On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Tim,

I'd have thought that in GC, the fact that there is a ball that is
supposed to play. That should make it clearer which player has played
out of turn (unless they both have!)

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:56
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your
> organisation, either from an external partner or the Global
> Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> The GC laws community is considering the issue of
> "simultaneous play" at the moment too. We appear to have
> concluded that not being able to determine the order of
> striking leads to a need for a specific rule to apply to the
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 14:43, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>
>
>
> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>
> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> interpretation is correct - the second player has
> played a wrong ball
> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is
> replaced and the
> turn ends.
>
> This still leads to the situation of determining which
> ball was struck
> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you
> have to make a
> fairly arbitrary decision.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> > To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> > Cc: Laws List
> > Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >
> > *** WARNING ***
> >
> > This message has originated outside your organisation,
> > either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> > Samir,
> >
> > I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> > think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> > the side's first turn of the game.
> >
> > So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> > asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> > first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> > you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Two problems with that interpretation.
> >
> > First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> > simultaneous, so
> > it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> > their ball first.
> >
> > Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> > that has determined
> > the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> > turn, so none of
> > the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> > balls of the game.
> > As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> > until they are
> > played into the game at the start of one of the first
> > four turns. So
> > the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> > agency, which
> > isn't a fault.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Porter
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a
> > veterans' doubles
> >
> >
> > some time ago. After some discussion at the
> > start of a turn,
> > both partners believed that they were to take
> > the shot, and
> > both struck their own ball virtually
> > simultaneously. What was
> > the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > johnriches wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that
> > the only error
> >
> >
> > committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> > two players was
> > entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> > have played
> > when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> > is that the
> > ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> > "the player
> > entitled to play then plays". It
> normally makes no
> > difference if a player who plays when not
> > entitled to do so
> > commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> > wrong ball.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have thought that once one player has
> > struck his
> > ball, then his
> > partner, in touching another ball with his
> > mallet during the striking
> > period, has committed a fault under Law
> > 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> > opponents have the choice of whether or
> not to rectify.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Tim,

I'd have thought that in GC, the fact that there is a ball that is
supposed to play. That should make it clearer which player has played
out of turn (unless they both have!)

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:56
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your
> organisation, either from an external partner or the Global
> Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> The GC laws community is considering the issue of
> "simultaneous play" at the moment too. We appear to have
> concluded that not being able to determine the order of
> striking leads to a need for a specific rule to apply to the
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 14:43, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>
>
>
> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>
> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> interpretation is correct - the second player has
> played a wrong ball
> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is
> replaced and the
> turn ends.
>
> This still leads to the situation of determining which
> ball was struck
> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you
> have to make a
> fairly arbitrary decision.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> > To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> > Cc: Laws List
> > Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >
> > *** WARNING ***
> >
> > This message has originated outside your organisation,
> > either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> > Samir,
> >
> > I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> > think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> > the side's first turn of the game.
> >
> > So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> > asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> > first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> > you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Two problems with that interpretation.
> >
> > First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> > simultaneous, so
> > it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> > their ball first.
> >
> > Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> > that has determined
> > the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> > turn, so none of
> > the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> > balls of the game.
> > As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> > until they are
> > played into the game at the start of one of the first
> > four turns. So
> > the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> > agency, which
> > isn't a fault.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Porter
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a
> > veterans' doubles
> >
> >
> > some time ago. After some discussion at the
> > start of a turn,
> > both partners believed that they were to take
> > the shot, and
> > both struck their own ball virtually
> > simultaneously. What was
> > the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > johnriches wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that
> > the only error
> >
> >
> > committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> > two players was
> > entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> > have played
> > when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> > is that the
> > ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> > "the player
> > entitled to play then plays". It
> normally makes no
> > difference if a player who plays when not
> > entitled to do so
> > commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> > wrong ball.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have thought that once one player has
> > struck his
> > ball, then his
> > partner, in touching another ball with his
> > mallet during the striking
> > period, has committed a fault under Law
> > 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> > opponents have the choice of whether or
> not to rectify.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
referee :-)

Nigel


On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>
> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>
>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>> turn ends.
>>
>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>> Cc: Laws List
>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>
>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>
>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>
>>> Samir,
>>>
>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>
>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>
>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>> simultaneous, so
>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>> their ball first.
>>>
>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>> that has determined
>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>> turn, so none of
>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>> balls of the game.
>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>> until they are
>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>> four turns. So
>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>> agency, which
>>> isn't a fault.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Porter
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>> veterans' doubles
>>>
>>>
>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>> start of a turn,
>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>> the shot, and
>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>> simultaneously. What was
>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>> the only error
>>>
>>>
>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>> two players was
>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>> have played
>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>> is that the
>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>> "the player
>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>> entitled to do so
>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>> wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>> struck his
>>> ball, then his
>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>> mallet during the striking
>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Tim,

I'd have thought that in GC, the fact that there is a ball that is
supposed to play. That should make it clearer which player has played
out of turn (unless they both have!)

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:56
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your
> organisation, either from an external partner or the Global
> Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> The GC laws community is considering the issue of
> "simultaneous play" at the moment too. We appear to have
> concluded that not being able to determine the order of
> striking leads to a need for a specific rule to apply to the
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 14:43, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>
>
>
> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>
> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> interpretation is correct - the second player has
> played a wrong ball
> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is
> replaced and the
> turn ends.
>
> This still leads to the situation of determining which
> ball was struck
> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you
> have to make a
> fairly arbitrary decision.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> > To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> > Cc: Laws List
> > Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >
> > *** WARNING ***
> >
> > This message has originated outside your organisation,
> > either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> > Samir,
> >
> > I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> > think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> > the side's first turn of the game.
> >
> > So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> > asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> > first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> > you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Two problems with that interpretation.
> >
> > First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> > simultaneous, so
> > it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> > their ball first.
> >
> > Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> > that has determined
> > the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> > turn, so none of
> > the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> > balls of the game.
> > As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> > until they are
> > played into the game at the start of one of the first
> > four turns. So
> > the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> > agency, which
> > isn't a fault.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Porter
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a
> > veterans' doubles
> >
> >
> > some time ago. After some discussion at the
> > start of a turn,
> > both partners believed that they were to take
> > the shot, and
> > both struck their own ball virtually
> > simultaneously. What was
> > the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > johnriches wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that
> > the only error
> >
> >
> > committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> > two players was
> > entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> > have played
> > when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> > is that the
> > ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> > "the player
> > entitled to play then plays". It
> normally makes no
> > difference if a player who plays when not
> > entitled to do so
> > commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> > wrong ball.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have thought that once one player has
> > struck his
> > ball, then his
> > partner, in touching another ball with his
> > mallet during the striking
> > period, has committed a fault under Law
> > 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> > opponents have the choice of whether or
> not to rectify.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
referee :-)

Nigel


On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>
> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>
>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>> turn ends.
>>
>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>> Cc: Laws List
>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>
>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>
>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>
>>> Samir,
>>>
>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>
>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>
>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>> simultaneous, so
>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>> their ball first.
>>>
>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>> that has determined
>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>> turn, so none of
>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>> balls of the game.
>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>> until they are
>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>> four turns. So
>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>> agency, which
>>> isn't a fault.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Porter
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>> veterans' doubles
>>>
>>>
>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>> start of a turn,
>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>> the shot, and
>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>> simultaneously. What was
>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>> the only error
>>>
>>>
>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>> two players was
>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>> have played
>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>> is that the
>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>> "the player
>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>> entitled to do so
>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>> wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>> struck his
>>> ball, then his
>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>> mallet during the striking
>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Nigel,

OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion again... as
in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an error under
laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!

I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
"player 1" had
struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
and so his
partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had also
committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
player 1's
stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law 28.

Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
run its
hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law 25
(playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.

So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26? Is it
that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to play a
stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have "played"
the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?


Mike







> I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
> touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
> referee :-)
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
>> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
>> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>>
>> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>>
>>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>>> turn ends.
>>>
>>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>>> Cc: Laws List
>>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>>
>>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>>
>>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>
>>>> Samir,
>>>>
>>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>>
>>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>>> simultaneous, so
>>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>>> their ball first.
>>>>
>>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>>> that has determined
>>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>>> turn, so none of
>>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>>> balls of the game.
>>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>>> until they are
>>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>>> four turns. So
>>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>>> agency, which
>>>> isn't a fault.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Samir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mike Porter
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>>> veterans' doubles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>>> start of a turn,
>>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>>> the shot, and
>>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>>> simultaneously. What was
>>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>>> the only error
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>>> two players was
>>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>>> have played
>>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>>> is that the
>>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>>> "the player
>>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>>> entitled to do so
>>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>>> wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>>> struck his
>>>> ball, then his
>>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>>> mallet during the striking
>>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Tim,

I'd have thought that in GC, the fact that there is a ball that is
supposed to play. That should make it clearer which player has played
out of turn (unless they both have!)

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:56
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your
> organisation, either from an external partner or the Global
> Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> The GC laws community is considering the issue of
> "simultaneous play" at the moment too. We appear to have
> concluded that not being able to determine the order of
> striking leads to a need for a specific rule to apply to the
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 14:43, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>
>
>
> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>
> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> interpretation is correct - the second player has
> played a wrong ball
> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is
> replaced and the
> turn ends.
>
> This still leads to the situation of determining which
> ball was struck
> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you
> have to make a
> fairly arbitrary decision.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> > To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> > Cc: Laws List
> > Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >
> > *** WARNING ***
> >
> > This message has originated outside your organisation,
> > either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> > Samir,
> >
> > I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> > think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> > the side's first turn of the game.
> >
> > So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> > asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> > first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> > you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Two problems with that interpretation.
> >
> > First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> > simultaneous, so
> > it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> > their ball first.
> >
> > Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> > that has determined
> > the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> > turn, so none of
> > the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> > balls of the game.
> > As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> > until they are
> > played into the game at the start of one of the first
> > four turns. So
> > the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> > agency, which
> > isn't a fault.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Porter
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a
> > veterans' doubles
> >
> >
> > some time ago. After some discussion at the
> > start of a turn,
> > both partners believed that they were to take
> > the shot, and
> > both struck their own ball virtually
> > simultaneously. What was
> > the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > johnriches wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that
> > the only error
> >
> >
> > committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> > two players was
> > entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> > have played
> > when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> > is that the
> > ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> > "the player
> > entitled to play then plays". It
> normally makes no
> > difference if a player who plays when not
> > entitled to do so
> > commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> > wrong ball.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have thought that once one player has
> > struck his
> > ball, then his
> > partner, in touching another ball with his
> > mallet during the striking
> > period, has committed a fault under Law
> > 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> > opponents have the choice of whether or
> not to rectify.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
referee :-)

Nigel


On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>
> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>
>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>> turn ends.
>>
>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>> Cc: Laws List
>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>
>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>
>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>
>>> Samir,
>>>
>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>
>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>
>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>> simultaneous, so
>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>> their ball first.
>>>
>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>> that has determined
>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>> turn, so none of
>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>> balls of the game.
>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>> until they are
>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>> four turns. So
>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>> agency, which
>>> isn't a fault.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Porter
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>> veterans' doubles
>>>
>>>
>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>> start of a turn,
>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>> the shot, and
>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>> simultaneously. What was
>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>> the only error
>>>
>>>
>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>> two players was
>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>> have played
>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>> is that the
>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>> "the player
>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>> entitled to do so
>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>> wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>> struck his
>>> ball, then his
>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>> mallet during the striking
>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Nigel,

OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion again... as
in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an error under
laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!

I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
"player 1" had
struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
and so his
partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had also
committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
player 1's
stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law 28.

Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
run its
hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law 25
(playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.

So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26? Is it
that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to play a
stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have "played"
the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?


Mike







> I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
> touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
> referee :-)
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
>> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
>> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>>
>> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>>
>>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>>> turn ends.
>>>
>>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>>> Cc: Laws List
>>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>>
>>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>>
>>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>
>>>> Samir,
>>>>
>>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>>
>>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>>> simultaneous, so
>>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>>> their ball first.
>>>>
>>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>>> that has determined
>>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>>> turn, so none of
>>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>>> balls of the game.
>>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>>> until they are
>>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>>> four turns. So
>>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>>> agency, which
>>>> isn't a fault.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Samir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mike Porter
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>>> veterans' doubles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>>> start of a turn,
>>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>>> the shot, and
>>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>>> simultaneously. What was
>>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>>> the only error
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>>> two players was
>>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>>> have played
>>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>>> is that the
>>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>>> "the player
>>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>>> entitled to do so
>>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>>> wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>>> struck his
>>>> ball, then his
>>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>>> mallet during the striking
>>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. ORLC 40.2 supports Nigel's line of reasoning:
"It is a fault if any ball touches the striker's partner or his mallet
during the striking period..."

However, I still think that one of the two players has played a wrong ball,
because a side may only elect to play one of their balls in a turn. So once
the election has been made by playing a stroke, law 9 directs us to the
wrong ball law.

If we have a law 26 and law 28 fault, then law 24 says that we apply the
earlier one.

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 21:44
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> Nigel,
>
> OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion
> again... as
> in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an
> error under
> laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!
>
> I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
> "player 1" had
> struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
> and so his
> partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had
> also
> committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
> player 1's
> stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law
> 28.
>
> Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
> run its
> hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law
> 25
> (playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.
>
> So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26?
> Is it
> that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to
> play a
> stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have
> "played"
> the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> > strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls
> were
> > touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> > fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am
> a
> > referee :-)
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> >> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> >> and it takes precedence over the fault.
> >>
> >> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
> >>>
> >>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> >>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong
> ball
> >>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and
> the
> >>> turn ends.
> >>>
> >>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was
> struck
> >>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make
> a
> >>> fairly arbitrary decision.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Samir
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> >>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> >>>> Cc: Laws List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >>>>
> >>>> *** WARNING ***
> >>>>
> >>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> >>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> >>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Samir,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> >>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> >>>> the side's first turn of the game.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> >>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> >>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> >>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
> >>>>
> >>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> >>>> simultaneous, so
> >>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> >>>> their ball first.
> >>>>
> >>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> >>>> that has determined
> >>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> >>>> turn, so none of
> >>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> >>>> balls of the game.
> >>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> >>>> until they are
> >>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> >>>> four turns. So
> >>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> >>>> agency, which
> >>>> isn't a fault.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Samir
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mike Porter
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> >>>> veterans' doubles
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> >>>> start of a turn,
> >>>> both partners believed that they were to take
> >>>> the shot, and
> >>>> both struck their own ball virtually
> >>>> simultaneously. What was
> >>>> the fault, and who committed it?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> johnriches wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> >>>> the only error
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> >>>> two players was
> >>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> >>>> have played
> >>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> >>>> is that the
> >>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> >>>> "the player
> >>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> >>>> difference if a player who plays when not
> >>>> entitled to do so
> >>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> >>>> wrong ball.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have thought that once one player has
> >>>> struck his
> >>>> ball, then his
> >>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
> >>>> mallet during the striking
> >>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
> >>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> >>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Tim,

I'd have thought that in GC, the fact that there is a ball that is
supposed to play. That should make it clearer which player has played
out of turn (unless they both have!)

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:56
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your
> organisation, either from an external partner or the Global
> Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> The GC laws community is considering the issue of
> "simultaneous play" at the moment too. We appear to have
> concluded that not being able to determine the order of
> striking leads to a need for a specific rule to apply to the
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 14:43, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>
>
>
> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>
> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> interpretation is correct - the second player has
> played a wrong ball
> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is
> replaced and the
> turn ends.
>
> This still leads to the situation of determining which
> ball was struck
> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you
> have to make a
> fairly arbitrary decision.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> > To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> > Cc: Laws List
> > Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >
> > *** WARNING ***
> >
> > This message has originated outside your organisation,
> > either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> > Samir,
> >
> > I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> > think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> > the side's first turn of the game.
> >
> > So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> > asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> > first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> > you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Two problems with that interpretation.
> >
> > First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> > simultaneous, so
> > it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> > their ball first.
> >
> > Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> > that has determined
> > the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> > turn, so none of
> > the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> > balls of the game.
> > As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> > until they are
> > played into the game at the start of one of the first
> > four turns. So
> > the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> > agency, which
> > isn't a fault.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Porter
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a
> > veterans' doubles
> >
> >
> > some time ago. After some discussion at the
> > start of a turn,
> > both partners believed that they were to take
> > the shot, and
> > both struck their own ball virtually
> > simultaneously. What was
> > the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > johnriches wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that
> > the only error
> >
> >
> > committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> > two players was
> > entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> > have played
> > when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> > is that the
> > ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> > "the player
> > entitled to play then plays". It
> normally makes no
> > difference if a player who plays when not
> > entitled to do so
> > commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> > wrong ball.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have thought that once one player has
> > struck his
> > ball, then his
> > partner, in touching another ball with his
> > mallet during the striking
> > period, has committed a fault under Law
> > 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> > opponents have the choice of whether or
> not to rectify.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
referee :-)

Nigel


On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>
> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>
>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>> turn ends.
>>
>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>> Cc: Laws List
>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>
>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>
>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>
>>> Samir,
>>>
>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>
>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>
>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>> simultaneous, so
>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>> their ball first.
>>>
>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>> that has determined
>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>> turn, so none of
>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>> balls of the game.
>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>> until they are
>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>> four turns. So
>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>> agency, which
>>> isn't a fault.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Porter
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>> veterans' doubles
>>>
>>>
>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>> start of a turn,
>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>> the shot, and
>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>> simultaneously. What was
>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>> the only error
>>>
>>>
>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>> two players was
>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>> have played
>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>> is that the
>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>> "the player
>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>> entitled to do so
>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>> wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>> struck his
>>> ball, then his
>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>> mallet during the striking
>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Nigel,

OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion again... as
in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an error under
laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!

I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
"player 1" had
struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
and so his
partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had also
committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
player 1's
stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law 28.

Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
run its
hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law 25
(playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.

So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26? Is it
that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to play a
stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have "played"
the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?


Mike







> I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
> touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
> referee :-)
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
>> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
>> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>>
>> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>>
>>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>>> turn ends.
>>>
>>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>>> Cc: Laws List
>>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>>
>>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>>
>>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>
>>>> Samir,
>>>>
>>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>>
>>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>>> simultaneous, so
>>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>>> their ball first.
>>>>
>>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>>> that has determined
>>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>>> turn, so none of
>>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>>> balls of the game.
>>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>>> until they are
>>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>>> four turns. So
>>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>>> agency, which
>>>> isn't a fault.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Samir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mike Porter
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>>> veterans' doubles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>>> start of a turn,
>>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>>> the shot, and
>>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>>> simultaneously. What was
>>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>>> the only error
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>>> two players was
>>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>>> have played
>>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>>> is that the
>>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>>> "the player
>>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>>> entitled to do so
>>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>>> wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>>> struck his
>>>> ball, then his
>>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>>> mallet during the striking
>>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. ORLC 40.2 supports Nigel's line of reasoning:
"It is a fault if any ball touches the striker's partner or his mallet
during the striking period..."

However, I still think that one of the two players has played a wrong ball,
because a side may only elect to play one of their balls in a turn. So once
the election has been made by playing a stroke, law 9 directs us to the
wrong ball law.

If we have a law 26 and law 28 fault, then law 24 says that we apply the
earlier one.

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 21:44
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> Nigel,
>
> OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion
> again... as
> in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an
> error under
> laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!
>
> I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
> "player 1" had
> struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
> and so his
> partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had
> also
> committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
> player 1's
> stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law
> 28.
>
> Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
> run its
> hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law
> 25
> (playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.
>
> So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26?
> Is it
> that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to
> play a
> stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have
> "played"
> the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> > strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls
> were
> > touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> > fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am
> a
> > referee :-)
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> >> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> >> and it takes precedence over the fault.
> >>
> >> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
> >>>
> >>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> >>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong
> ball
> >>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and
> the
> >>> turn ends.
> >>>
> >>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was
> struck
> >>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make
> a
> >>> fairly arbitrary decision.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Samir
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> >>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> >>>> Cc: Laws List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >>>>
> >>>> *** WARNING ***
> >>>>
> >>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> >>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> >>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Samir,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> >>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> >>>> the side's first turn of the game.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> >>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> >>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> >>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
> >>>>
> >>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> >>>> simultaneous, so
> >>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> >>>> their ball first.
> >>>>
> >>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> >>>> that has determined
> >>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> >>>> turn, so none of
> >>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> >>>> balls of the game.
> >>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> >>>> until they are
> >>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> >>>> four turns. So
> >>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> >>>> agency, which
> >>>> isn't a fault.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Samir
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mike Porter
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> >>>> veterans' doubles
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> >>>> start of a turn,
> >>>> both partners believed that they were to take
> >>>> the shot, and
> >>>> both struck their own ball virtually
> >>>> simultaneously. What was
> >>>> the fault, and who committed it?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> johnriches wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> >>>> the only error
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> >>>> two players was
> >>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> >>>> have played
> >>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> >>>> is that the
> >>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> >>>> "the player
> >>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> >>>> difference if a player who plays when not
> >>>> entitled to do so
> >>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> >>>> wrong ball.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have thought that once one player has
> >>>> struck his
> >>>> ball, then his
> >>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
> >>>> mallet during the striking
> >>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
> >>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> >>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. The "other" player has not played a wrong ball, he has interfered with
the position of a ball during the striking period, which is a fault. The
2000 version of Law 33(a) was quite explicit:

"If the striker interferes with a ball during the striking period Law 28
applies."

The wording of the law, but not, I think, the meaning, was changed in
2008. In my view Law 26 only applies when a further stroke of the turn
is played with a wrong ball, not during an unfinished stroke, and most
certainly not during the striking period of a stroke which is in all
other respects correct.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 21:55, Samir Patel wrote:
> ORLC 40.2 supports Nigel's line of reasoning:
> "It is a fault if any ball touches the striker's partner or his mallet
> during the striking period..."
>
> However, I still think that one of the two players has played a wrong ball,
> because a side may only elect to play one of their balls in a turn. So once
> the election has been made by playing a stroke, law 9 directs us to the
> wrong ball law.
>
> If we have a law 26 and law 28 fault, then law 24 says that we apply the
> earlier one.
>
> Samir
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Sent: 28 June 2010 21:44
>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>
>> Nigel,
>>
>> OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion
>> again... as
>> in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an
>> error under
>> laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!
>>
>> I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
>> "player 1" had
>> struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
>> and so his
>> partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had
>> also
>> committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
>> player 1's
>> stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law
>> 28.
>>
>> Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
>> run its
>> hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law
>> 25
>> (playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.
>>
>> So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26?
>> Is it
>> that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to
>> play a
>> stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have
>> "played"
>> the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
>>> strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls
>>>
>> were
>>
>>> touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
>>> fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am
>>>
>> a
>>
>>> referee :-)
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
>>>> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>>>>
>>>> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>>>>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong
>>>>>
>> ball
>>
>>>>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> turn ends.
>>>>>
>>>>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was
>>>>>
>> struck
>>
>>>>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make
>>>>>
>> a
>>
>>>>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Samir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>>>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>>>>> Cc: Laws List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>>>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Samir,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>>>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>>>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>>>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>>>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>>>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>>>>> simultaneous, so
>>>>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>>>>> their ball first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>>>>> that has determined
>>>>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>>>>> turn, so none of
>>>>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>>>>> balls of the game.
>>>>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>>>>> until they are
>>>>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>>>>> four turns. So
>>>>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>>>>> agency, which
>>>>>> isn't a fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Samir
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mike Porter
>>>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>>>>> veterans' doubles
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>>>>> start of a turn,
>>>>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>>>>> the shot, and
>>>>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>>>>> simultaneously. What was
>>>>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>>>>> the only error
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>>>>> two players was
>>>>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>>>>> have played
>>>>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>>>>> is that the
>>>>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>>>>> "the player
>>>>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>>>>> entitled to do so
>>>>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>>>>> wrong ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>>>>> struck his
>>>>>> ball, then his
>>>>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>>>>> mallet during the striking
>>>>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>>>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>>>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> This iis getting silly. Please stop, both of you, or carry on your bickering off list.
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?


Nigel,

If I am unjustifiably accused of saying or doing things I have not said or done, I claim the right to refute them in the forum in which the accusations are made. All I did to begin with was ask a simple and straightforward question which could have been answered by either a "yes" or a "no".

However your laws question again illustrates the sort of thing that should have been anticipated and provided for by those who drafted the Laws of Croquet, so it illustrates the point I was attempting to make originally..

The only guidance I can see in the Laws is Law 55 which says that the referee should make a decision that "meets the justice of case", and/or is in accord with the "spirit of the game". As in most such cases, that will be of little help to the poor referee.

For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.

So how do you decide which player continues the turn? If it was impossible to know which of the two strokes had been played first, I would rule it to be the one that was least likely to be advantageous to the side of the two players who both played, as otherwise they could gain from having committed the error - which should not be permitted to happen if it can be avoided.

There could be further possible complications, but It would take me some time to think them all through and suggest a solution that would cover all cases.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>
johnriches wrote:
> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>
>
I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his
partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.

Mike

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Mike,

Two problems with that interpretation.

First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually simultaneous, so
it's probably not practical to establish who struck their ball first.

Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball, that has determined
the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first turn, so none of
the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even balls of the game.
As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist until they are
played into the game at the start of one of the first four turns. So
the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside agency, which
isn't a fault.

Regards,
Samir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles
> some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> johnriches wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
> >
> >
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>
> johnriches wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>
>>
> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike

Mike,
That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.





_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>
>
>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>> johnriches wrote:
>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Mike,
> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. But the point is that even if one of the players has committed a fault by touching a ball, he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, and Law 24 says that Law 25 must take precedence.

However until Samir told us, I did not realise that it was the first turn of the game. In that case, Samir is correct; but there would still not have been a fault committed, so the ball would not be replaced on the baulk-line.

JR.


On 28/06/2010, at 10:12 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I agree with Samir's point IF it was one of the first turns of the game,
but the question does not assume this. Otherwise, I don't think law 25
applies, since the side is entitled to play (law 40 says 'player' should
be interpreted as 'side' in law 25). I do however think that in the
second 'incorrect' stroke, both laws 26 (wrong ball) and 28 (fault)
would apply, and therefore 26 would take precedence. The effect is the
same, except that there would be no option as to whether or not to
replace the second ball. You then have to judge which was the second
ball....

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 13:42, Nigel Graves wrote:
> FWIW I'm wit Mike on this. The laws say nothing about "merely" touching
> a ball, andstriking a ball certainly involves touching it. The advantage
> of this interpretation is that iit is symmetrical - it doesn't matter
> which stroke actually came first, the remedy is the same either way. It
> seems to be that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the
> laws, so John's further strictures are unjustified.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 28/06/2010 13:16, johnriches wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010, at 9:27 PM, Mike Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a veterans' doubles some time
>>>> ago. After some discussion at the start of a turn, both partners
>>>> believed that they were to take the shot, and both struck their own
>>>> ball virtually simultaneously. What was the fault, and who committed
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that the only error committed was
>>>> under Law 25. Only one of the two players was entitled to play the
>>>> turn, and the other must have played when not entitled to do so. The
>>>> only penalty is that the ball(s) moved by that player are replaced
>>>> and "the player entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not entitled to do so commits
>>>> an error such as a fault, or playing a wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has struck his ball, then
>>> his partner, in touching another ball with his mallet during the
>>> striking period, has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(12). End of
>>> turn, and opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>> That is a good point and a reasonable interpretation.
>> However the second player (whichever it was) has not just touched a
>> ball; he has actually played a stroke. If he had merely touched a ball
>> during the striking period of his partner without playing a stroke, I
>> would agree that he had committed a fault. But if he has also played a
>> stroke when not entitled to do so, Law 25 would take precedence over
>> Law 28.
>> As I said, it is the sort of situation that can be and should have
>> been anticipated, and referees need to have clearer guidance
>> concerning how to handle it.
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.

So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
turn ends.

This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
fairly arbitrary decision.

Regards,
Samir




> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Cc: Laws List
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Samir,
>
> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> the side's first turn of the game.
>
> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Two problems with that interpretation.
>
> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> simultaneous, so
> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> their ball first.
>
> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> that has determined
> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> turn, so none of
> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> balls of the game.
> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> until they are
> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> four turns. So
> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> agency, which
> isn't a fault.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Porter
> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>
>
> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>
> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> veterans' doubles
>
>
> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> start of a turn,
> both partners believed that they were to take
> the shot, and
> both struck their own ball virtually
> simultaneously. What was
> the fault, and who committed it?
>
>
>
>
>
> johnriches wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> the only error
>
>
> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> two players was
> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> have played
> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> is that the
> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> "the player
> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> difference if a player who plays when not
> entitled to do so
> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> wrong ball.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would have thought that once one player has
> struck his
> ball, then his
> partner, in touching another ball with his
> mallet during the striking
> period, has committed a fault under Law
> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Tim,

I'd have thought that in GC, the fact that there is a ball that is
supposed to play. That should make it clearer which player has played
out of turn (unless they both have!)

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:56
> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your
> organisation, either from an external partner or the Global
> Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> The GC laws community is considering the issue of
> "simultaneous play" at the moment too. We appear to have
> concluded that not being able to determine the order of
> striking leads to a need for a specific rule to apply to the
> situation.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 14:43, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>
>
>
> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>
> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> interpretation is correct - the second player has
> played a wrong ball
> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is
> replaced and the
> turn ends.
>
> This still leads to the situation of determining which
> ball was struck
> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you
> have to make a
> fairly arbitrary decision.
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> > To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> > Cc: Laws List
> > Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >
> > *** WARNING ***
> >
> > This message has originated outside your organisation,
> > either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> > Samir,
> >
> > I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> > think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> > the side's first turn of the game.
> >
> > So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> > asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> > first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> > you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Two problems with that interpretation.
> >
> > First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> > simultaneous, so
> > it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> > their ball first.
> >
> > Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> > that has determined
> > the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> > turn, so none of
> > the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> > balls of the game.
> > As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> > until they are
> > played into the game at the start of one of the first
> > four turns. So
> > the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> > agency, which
> > isn't a fault.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Samir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Porter
> > Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is a laws question, arising from a
> > veterans' doubles
> >
> >
> > some time ago. After some discussion at the
> > start of a turn,
> > both partners believed that they were to take
> > the shot, and
> > both struck their own ball virtually
> > simultaneously. What was
> > the fault, and who committed it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > johnriches wrote:
> >
> >
> > For what it is worth, I would rule that
> > the only error
> >
> >
> > committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> > two players was
> > entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> > have played
> > when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> > is that the
> > ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> > "the player
> > entitled to play then plays". It
> normally makes no
> > difference if a player who plays when not
> > entitled to do so
> > commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> > wrong ball.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have thought that once one player has
> > struck his
> > ball, then his
> > partner, in touching another ball with his
> > mallet during the striking
> > period, has committed a fault under Law
> > 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> > opponents have the choice of whether or
> not to rectify.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
referee :-)

Nigel


On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>
> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>
>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>> turn ends.
>>
>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>> Cc: Laws List
>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>
>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>
>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>
>>> Samir,
>>>
>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>
>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>
>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>> simultaneous, so
>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>> their ball first.
>>>
>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>> that has determined
>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>> turn, so none of
>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>> balls of the game.
>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>> until they are
>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>> four turns. So
>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>> agency, which
>>> isn't a fault.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Porter
>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>> veterans' doubles
>>>
>>>
>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>> start of a turn,
>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>> the shot, and
>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>> simultaneously. What was
>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>> the only error
>>>
>>>
>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>> two players was
>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>> have played
>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>> is that the
>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>> "the player
>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>> entitled to do so
>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>> wrong ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>> struck his
>>> ball, then his
>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>> mallet during the striking
>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. Nigel,

OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion again... as
in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an error under
laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!

I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
"player 1" had
struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
and so his
partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had also
committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
player 1's
stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law 28.

Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
run its
hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law 25
(playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.

So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26? Is it
that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to play a
stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have "played"
the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?


Mike







> I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls were
> touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am a
> referee :-)
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
>> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
>> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>>
>> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>>
>>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong ball
>>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and the
>>> turn ends.
>>>
>>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was struck
>>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make a
>>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Samir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>>> Cc: Laws List
>>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>>
>>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>>
>>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>
>>>> Samir,
>>>>
>>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>>
>>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>>> simultaneous, so
>>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>>> their ball first.
>>>>
>>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>>> that has determined
>>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>>> turn, so none of
>>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>>> balls of the game.
>>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>>> until they are
>>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>>> four turns. So
>>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>>> agency, which
>>>> isn't a fault.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Samir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mike Porter
>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>>> veterans' doubles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>>> start of a turn,
>>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>>> the shot, and
>>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>>> simultaneously. What was
>>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>>> the only error
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>>> two players was
>>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>>> have played
>>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>>> is that the
>>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>>> "the player
>>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>>> entitled to do so
>>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>>> wrong ball.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>>> struck his
>>>> ball, then his
>>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>>> mallet during the striking
>>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. ORLC 40.2 supports Nigel's line of reasoning:
"It is a fault if any ball touches the striker's partner or his mallet
during the striking period..."

However, I still think that one of the two players has played a wrong ball,
because a side may only elect to play one of their balls in a turn. So once
the election has been made by playing a stroke, law 9 directs us to the
wrong ball law.

If we have a law 26 and law 28 fault, then law 24 says that we apply the
earlier one.

Samir


> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 28 June 2010 21:44
> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>
> Nigel,
>
> OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion
> again... as
> in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an
> error under
> laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!
>
> I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
> "player 1" had
> struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
> and so his
> partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had
> also
> committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
> player 1's
> stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law
> 28.
>
> Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
> run its
> hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law
> 25
> (playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.
>
> So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26?
> Is it
> that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to
> play a
> stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have
> "played"
> the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
> > strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls
> were
> > touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
> > fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am
> a
> > referee :-)
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> >
> > On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
> >> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
> >> and it takes precedence over the fault.
> >>
> >> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
> >>>
> >>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
> >>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong
> ball
> >>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and
> the
> >>> turn ends.
> >>>
> >>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was
> struck
> >>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make
> a
> >>> fairly arbitrary decision.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Samir
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
> >>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
> >>>> Cc: Laws List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
> >>>>
> >>>> *** WARNING ***
> >>>>
> >>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> >>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> >>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Samir,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
> >>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
> >>>> the side's first turn of the game.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
> >>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
> >>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
> >>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
> >>>>
> >>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
> >>>> simultaneous, so
> >>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
> >>>> their ball first.
> >>>>
> >>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
> >>>> that has determined
> >>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
> >>>> turn, so none of
> >>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
> >>>> balls of the game.
> >>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
> >>>> until they are
> >>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
> >>>> four turns. So
> >>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
> >>>> agency, which
> >>>> isn't a fault.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Samir
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mike Porter
> >>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
> >>>> veterans' doubles
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
> >>>> start of a turn,
> >>>> both partners believed that they were to take
> >>>> the shot, and
> >>>> both struck their own ball virtually
> >>>> simultaneously. What was
> >>>> the fault, and who committed it?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> johnriches wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
> >>>> the only error
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
> >>>> two players was
> >>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
> >>>> have played
> >>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
> >>>> is that the
> >>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
> >>>> "the player
> >>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
> >>>> difference if a player who plays when not
> >>>> entitled to do so
> >>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
> >>>> wrong ball.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have thought that once one player has
> >>>> struck his
> >>>> ball, then his
> >>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
> >>>> mallet during the striking
> >>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
> >>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
> >>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. The "other" player has not played a wrong ball, he has interfered with
the position of a ball during the striking period, which is a fault. The
2000 version of Law 33(a) was quite explicit:

"If the striker interferes with a ball during the striking period Law 28
applies."

The wording of the law, but not, I think, the meaning, was changed in
2008. In my view Law 26 only applies when a further stroke of the turn
is played with a wrong ball, not during an unfinished stroke, and most
certainly not during the striking period of a stroke which is in all
other respects correct.

Nigel

On 28/06/2010 21:55, Samir Patel wrote:
> ORLC 40.2 supports Nigel's line of reasoning:
> "It is a fault if any ball touches the striker's partner or his mallet
> during the striking period..."
>
> However, I still think that one of the two players has played a wrong ball,
> because a side may only elect to play one of their balls in a turn. So once
> the election has been made by playing a stroke, law 9 directs us to the
> wrong ball law.
>
> If we have a law 26 and law 28 fault, then law 24 says that we apply the
> earlier one.
>
> Samir
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Sent: 28 June 2010 21:44
>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>
>> Nigel,
>>
>> OK, so now I'm getting confused and beginning to change my opinion
>> again... as
>> in my first email, my instinct is that it's a fault rather than an
>> error under
>> laws 25 or 26 - but I'm not quite sure why!
>>
>> I'd persuaded myself that it was a wrong ball error because once
>> "player 1" had
>> struck his ball, the side's choice of ball for that turn was decided
>> and so his
>> partner ("player 2") has played the wrong ball. Clearly player 2 had
>> also
>> committed a fault by touching his ball during the striking period of
>> player 1's
>> stroke, but law 24 states that law 26 should be applied rather than law
>> 28.
>>
>> Another argument that could be made is that if player 1's ball does not
>> run its
>> hoop in order, or make a roquet, then the side's turn ends and it's law
>> 25
>> (playing when not entitled) that should be applied ahead of law 28.
>>
>> So what is your argument for it not being an error under laws 25 or 26?
>> Is it
>> that player 2 has not played a stroke, because he is not entitled to
>> play a
>> stroke under law 5c? And if he hasn't played a stroke, he can't have
>> "played"
>> the wrong ball or "played" when not entitled?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I disagree. No wrong ball was played. Each partner was entitled to
>>> strike, and struck, his own ball. The pproblem is that two balls
>>>
>> were
>>
>>> touched by the "side" during the striking period, which is a striking
>>> fault, and rectification is at the option of the other side. And I am
>>>
>> a
>>
>>> referee :-)
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2010 15:27, Mike Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, I (now) agree with Jeff and Samir - there is a wrong-ball error
>>>> and it takes precedence over the fault.
>>>>
>>>> This probably illustrates why I'm not a referee...
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry! Mis-read Nigel's original e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes - both players have hit a "real" ball. I think Jeff's
>>>>> interpretation is correct - the second player has played a wrong
>>>>>
>> ball
>>
>>>>> and law 26 applies - the incorrectly struck ball is replaced and
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> turn ends.
>>>>>
>>>>> This still leads to the situation of determining which ball was
>>>>>
>> struck
>>
>>>>> first; and in the absence of any useful evidence, you have to make
>>>>>
>> a
>>
>>>>> fairly arbitrary decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Samir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 14:09
>>>>>> To: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)
>>>>>> Cc: Laws List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] playing simultaneously
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *** WARNING ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message has originated outside your organisation,
>>>>>> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
>>>>>> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Samir,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we may be answering different questions - I don't
>>>>>> think that anything in Nigel's scenario indicated that it was
>>>>>> the side's first turn of the game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I stick with my interpretation for the question that was
>>>>>> asked, and it doesn't matter which player struck their ball
>>>>>> first. If the incident occurs in turn 1 or 2, then I think
>>>>>> you're probably right - law 55 has to be invoked in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two problems with that interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, in the case given, the strokes were virtually
>>>>>> simultaneous, so
>>>>>> it's probably not practical to establish who struck
>>>>>> their ball first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, once the (first) player has struck his ball,
>>>>>> that has determined
>>>>>> the striker's ball for that turn. This was the first
>>>>>> turn, so none of
>>>>>> the other balls are balls in play - they aren't even
>>>>>> balls of the game.
>>>>>> As far as the laws are concerned, balls don't exist
>>>>>> until they are
>>>>>> played into the game at the start of one of the first
>>>>>> four turns. So
>>>>>> the partner didn't hit a "ball". He touched an outside
>>>>>> agency, which
>>>>>> isn't a fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Samir
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mike Porter
>>>>>> Sent: 28 June 2010 12:57
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/06/2010, at 8:43 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a laws question, arising from a
>>>>>> veterans' doubles
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> some time ago. After some discussion at the
>>>>>> start of a turn,
>>>>>> both partners believed that they were to take
>>>>>> the shot, and
>>>>>> both struck their own ball virtually
>>>>>> simultaneously. What was
>>>>>> the fault, and who committed it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> johnriches wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For what it is worth, I would rule that
>>>>>> the only error
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> committed was under Law 25. Only one of the
>>>>>> two players was
>>>>>> entitled to play the turn, and the other must
>>>>>> have played
>>>>>> when not entitled to do so. The only penalty
>>>>>> is that the
>>>>>> ball(s) moved by that player are replaced and
>>>>>> "the player
>>>>>> entitled to play then plays". It normally makes no
>>>>>> difference if a player who plays when not
>>>>>> entitled to do so
>>>>>> commits an error such as a fault, or playing a
>>>>>> wrong ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have thought that once one player has
>>>>>> struck his
>>>>>> ball, then his
>>>>>> partner, in touching another ball with his
>>>>>> mallet during the striking
>>>>>> period, has committed a fault under Law
>>>>>> 28(a)(12). End of turn, and
>>>>>> opponents have the choice of whether or not to rectify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe. I think there is a difference between interfering with a ball, and
playing a stroke, and it is a question of intent. If the striker
intends to play a stroke, then you can't say it was just interference.
The fact that it happens during an unfinished stroke is irrelevant.

Regards

Jeff

On 28/06/2010 22:57, Nigel Graves wrote:
> The "other" player has not played a wrong ball, he has interfered with
> the position of a ball during the striking period, which is a fault. The
> 2000 version of Law 33(a) was quite explicit:
>
> "If the striker interferes with a ball during the striking period Law 28
> applies."
>
> The wording of the law, but not, I think, the meaning, was changed in
> 2008. In my view Law 26 only applies when a further stroke of the turn
> is played with a wrong ball, not during an unfinished stroke, and most
> certainly not during the striking period of a stroke which is in all
> other respects correct.
>
> Nigel

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.