, that's for sure.

---

But that's not something you can account for in a formal way . . You can't put in the rules "It's up to you whether you want to call a foul or not depending on if you're feeling charitable or got some goose goose last night" . .

. . it's down to personal judgement I guess . . I've been in situations in the past where I have had to call a foul that the player knew nothing about . . I then took the time to explain after . . It's the only way someone will ever learn . . I spent months calling silly fouls on Kyle when he first started playing the rules and he doesn't do it now that's for certain . .

. . I'm sorry for seeming harsh but where do you draw the line?

---

I have heard nothing to deter me on this point in my eyes if you are a decent person you would give them the benefit of the doubt if not you are a scum bag. full stop. ha ha. The only thing I can think is that the people who have gone over the rules with a microscopic pube comb to give themselves an edge are pink loafer wearing losers!

---

When we played Ruskin House this year, i was foull snookered & said to their ref "Foul snooker, can i have the white ball please"

He replied " i don't know what you mean mate cos i don't know the rules"

So i explained that i could have the white ball picked as basically as i could explain. He said "OK mate, go on then" & walked off.

Rather than explain that he neded to pick it up & look like i was trying to make him look stupid regarding the rules, i picked up the white & played my shot.

Then another of their players said "Isn't the ref suposed to pick the white up"

To which i replied "yes, but he clearly didn't know the rules, so i thought it easier to do it myself"

"Well i think thats 2 shots to our player" they replied.

"Fine, have 2 shots then mate"

So i fouled cos of the total lack of knowledge of the rules by their ref.

I felt like saying f**k off, you are taking the pi**, but at the end of the day its just a game of pool to me & technically they were correct, but to others its more serious than that, which is fine, im not knocking that.

I guess if a foul is called on you, you have to accecpt it, cos you are wrong, but also, if the two teams decide not to worry about it and carry on, then its also their right to play the "fair play game" if the both chose to do so.

I personally would chose "fair play"

---

Words of defeat . .

---

Brooker my sentiments EXACTLY :one:

---

I think Golden may be on the....

---

As a self confessed 'pub' side who seem to be suited by 'pub' rules just a reminder the Bromley league runs a nice 'pub' league. You may even win a trophy. :fish:

---

We've won a tophy in Croydon Alex and nobody can ever take that away from us. 'Division 6 runners up', I'm taking in to my grave.

A pub team is exactly what we are by the way.

---

Whole situation. Gay.

---

you got done over truey because aslong as the black is in the right place it does not matter where the rest of the balls are put.

so it just goe to show if you know the rules well it can help out in alot of situations

---

i aggre with you dan,i to have spent time getting to know the rules and i dont c why others should be given special treatment weather there in div 1 or div 6.
i will always try and advise other players about the rules but after all is said and done the rules are a big part of the game.

---

Totally agree and that's worrying because I don't like to agree with you Ian!

Do people think that those of us who have played the rules for longer have an innate knowledge of World Rules? We lost frames too due to not knowing the rules, forgetting to nominate etc etc. It's by making mistakes that you learn not to do it again!!

---

Can it be coincidence that all of those agreeing that rules 'have' to be applied are players with County experience?!?

On a Tuesday night I would always put sportsmanship above all else.

I've had games on a Tuesday where I've told the bloke to stop when he was about to a play a 3rd visit, I've ignored blatant push-shots (older rules) and would generally offer any and all guidance I could in circumstances where my knowledge is greater than theirs (few cases then ;) ). I'd also call fouls on myself that others might not have noticed, and generally try to play to the 'spirit' of the game rather than to the 'rules' of the game.

Getting into a 'but it's the rules' thing in a friendly league is going into dangerous territory.

Do you then not call foul on yourself if you feather a ball and no-one saw it?

Do you argue borderline calls that you know went against you, but where doubt exists on the part of the Ref?

Is cheating OK as long as you aren't caught doing it?

Of course it isn't.

Sportsmanship first and last, every time.

Ultimately you, and your team, get more credit for being a sporting opponent than you will for being the winner, particularly if that win is 'at all costs'.

Micky Saunder at SAS perfect example of being like a traffic warden as regards the rules, and often uses gamesmanship over sportsmanship.

His reputation now precedes him.

To my mind this falls into the same 'grey' area as moving around at the tail end of the season to get easier games for ranking points.

That happened a few seasons back. Remember who came out of that with the most credit... Sean Kelly, because in a 3 way fight for the ranking title, he stayed at No.1 every week. The others ducked and dived. Shabby.

If you foul and have earned yourself a penalty, trying to dodge that penalty on a technicality is also shabby. Take your medicine.

Sort yourselves out, you craven animals. Your competitiveness is getting your perspective all bent out of shape.

Brooker was right. Brooker is always right. Let him be your guide. In all things.

:)

---

I fail to see what feathering a white ball and calling a foul on yourself has to do with anything . .

Playing to the rules and cheating are two entirely different things . .

---

If pool was all about wearing flowers in our hair, listening to 'groovy' music and hugging trees I could understand but it's a competitive sport . .

You learn by your mistakes . . If it was a uniform opinion that we should all be loving and considerate then fair enough but seeing as it isn't surely the best way to go is to follow the rules . . That's what they are there for after all . .

I'll give it a go in April @ Yarmouth . . I'm sure the other bloke won't mind me not calling a total snooker as he knew I was in one surely . . Yeah it'll be fine . .

---

Because the rules are that the Ref calls the fouls.

Playing to the Rules, in it's strictest sense, means you don't call fouls on yourself.

Or are you suggesting playing to the rules selectively?

Can of worms.

They need to learn the rules better? No they don't.

You need to learn to play better so do you don't give away two shots like a jacka.

If you foul, the fault is always yours, never ever theirs. Trying to weasel out of that on a technicality is bad form.

You f*ck up, you take your medicine. End of.

---

good to have you back Burn the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

---

Why thank you Sir.

Evans, shut up you mug :razz:

Comparing Tuesdays to Yarmouth is like comparing kicking the ball in the park with your mates, to jogging out at Wembley for a Cup Final.

One is for fun, the other is a serious matter.

Talk sense boy ;)

---

That's just the point . . I personally rarely f*ck up so why should some other jacka reap the benefits because they're just that . . a jacka . .

---

But this is my point . . There are some that take CDPL more seriously than I do Yarmouth . . If we are going to base everything around how seriously we all take it then there will be carnage each Tuesday . . I can see it now . . Random useless jacka pots the white, catches it with his hand and carries on . . After all it's only fun isn't it . .

I totally agree that it should be taken in a light hearted manner and that it's only meant to be for 'fun' but my point is where do you draw the line?

---

i would say that going back to the original point. This only concerned one particular instance and a specific example of where EVERYONE knew what was going on and in that case common sense was used lets just hope we dont get stung with the reverse

---

That's fair enough but don't be surprised if you do, especially going through all this . .

---

I can see where Burn is coming from but the rules are there to be objective. I think it's dangerous ground because if you go with the sportsmanship theory it all becomes subjective.

We had an instance the other week when I was reffing when the player didn't nominate. I called the foul. "I nominated!" he pipes up and I honestly believe he thought he had. Am I supposed to be sporting and allow him to continue?

---

No . .

---

Yes

---

I know the Coney brought up the subject but I reckon deep down you feel hard done by. 3-2 up v the Prop and lets face it you blow a golden chance to pull their trousers down and take two shots for a 4-2 lead. Bottom line is you should have done. Being 'nice' about it is not in the rulebook and you should have made the Prop pay. ; ) Boot on the other foot, they would have rubbed your faces right in it!

After all, lets face it we would expect all the Prop players to know the rules? And for that matter most of division 1 players should know the rules inside out. We wanted the rules so badly, Div 1 spearheaded getting them voted in and half of the divison doesn't know a total snooker from a foul snooker or what to do/say when you are in one. Its embarrassing. The rules are hardly rocket science.

---

I take it that your team are going to propose at the forthcoming AGM that there we do away with reffing matches as there's clearly no need for them :roll:

---

Ok. Will you second it?

---

In THAT situation Sass, then I would take the players word for it, however, I would advis him/her (After the frame) that for future clarity, to make sure the ref has acknowledged thier decision, otherwise there is always doubt.

I've been reading this thread with interest, and there's no straight forward answer.
Both sides of the argument are valid.

From my perspective, I always try and go the route of sportsmanship, always.
I hate calling fouls on novice players for technicalities, but I am of the opinion that it is the only way they will learn.
Playing County and Interleague pool, you play pool where the rules are the rules. No exception. At the top end of the Croydon league, the rules are the rules, no exception.

In a few weeks time, we will have the Hotshots vs. The Eagles in what will be a key fixture in the title race.
I can virtually guarentee the rules will be enforced 100% that night.

I do side with the Education way forward though.
Yes, the players who have taken thier time to learn and perfect the rules are entitled to go on the defensive, however, we all started somewhere, and I like to think that we as more experienced players have a responsibility to give something back.
Rather than ruthlessly extract two visits at every sniff of an oppurtunity, use that same oppurtunity to educate.

I always prefer to come away from the table knowing it was my ability (Or luck) as a player that won the frame, rather than a technicality.

---

I will lose exactly zero sleep over it Alex...it is all about getting to the end of the season for me now and enjoying it along the way. looks like your team resignation may have been short lived with the recent transfer activity?

---

Exactly.

"Mate you should have done such and such there, I could have called two. You should bear it in mind for the futue as I'll have to call it next time" would be my preferred method of handling it.

As a World Rules league, Croydon is still in transition.

I've now had 3 years of regular World Rules at League, Interleague and County, sometimes playing 20 or more frames a week. I'm only now getting to the point where I am fully comfortable with not just the tactics, but with the subtleties of some of the rules.

You learn best through repetition.

Punishing people that haven't yet got to that comfort zone is petty, and can only cause bad feeling; towards you as an individual for calling it, towards your team, and most importantly towards the rules themselves.

Senior player = player with a responsibility.

---

World Rules have been in place for two years now in Croydon I believe.

If a Division One player doesn't know by now that they need to ask for a foul snooker, then they need a kicking. (I like Paul Adams so I will do this for him in a gentle, girly way.) If the two Division One referees who would have been involved in this frame didn't know this and allowed it to happen, then it's more their fault than the player.

I've refereed frames where the person playing doesn't give a shit about the rules and does nothing but slag them off - I have no interest in helping someone like this. I've tried but you just get told how they don't care, so bollocks to them. Others are genuinely interested in getting to grips with the rules and I will spend most of the night talking them through things they can do and things to remember. I've also refereed frames where the person involved is really close to what they mean, so i'll then tell them what they have to say or help with whatever it is they're struggling with.

If people are prepared to learn, i'll help. If not, then why should I help them take a frame from my team for their own lack of knowledge?

---

:zzz:

---

lol

I'd disagree Lils but your profile picture is one of the cutest I have seen.

---

:lol:

It kinda sums up my little girl - it's her 'kiss' face! :lovedup:

---

I don't get it Berty.

I just said if it was someone who wanted help, I'd help. I've taken calls of 'freeball' when it should have been 'foul snooker' by telling the person they should really say foul snooker, so to try and remember as some people might pick up on it, but let it go anyway.

What should I do? Why have referees if people can't be bothered to play to the rules?

---

it does not matter if everyone thinks its a foul snooker or not in the end you have to ask the ref to clarifie it is a foul snooker first otherwise the player is not intitled to a freeball or picking the ball up.


and mr burn i have seen so much rubbish come out your mouth in the last few days i think the local council in your area should think about making daily collections from your house.

---

so if were all gonna be nice and helpful all the time because i have a bit more experience with the rule how about we take it a bit futher.

exemple:
im playing a guy in div 1 and the frame gets a bit tactical and i know that im a better tactical player and i have more experience then him with would rules tactics.
i play a good tactiical shot and i can see that he does not know what to do in responce:
DO I?
A:::::let him carry on and and not say anything?
B:::::pull him aside and advise him that if he plays this shot next he will be in total control of the frame and he should win the frame no problem(because it is the sporting thing to because i have more experience then him so its only fair i should help)?
C:::::start running around singing your s.h.i.t. and you know you are?

---

Soon as I read that bit I knew you were joking! :D

---

Neo, we obviously have very different ideas of what constitutes a victory.

---

You did the right thing! This is from the referees guidance:

23. Interpreting a players call
Some calls a player makes are not strictly correct, but it should be obvious to a Referee when taking the situation into account what the player means.

---

:)

Everyone knows what the opponent means, it's just that some people are so desperate for a 1 next to their name that they'll pretend not to understand.

The most valuable thing about this thread... it perfectly demonstrates those who have integrity, and those who don't.

---

I agree with that to a point but surely when the player doesn't know what type of snooker that's not the refs problem! I've been asked "Now what can I do?" - learning the rules would be a good start!!!

---

I think we have strayed from the original point in examples given. I'm not suggesting Charity, just that new players are welcomed to the league and sportsmanship prevails over small minded bureaucracy.

Sass/Golden/Neo: You are in a game and your opponent is in a foul snooker. They correctly call it and both refs agree. The player opts for a free ball and gestures with a wave of his cue which ball he wants to hit. He pots it and the ref calls two for not being specific enough in terms of nominating the free ball. Now, you and every single person in the pub knew which ball he was hitting and what he was doing. He was going to win the frame at that visit if he is allowed to carry on. Do you take two or over-rule the ref and let him continue with his first visit?

---

In that situation, the Referee should be asking after the wave of his cue in a particular area to specify exactly which ball the player meant by that gesture for his/her OWN clarification. For a Ref to then call two visits when it was their mistake would be bad . .

And to clarify further, the Referees call is final. If you don't agree but the Ref won't change their mind, the only option you have is to foul back.

Wiggys belt moved a ball on tuesday as he was about to roll in his last ball and the black. Not really his fault . . A bit unfair . .

But the opponent ran to the table and cleared with two. As I would have.


Neither that scenario or the original problem which was posted on here were the fault of the player. They would both come down to the competence of the Referee.

---

So what would you do Lils if that situation arose? Educate the ref or take two?

---

That exact thing happened in the example I mentioned earlier in the thread . . Gary called that against Paul Adams when we played The Prop some time last year . . There is nothing to over-rule as it's a foul . . How many times do you see a player over-rule a foul when the white goes in . . Exactly.

Taking the moral doesn't win you anything other than a pat on the back and admiration from people who really don't matter . . You might feel warm inside but knocking one out in your tightey whiteys or farting under the covers will do that also . .

---

It would depend who I was playing. Might not be the politically correct answer, but I would imagine that's how I'd deal with it.

---

Golden: :lol:

---

I agree with Burn on everything including this thread you are all scum

---

I damn straight agree with that Lils - if I was playing you, i'd let you off as I know i'd go on to take the frame either way :razz:

---

I have to say the rules themselves contribute to a lot of these problems. I can't think of many (any?) other sports where the player is responsible for having to verbally call out situations. Isn't the ref in snooker responsible for calling 'touching ball' and 'free ball' and the like?

---

If you all spent more time practising than worrying about the rules you wouldn't have to rely on breaking them ;)

---

'Great shot, but I'm disallowing that goal from the free kick because you didn't shout 'DIRECT' before shooting and point at the goal' Bollox

---

this is past boring on to another level only occupied by John Tickle and Bovril

---

What!! He calls 'free ball', he gestures at the ball, I know which ball he means, the ref knows which ball he means, he hits the ball... where's the foul?

I'd be asking for someone else to ref :pop:

---

Gary knew which ball Paul Adams meant but he still called the foul . .

. . I'll tell Gary you reckon he's a jacka :lol:

---

It's not as simple as that RasFas. Not if you're applying the rules properly. The Referee isn't making their calls to the person at the table, the calls are so the opposing player and the spectators know too.

Sounds stupid but it's the first question in your Refereeing exam.

---

Words of defeat . .

. . next you'll be saying "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, What you say is what you are"

---

Is it a foul if someone says I nominate 'the' black, but doesnt actually point at it.

When Gary called against Paul when playing us, two balls were in a similar direction. It was obvious which ball would give him the advantage because it was the one over the bag, but Gary had no choice because he wasn't explicit enough on that occasion.

---

No Shaggles. There's only one black on the table. Same as if there was only one of your opponents reds left and you wanted to nominate that. Just 'I nominate the red' would be sufficient.

I believe it's only so there is no doubt in the Refs and opposing players mind of what ball can be played as the players own for that shot.

---

The second question in the referee exam is one you ask to yourself.

'What the fuck have I done with my life?'

---

:lol:

I took the Refereeing exam because at the time, I was Captain of the Surrey Ladies team and thought it would be a good idea to have an extended knowledge of the ruleset.

Shame your Ref against Paul Adams couldn't bother even opening the rulebook over the last 24 months or you could be boasting a win against the mighty Prop right now . . ;)

We reap what we sow.

---

:lol: I've called him worse than that over his reffing.

The referee should establish which ball is being nominated if its not clear from the players request. He should not be standing by waiting to call a foul especially when he actually does know which ball is nominated. That's just plain rude.

---

I was always told it is the responsibility of the player to ensure that the referee understands his intentions. No idea really if that's right or not but if I go by that principle I can't fall foul of overzealous (or underzealous!) referees.

---

Spot on RasFas. It's not just rude, it's a dodgy referee trying to gain an unfair advantage for thier team.

Or in Garys case, a dumb referee . . . :lol:

---

If a referee isn't sure what the players intentions were, then they should ask for clarification. No point the Ref calling a foul and the player saying 'that's what I said' and the Ref not knowing because they heard them say something but wasn't sure what it was, so ignored it . .

---

I can honestly say I would have rather lost than won under those circumstances. We are saving our maiden victory over the Prop for next week's knock-one-out-when-we-win cup.

Ironically the person reffing that particular frame is the one person in our squad you would expect to know the rules. He is basically every bit a pool professional in every way (other than ability) :saxton:

---

The Saxtonator should be ashamed. A former County player too. :no:

---

When Paul asked Paul to pick the white up, he should have said 'no'. I'm sure Paul (Adams) would have worked out eventually why and there wouldn't have been a foul anyway, so this whole thread has been a waste of time.

---

But not as pointless as sitting a referee exam? Surely?
:elol:

---

Hey - if I'd been reffing, this bullshit thread would have never needed to be started!!

Instead you called on the services of livestock.

---

The point of this thread (well, the secondary point, after discussing Div1 Wk10) is some of us don't believe Saxton was wrong to pick up the white ball. Admittedly most seem to think it's a question of bending the rules in the name of sportsmanship but I think the rules actually allow for this. It might have helped if he'd said "Foul snooker, ball in hand" as he was doing it, but otherwise he responded correctly to a legitimate request taking the situation into account.

---

Stop backing Saxton.

If it'd been anyone else, I'd agree. But Saxton must pay. Oh yes.

Mwahhhhh haaaa haaaaaaaa . . . .

---

this is hilarious!

---

I was not trying to win Mr Evans you cannot convince me regardless of what blurb you come out with, that the only decision in this case was to allow Mr Adams to continue with his two shots. That is that I am not here for the turning my friend

---

Saxton was involved?

I retract all previous statements made in support of aforementioned.

Jerk Chicken deserves all he gets. There can be no sportsmanship or concession made for him.

Travelling around the South East like a cue-toting hobo, whoring himself to any County that will allow him in the door.

Mardy ar$ed sore loser as well. The very worst type of player.

Frankly his cue would be put to better use if he lashed a load of twigs to the blunt end and used it as a broom to sweep the balls into the holes.

(Just kidding Paul :D )

---

Saxton 10 years hence, finally putting his cue to practical use as a cooking implement.

Destitute, so dishevelled that his feathers have burst through the top of his hat, run out of Counties to play for, finding solace in marijuana, having kidnapped Tommy Creightons dog, and with what looks suspiciously like a porno mag in his pocket.

The filthy cheating pig.

:lol:

---

Please bear in mind, people, that the venerable Mr Saxton :saxton:has applied (in writing, no less) to join the committee. Should he be elected, he will be (in part) responsible for upholding the rules we all play by, and debate so heatedly. The inference, therefore, is that he will also have a say in mediating in any rule dispute....:fan:???

The half year AGM is on the 21st Feb....the decision is upon the secretaries (or nominated representatives)....you have only one vote, and you cannot use it if you are not there.....:threaten::wall:

---

The most sensible post on this thread...

---

I may be reading this wrong but what you're saying is that he shouldn't be voted on to the committee?

Please correct me if I am wrong but is that what you are implying?

---

That was not the intention - I tried to phrase that with the fence post jammed firmly up my jacksie....but also a little tongue in cheek.... I am not able to vote at the AGM, but many of you on the website can....the whole point is that it is for all those who do to think carefully. If the thread is being dominated by debate over his actions you all have to decide whether you want him in that position.

I didn't see the action that caused the debate, so I cannot pass any comment. I have no axe to grind in either direction, so I will remain impartial. It's up to everyone else to decide. At the end of the day, we need to make sure that the game of pool is the winner...:8ball:...., so that is one failed fishing expedition, Golden....:bite:

---

I wasn't fishing for anything Jason . . I asked for clarification on what you intended by your post and now that you have provided that I can tell you that it's possibly the most narrow-minded and ignorant opinion this site has ever seen and as a committee member you should be ashamed to public ally come out with such drivel . .

---

Bit personal... Sort of conversation i thought you where trying to get people to discuss via P.M.s.
In my opinion i have see a lot worse drivel posted by committee members...

---

It concerns league business so what better place to discuss it on the league website ;)

If it were considered to be personal then another member of the site team will delele/amend as appropriate. I am sure should that happen they will take it up with me in the appropriate manner.

---

You are at least both in agreement that greater care needs to be taken as to who we elect to our committee. Drivel is a definite no no.

Paul Saxton, incidently, has so far registered 28 posts on this site. If it is drivel at least there's not much of it :mouthshut: :lol:

---

The definition of narrow minded, according to the Oxford dictionary, is "intolerant, restricted in one's views". As I did not offer my personal opinion, I do not see how that can be narrow-minded....as for ignorant, at least I know how to spell publicly!!!:lol:

---

Regardless of all previous comments the facts are:

Paul has applied to join the committee.
One of the committee functions is to referee later stages of cup competitions.
A debate has been started on this thread regarding Paul's refereeing.
The half season GM is less than three weeks away, where members vote on proposals put forward.
One of these proposals is Paul's application to join the committee.

I don't know Paul very well, but I do know he lives for pool, and enters every competition going, regardless of his prospects in it. That makes him a braver man than me, as I am certainly not too keen to spend my hard earned money in competitions where I will get beaten out of sight.

My guess is (and it is only a guess, nothing more) that Paul wants to join the committee to give something back to the league. That was the reason I joined the committee. If that is the case, then I applaud the motive. It is not often that people put themselves out in that way. That is not to take anything away from those who have in the past, it is simply to say that these sort of people are in the minority.

This league is run by the members for the members. The committee do not make the rules, only uphold the ones that we play by. If they are to be changed, then the members put proposals forward - like the one coordinated by Golden for the format change, and I know a lot of hard work has been done on this over a long period of time.

The bottom line is this - my opinion on Paul being part of the committee is irrelevant. If there are people out there who do have concerns then the best place to get resolution is at the forthcoming meeting. It is utterly in your hands. If this is being narrow minded and ignorant, then I apologise, and perhaps I should review my suitability to be on the committee....

---

I agree with everything you've just posted but it seemed to me that your previous post was there to suggest that Paul perhaps isn't capable of carrying out duties to be deemed suitable by the committee . .

---

Having taken the time to re-read all the 130 posts on this thread i reiterate what i said after Statto's inital post... "The most sensible post on this thread"...
Just my opinion...

---

REALLY... Now there is one for the quote box...

---

Yes Dave. Really. And it's more of a factual statement than a quote but that's neither here nor there . .

Part of the site team's remit is to amend or delete posts that they deem to be of a personal and malicious nature. I refer to the forum entitled 'Site Etiquette & Moderation' which can be found via http://www.dannye...ead_id=253.

Both Sass & The Saxtonator have been on the site since my post was made at 15:57 on 02/02/2008 so I am guessing they deemed it not to have fallen into the above category.

Only myself and Sass have access to add quotes . . If you wish for it to be added please feel free to PM Sass via http://www.dannye...msg_send=3.

---

never mind the committee, I'm voting for Saxton to be the next prime minister.VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON VOTE SAXTON.:band:

---

This thread has been a bit of banter for me,no more, no less.

It's a shame Paul's application has been brought up in this way by a potential fellow commitee member in a light hearted thread (in my opinion). Your last post in this thread was very constructive and fair Statto and hopefully has undone some of the damage (not saying necessary intentional) of your first.

Paul would be an excellent asset to the committee and I would be happy for him to ref any game I was part of. I hope nobody will hold against him a decision that has divided most players anyway. Christ even the best players miss pots and the best refs make mistakes.

---

Now THERE is the most sensible post in the entire thread . .

---

My first post was never meant to infer anything. As a committee member it would be most improper for me to suggest that a potential committee member would not be "up to scratch". It is extremely difficult to get people to put themselves forward in the first place!!!

All I tried to to was to raise the point that if people had an issue, they had an opportunity to deal with it - there does seem to be a large minority of people who do not turn up to league meetings (for whatever reason), and the next one is coming up very soon, so it was an opportunity to remind them about it.

My only defence is that I had drunk copious quantities of Guinness that night, and thought I was being lighthearted and non judgemental about the situation. Obviously some of you thought otherwise.....:blush:

---

Thank you for clearing that up Jason

---

I'm just annnoyed that this argument detracted from my mischievous attack on Mr Saxton (with picture).

I thought it was one of the better examples of my work.

But you go ahead and fight, don't mind me.

P.S. Paul Saxton would be an asset to the Commitee. The boy loves Pool.