I have a question that came up the other day while chatting with snooker mates (purely theoretical - it didn't all actually happen):

It's about commiting a fault by touching a ball with something else than the cue (usually the hand or arm, or the player's clothes). Would it be considered as a fault to touch a ball extremely slightly, for instance with one's hair or with a little wire coming out of the player's shirt? (so not with the actual skin or cloth itself).

Also - and that one already happened to one of my mates (well, he said): what if the ball is touched by some fluid (not to mention: blood - or anything else coming out of the player's nose, sometimes at great pace)?

I know this sounds funny but quite interesting I guess...

This is not clearly defined within the rules so common sense has to be applied. Probably the best method of determining whether a foul should be called or not, is to base this decision on how much control the player could reasonably be expected to have over such an incident.

An example of this is how the rules were changed a few years ago so that if the rest head fell off and hit a ball while the player was placing it in position, then a foul would not be called. The reasoning being that the player would have no control over the quality of the equipment at the table.

So if a player's long hair touched a ball it would be a foul shot, as it would be if a piece of wire from a player's shirt, or a loose thread holding a button on to the cuff of their shirt sleeve touched a ball. These would all be considered to be part of their dress, and they would be considered to be responsible for this.

But if a player had a sudden nose bleed while stretching over the table then I believe a foul should not be called, as this would be something they had no control over.

More seriously, as to anything else falling out of a player's nose; well, I can assure you that like the Queen, snooker players never have bogeys. They never have and they never will. So apart from the odd player keeping his chalk up his nostril (and we've all met one of those), there just wouldn't be anything else to fall out!

During our club's recent doubles tournament a disagreement arose over the interpretation of what constitutes conferring under Section 3 Rule 17 (e).

The partner from one team encouraged his own partner (who was at the table) by referring to the quality of his partner's shot making, e.g. "good shot" or "well done", etc. The referee construed this as conferring and imposed a penalty under Section 3 Rule 12 (x), "conferring with a partner contrary to Section 3 Rule 17 (e)". The offending partners felt a penalty was unfair as the one partner was only complimenting the other partner. The other team felt the referee was perfectly correct as conferring could take the form of advice, compliments (which could be advice disguised as compliments) etc., and the best way to resolve the matter would be for a partner to remain silent while his partner is at the table.

Would you please give me your comments on this matter and in particular what does the word "confer" imply within Section 3 Rule 17(e)?

The word "confer" is not defined in the rules, but the dictionary gives the definition as - "to discuss together." Both players don't have to speak for this to happen so, in snooker, especially when one player is at the table, it is best thought of as offering advice.

Now if a player encourages his partner by saying "Good Shot" surely he would say that when the ball went into the pocket, not a few moments later when the striker was deciding which shot to play next.

To call out any comment as your partner looked at a particular shot ( to try and encourage him to play that shot), would be blatantly obvious to everyone present, and you would deserve to be penalised.

Providing any comments are spoken before or as the balls stop rolling, I really cannot see how anyone could object. Remaining silent does solve the problem though, and may even help the striker's concentration.

But advice can be disguised in many ways, simple mannerisms for example.

So if you took this to the extreme you could argue that the non-striker of each side should leave the room while his partner was at the table. That would clearly be nonsense, and thankfully, the rules do not yet demand that the non-striker sits or stands perfectly still.

The related query by Graham Cresswell might also be of interest.

Suppose I have 70 points and my opponent has 20. I have just potted a red but have snookered myself on all colours with 51 points (3 reds + blacks, etc.) possible remaining. That means my opponent could win with 71 or more should I lose control of the cue ball.

Knowing that illegally potted reds are not returned to the table, what would keep me from fouling, illegally potting a red, giving my opponent 4 points whilst leaving only 43 points (2 reds + blacks, etc.) possible? Now my opponent's maximum would be 67 and would need a snooker to win.   Is this possible?

If you did play that shot the penalty would be seven points, as that is the penalty for either playing at two reds in succession, or for committing a foul before you had nominated a colour. That would give your opponent a total of 27 points, and with 43 possible points remaining your opponent could tie without needing a snooker.

After calling a foul and a miss, the referee has two options. Either to warn you about your conduct, or to award the frame to your opponent on the grounds that your conduct was "willfully unfair". You would also quickly be branded a cheat, and lose the respect of your fellow players.

In cases like this I think the rules should allow for the shot to be declared null and void, carry a seven point penalty, and have every ball replaced (including the red) into its original position. Thus making such a tactic completely pointless. The player could then be warned about his conduct and the game would continue.

The rules covering the duties of the referee make him or her the sole judge of fair or unfair play, and also gives them the right to make any decision for an event that is not specifically covered by the rules. So maybe a strong referee would replace the red as mentioned above, although I'm sure there will be some who dissagree.