|
The first version of this article was written when the laws
of 2000 applied. Many players misunderstood Laws 27(e) to (h), especially
how to use Law 27(j). The first version tried to explain the laws
with the help of many examples.
In 2008 these laws were changed,
and they should be easier to understand. Even so, they contain lots
of complications; so the examples I gave in the earlier article
are repeated here.
What are these laws about?
These laws give the remedies for four types of playing when a
ball is displaced. The errors described in Laws 27(f), (g) and (h)
are straightforward, but some people are confused about the meaning
of Law 27(e) - purporting to take croquet from a live ball.
First of all, the word purporting: The idea is that in playing a croquet stroke you must put your ball next to
the roqueted ball. (See Law 19.) So if you put your ball next to a ball that you
have not roqueted and go through the motions of a playing a croquet stroke,
you have not really taken croquet - you have purported to do so.
Secondly, what does purporting to take croquet involve?:
It corresponds roughly to three types of error in earlier laws:
taking croquet from the wrong ball, taking croquet when not entitled
to do so, and taking croquet when the striker's ball is in contact
with two other balls. Read the full definition in Law 27(c).
Two special cases of purporting
can arise if your ball is in contact with a ball
that has not been roqueted:
1. After a croquet stroke, the striker's ball may end up
in contact with a dead ball. The striker is entitled to a continuation
stroke, but he must play it from where his ball lies. If he does
so, he is not taking croquet or purporting to do so, and it does
not matter whether the dead ball moves or whether a ball leaves
the court. However if he moves his ball to another position in contact
with the dead ball, and plays a stroke, he has purported to take
croquet.
2. Suppose the striker's ball hits blue and ends up in
contact with black. If blue is dead and black is live, the striker
must take croquet from black. However if blue is live but he plays
a stroke with his ball touching the black, he is purporting to take
croquet.
Thirdly, what do "live" and "dead" mean?:
Some people think that a ball becomes dead when it is roqueted, but
it doesn't. It becomes dead when croquet is taken from it. Of course,
croquet normally follows a roquet, but not always if Law 27 is broken,
and the difference is important.
A ball
can also become dead if the striker purports to take croquet from
it. That is one effect of Law 27(c)(3).
If
you play American croquet, you will use other meanings for the words
"live" and "dead". Don't let them confuse you.
You may think there are too many cases to consider. I am afraid
this is just the beginning. Part of the problem with Law 27 is that
there are so many possibilities, and the law is not always what
you might expect.
The current Laws 27(e) to (h) are based on a few principles:
1. An error that is discovered within the limit of claims must
be rectified. An error discovered after the limit of claims is never
rectified.
2. Errors under Laws 27(e) to (h) do not in themselves cause
a turn to end. So the striker plays on unless something else has
gone wrong. However if he does something else that causes the turn
to end - maybe misses a roquet or commits a fault - then the Law
27 error does not save him. The error is rectified and the turn
ends.
To put it another way, there are only two possible remedies for
an error under Laws 27(e) to (h):
1. Rectify and continue
the turn, or
2. Rectify and the turn ends.
If you are not sure which
events can cause a turn to end, you can find them in Law 4(d).
Some more things you could easily get wrong:
1. Sometimes the striker commits a Law 27 error in one stroke and
plays another stroke before he is stopped. A turn ending event may
occur in the second stroke. If so, you might expect the second stroke
to be rectified. It isn't. The balls
are replaced where they should have been before the first stroke
in error, even though the turn ended because of what happened
in the second stroke.
2. I have referred to turn ending
events. Some people talk about "turn ending errors", but
this is too narrow a term. Missing a roquet is not an error, but
it ends your turn just the same.
3. Law 27(3) says "Purporting to take croquet from a
live ball has the same consequences as taking croquet from that ball,
except that Law 27(e) applies." This applies in all sorts of ways. So if
you purport to take croquet and the error is not discovered quickly,
you are entitled to a continuation stroke. That means you cannot
be accused of playing when not entitled if the error is discovered
afterwards.
Let's look at some cases:
Case 1: The striker roquets blue. Instead of taking croquet,
he plays his ball from where it lies and tries to run the next hoop,
but it sticks in the hoop.
Remedy: He has failed to take croquet when required in
breach of Law 27(f). The error is discovered within the limit of
claims; so it is rectified. He made a turn ending event when he
failed to either roquet or run a hoop in a non-croquet stroke (Law
4(d)(1)); so the turn ends.
Case 1B: The striker roquets blue. He puts his ball
next to the black, a live ball, and purports to take croquet. His
ball ends up in the jaws of his next hoop.
Remedy:
He has breached Law 27(e). The error is rectified and he plays on.
Compare
this case with Case 1: In both cases the striker should have
taken croquet from blue but failed to do so. In both cases, his
ball stuck in a hoop. Why does the turn end
in the first case but not the second?
Answer: In the
first case, he did not play any sort of croquet stroke; so he is
judged under Law 4(d)(1). In the second case Law 27(c) applies,
and he is treated as if he had played a croquet stroke; so Law 4(d)(1)
does not apply.
Case 2: The red ball has just run rover. The yellow and blue
clips are already on the peg. The black has been pegged out. The
next few strokes will decide the game.
The striker intends to roquet blue, take off to get a rush on
yellow and send it close to the peg, and then peg out both his
balls.
He roquets blue. By chance, his ball ends up in a good position
to rush yellow. In a moment of confusion, he plays his ball from
where it lies and roquets yellow. His aim is not quite right, and
the yellow hits the peg.
Remedy: Again he has breached Law 27(f) and the error must
be rectified. He also caused a turn ending event when a ball
roqueted in the stroke was pegged out (Law 4(d)(3)). So the turn
ends.
Law 22(d) tells how to rectify errors. In this case, the yellow
is replaced and the red is put in contact with the blue. The peg
point that was apparently scored is cancelled. (Some people may
think this is unfair, but others disagree. In any case, it is what the law says.)
Case 3: The black ball is one foot in front of its next hoop. The blue,
a dead ball, is in the jaws of this hoop. The striker plays black
so as to send both balls through the hoop. The black scores a point,
but the striker mistakenly thinks it is a hoop and roquet. He places
his ball in contact with blue and takes
off. Unfortunately, his ball leaves the court.
Remedy: No roquet occurred in the first stroke; so he breached
Law 27(e) in the second stroke, and this error must be rectified.
In deciding whether a turn ending event occurred, Law 27(c)(3) tells
you to treat a purported croquet stroke as a croquet stroke. So
the turn ends because a ball was sent off the court in a "croquet"
stroke in breach of Law 20(c).
Case 4: In the first stroke, the striker plays red and roquets
blue. In the second stroke, he places red next to black and purports
to take croquet. In the third stroke, he runs a hoop, but commits
a fault while doing so.
Remedy: The striker has broken Law 27(e) and this error
is rectified. He caused the turn to end when he committed the fault.
The error is rectified by replacing the black and putting the red
next to the blue, and the turn ends.
Question: It is usual to ask the adversary if he wants a fault
to be rectified. Why not in this case?
Answer: The striker has committed two errors, a Law 27 error
and a fault. In such cases, the law relating to only one error is
applied, and Law 24 tells which one. In this case, it tells us to
apply the remedy for Law 27, and this law does not give the adversary
a choice.
Case 5: The striker plays with red and roquets yellow. Instead
of taking croquet, he plays the red from where it lies and roquets
yellow again.
Remedy: The error under Law 27(f) is rectified. This involves placing the yellow where it lay at the end of the first roquet,
and putting the red in contact with it. No turn ending event has
occurred; so the striker then continues in play. (If you doubt whether
the second stroke was a roquet, you should read the definition of
a roquet in Law 16(b) and remember that the yellow is still live.)
Comment: You will seldom see this error in a serious competition,
but it is not unusual with beginners who have learned that a croquet
must follow a roquet but sometimes get it wrong.
So let us examine
this case from a beginner's point of view.
1. First look at a few variations on the same theme.
In each case, red roquets yellow in the first stroke:
a. In the second stroke, the striker roquets blue,
a live ball. Same remedy.
b. In the second stroke, the red hits black, a dead
ball. The error is rectified, but the turn now ends under Law 4(d)(1).
c. In the second stroke, the red hits black, a dead
ball, but then bounces off on to the yellow. This counts as a roquet
of the yellow; so the error is rectified and the striker continues
in play.
d. In the second stroke, the striker plays the red
from where it lies, and sends it to a point in front of his next
hoop, just as he would have if he had taken croquet. In 1860, this
was often a legal way of taking croquet. Today the
striker is out of luck. The error is rectified and the turn ends
under Law 4(d)(1).
2. How would you explain these variations to a beginner
who has trouble remembering to take croquet after a roquet? Would
you even try? (This was one of the arguments raised in 1999 and
2000 against the new law, but the Laws Review Committee did not
accept it.)
3. If you coach such players, do you use a simplified law?
If so, at what stage do you teach them that the real law is more
complicated?
Case 6: The striker's ball is a rover. The striker is entitled to a
lift, and decides to take it. He carries his ball to the A baulk, then
changes his mind, replaces it in its original position, aims at
the peg and hits it.
Remedy: Under Law 36(e)(1), he is obliged to play from a baulk
line; so he has fallen foul of Law 27(g). The error is rectified
by placing his ball in any position on either baulk line. The peg
point is cancelled under Law 22(d). The turn then ends under Law
4(d)(3).
Comments:
1. The striker may say this is unfair.
He may argue that you ended the turn because his
ball was pegged out, but then you cancelled the peg-out and left his ball
on the court. The chairman of the committee that drafted this law
argued that it is quite fair. Whether it is fair may be a matter of opinion,
but the law is clear.
2. The remedy would be different if the striker's
ball had been in contact
with another ball at the start of the turn. In that case, he may
change his mind, replace his ball in contact with the other ball
and take croquet. If his ball happened to hit the peg, the peg-out
would then count.
Case 7: The striker mistakenly thinks he is entitled to a lift.
He takes his ball to a baulk line, attempts a roquet and misses.
Remedy: He has breached Law 27(h). The error is rectified by
replacing his ball in its original position. His turn ends under
Law 4(d)(1).
(If he had hit the roquet, the error would still be rectified, but
he would then be allowed to continue his turn.)
Comment: The last two errors may seem to be rectified differently,
but they follow the same principle: In each case the balls are replaced
in their last legal positions.
Case 8a: Red roquets blue. By mistake he puts red in contact
with black, a live ball, and plays what he thinks is a croquet stroke. He then
roquets the blue again and takes croquet from it. He then realises
his mistake.
Remedy: He breached Law 27(e) in his second stroke, but the error
has passed the limit of claims; so it cannot be rectified. No turn
ending event has occurred; so the striker continues his turn. Blue
and Black are now both dead.
Comment: Note that the second
roquet of blue is legal, because blue was still live.
Case 8b: A variation on Case 8a. Red roquets blue. By mistake
he puts red in contact with black, a live ball, and plays what he thinks is a
croquet stroke. In his third stroke, Red hits Black again. The striker
is about to take croquet again when he realises something is wrong.
Remedy: He has again breached Law 27(e), but this time the error
is within the limit of claims; so it must be rectified, and the
red is placed in contact with the blue. You must
now decide if the turn ends. Law 27(c) tells you to treat the purported croquet stroke from
black as a real croquet stroke. It follows that black was dead when
the third stroke was played; so the third stroke was not a roquet,
and the turn ends under Law 4(d)(1).
Case 8c: The first three strokes are the same as in Case 8b,
but the striker now puts Red in contact with Black and plays what
he thinks is a croquet stroke.
Remedy: The error in the second stroke is now beyond the limit
of claims and can no longer be rectified. However the striker committed
two errors in the fourth stroke:
1. He purported to take croquet from a dead ball, an error
under Law 27(d), and
2. He played when not entitled to do so, an error under
Law 25. Remember that the third stroke was not a roquet. You cannot
roquet a dead ball.
Law 24(a)(1) tells us to apply the remedy in Law 25. So the error
is rectified by replacing the balls where they lay at the end of
the third stroke. This means you do not place the red in contact
with the black. (In this case, you would get the same result if
you applied the remedy of Law 27(d), but there are other cases where
Law 24 makes a difference.)
Case 9: The striker is entitled to a lift but mistakenly thinks
he is entitled to a contact. He places his ball in contact with
another ball, plays what he thinks is a croquet stroke but leaves a still
ball. The adversary calls out to the striker, but the striker is
deaf and plays three more strokes before he is persuaded to stop.
Remedy: The forestalling was valid under Law 23(a); so Law 32
applies. Under Law 32(a) the last three strokes are treated as if
they had not occurred, and Law 32(b) confirms that the
errors are still within the limit of claims. The striker has committed
a Law 27(e) error. He must rectify it by placing his ball
anywhere he likes on either baulk line.
The purported croquet stroke is then treated as a real croquet
stroke to decide whether a turn ending event has occurred. On this
basis, he has committed a fault under Law 28(a)(14). So his turn
ends.
Case 10: The striker is in a position to play a cannon, but he
does not remember how to do it. He puts his ball in contact with
both the other balls, plays a stroke, and sends one of the other
balls off the court.
Remedy: He has breached Law 27(e), and this error must be rectified.
But does his turn end under Law 20(c)? You may think it depends
on which ball was the croqueted ball, but it doesn't. The effect
of Law 27(c) is that whichever ball is the croqueted ball, the third
ball is a purported croqueted ball. So the effect of Law 27(j) is
that the turn ends if either ball goes out.
Comment: The same principle applies if one of the balls fails
to move or shake, or if the striker plays away from one ball. No
matter which ball was affected, you will find a reason in Law 27
for ending
the turn.
Question: What if this error is discovered
after the limit of claims? It cannot be rectified, but the turn
ends because either the croquted ball or the purported croqueted
ball left the court. (The law was uncertain under the laws of 2000.
This is the only known case where the new laws may bring a different
result. However you will have to referee a lot of games before you
see this happen.)
Finally, do not worry if you can't remember all these
cases. You are not expected to. They are quoted merely as illustrations.
If you are called to rule on a difficult Law 27 case, look in the
laws book and read carefully what the law says.
However,
you may like to memorise the two principles that we looked at earlier. They are:
1. A
Law 27 error that is discovered within the limit of claims must
be rectified. An error discovered after the limit of claims is never
rectified.
2. Errors under Laws 27(e) to (h) do not in themselves cause
a turn to end. So the striker plays on unless something else has
gone wrong. However if he does something else that causes the turn
to end, the error is rectified and the turn
ends.
APPENDIX
The new law is thought to be simpler than
the law of 2000, but you may wonder if the law could be made even
simpler. There is
no easy answer. If just one thing goes wrong in play, most referees
will find the remedy easily. Experience shows that some referees
have trouble when several things goes wrong in the same stroke
or just after each other. In the cases we have discussed, there
have always been at least two misplays, often more. It would be
hard to find a simple rule that would cover them all and be fair
to both players. There are just so many possibilities to think of.
Max Hooper
|
|