|The rules||Our guide to the rules||Petanque Portal|
|FAQs||Federation web sites||Rules archives||Petanque Libre|
Rules need guides. If an organization issues a document that specifies the official rules governing some sport or game X, that organization should also issue a second document— Official Guide to the Interpretation of the Rules of the Sport of X.
In order to be effective, a set of rules governing any activity needs to be both concise and precise; both short and clear. Every sentence should be phrased carefully and be grammatically correct. Slang and verbosity, which may cause confusion, should be rigorously avoided. Every word should be the right word, every word should count, and two words should never be used where one would do. Technical terms must be introduced explicitly, defined carefully, and used consistently. No rule should be stated twice— especially if it is worded differently in different places.
In everyday life, we’re used to reading non-technical material. With a novel or a newspaper or a magazine article we read along, get the general gist of things, and that is all we need. We’re not used to reading documents that are written in the tight, compressed, precise way that a good rules document is written. That is why, in addition to rules documents, we need rules guides.
The low-level purpose of a rules guide is to translate the compressed language of a rules document into the kind of language that we normally use in everyday life, language that we can digest more easily. The higher purpose of this translation is to help players understand the full meaning and implication of the rules.
This means, among other things, that the official rules guide will need to be revised much more frequently than the official rules document. With time, as the official rules document circulates, players will inevitably come up with new questions about the rules and new ways of misunderstanding the rules. The rules themselves (if they were well-written) won’t need to be revised, but the rules guide (whose purpose is to help players understand the rules) will need to be updated to respond to emerging questions and confusions among players.
A rules guide document is basically a “commentary” on the rules document, a collection of comments on the rules. What should those comments look like?
One thing that a comment can do is to point out implications of a particular rule. Sometimes a single word (“only if” rather than “if) can have significant implications for the meaning of a rule. The comment can point that out and explain its implications. Sometimes the full significance of a rule can be seen only when it is placed in a wider historical or cultural context (e.g. when it is compared to the rules of some other game, or when it is compared to an older version of the rules). The comment can help the reader to understand the full context of the rule, and in that way to understand its full significance.
The purpose of a rules guide document is to explain rules, not make them. The comments don’t say anything that was not already, by implication, in the rules. They explain the rules, but they don’t add anything to the rules.
Natural language isn’t always the precise instrument that we’d like it to be. Sometimes we find ourselves in an unusual situation, one that doesn’t seem to be exactly covered by any of the existing rules. In such cases we are forced to pick the rule that seems closest to what we need, and apply it by analogy to the situation. Problems can arise when two or more rules seem applicable— we may extend them by analogy to cover the problem situation, only to discover that they contradict each other. There can also be problems when the most applicable rule seems to require strictly literal interpretation; the wording of the rule seems to forbid extension by analogy. For such cases, comments can note ways that particular rules can or cannot be extended by analogy.
I have said that the purpose of a rules guide document is to explain rules, not make them. A comment that tells the reader how to use analogy to extend a written rule treads uncomfortably close to the fine line that separates explaining a rule from making a rule. When that happens it is probably a sign that the text of the underlying rule needs to be revised and clarified.
Finally, I want to make it clear that by a rules guide I do not mean an umpire’s guide. A rules guide contains comments on the rules of the game. An umpire’s guide, or set of umpire’s guidelines, contains rules and advice telling umpires how to perform their roles as umpires. It advises umpires about when to apply penalties and which penalties to impose; about how an umpire should reach a decision when competing teams offer conflicting stories; about when and how to suspend a game due to weather conditions; and so on.
If we look at the rules of petanque—
- The Petanque Libre document includes both rules and a rules guide. Since PL is designed for games played without umpires, there is no PL umpire’s guide.
- FIPJP, the international petanque federation, issues a set of rules in which umpire’s guidelines are intermixed with rules of the game. There is no separate FIPJP rules guide or umpire’s guide.
- National petanque federations universally adopt the FIPJP rules document. The national umpires committee of some national federations also issues a “rules interpretations guidelines for umpires” document that typically contains both rules guides and umpire’s guidelines.
This post was first published on the Petanque Libre blog under the title Boules played out of turn - comparing FIPJP and PL. I republish it here because I think it gives a clear account of the FIPJP procedures for dealing with boules thrown out-of-turn. See also our earlier post, A boule thrown out-of-turn.
A recent question on Mike Pegg’s “Ask the umpire” forum provides a good opportunity for comparing and contrasting the FIPJP rules and the rules of Petanque Libre. The purpose of this discussion is not to pass judgement on the merits of these rules. It is simply to point out the differences between the two sets of rules with regard to one specific kind of situation.
Steve Frampton asked about a situation that occurred during a recent competition. Here is my paraphrase of his question.
Team B points 3 boules (B3, B4, B5), none of which disturbs any of the balls already on the ground. The last boule clearly calls for a closer inspection of the situation around the jack. As the teams inspect the situation, they discover that Ben’s boule B2 had actually gained the point when it bumped the jack toward B1.
At this point, the question is— Team B threw 3 boules “contrary to the rules”, right? What should be done? Is it relevant that team A saw that B2 moved the jack, but said nothing?
Mike’s opinion, and the consensus opinion of the comments, has three parts.
- After throwing B2, it was team B’s responsibility to verify that they didn’t have the point before throwing their next boule. They didn’t do that, so the fault for the boules played out-of-turn lies entirely with team B.
- Boules B3, B4, and B5 were thrown “contrary to the rules”. Therefore, under the provisions of Article 24, team A has the choice of deciding whether each boule is dead or still valid. Team A has the right to declare all three of the boules to be dead.
NOTE that the assertion that the three boules were thrown contrary to the rules is actually an interpretion of the expression “thrown contrary to the rules”, and an interpretation that is not universally shared. A rules interpretation by Petanque New Zealand, for instance, says “Boules played out of turn are not considered as an infringement to the rules [as “boules thrown contrary to the rules”] but indeed as a mistake. Players making such a mistake penalise themselves by reducing or losing the ‘boule advantage’. In conclusion, players do not incur any penalty, and boule(s) are valid and stay in place.”
- When team A saw that B2 moved the jack, team A were under no obligation whatsoever to say “you may have moved the jack”.
The last point seems to fly in the face of our ordinary sense of fairness. Surely, one thinks, team A had a moral obligation, if not an obligation under the FIPJP rules, to speak up when they saw that B2 had moved the jack. The umpire at the competition where this situation occurred apparently shared this opinion— he ruled that it would be unfair to disqualify all three boules, and told team A that they could choose to disqualify one, and only one, of the three boules.
If we now turn to the rules of Petanque Libre (PL), two things are worth noting.
First— PL rules, unlike FIPJP rules, contain provisions that explicitly deal with just this kind of situation. The PL rules are designed for use by players in games where no umpires are present to provide rules interpretations. The PL rules consequently need to be so clear and explicit that questions of “interpretation” or “fairness” simply never arise.
Second— PL’s treatment of this kind of situation (in the DECIDING WHICH TEAM THROWS NEXT section) is different from the consensus interpretation of the FIPJP rules that we’ve just presented. PL (version 5, the latest version) says—
If both teams agree on which team should throw the next boule, and that team throws the next boule, the boule is considered to have been legally thrown. The legality of the thrown boule cannot be changed by subsequent measurements or discoveries (e.g. a measurement for the point or the discovery of a forgotten boule).
A team that has the opportunity to challenge the point, but does not challenge it and lets the opposing team play the next boule, is considered to have agreed that the opposing team should throw the next boule.
In our example situation:
- FIPJP: It is the responsibility of one team and one team only to determine whether or not it is their turn to throw. (“I think you are wrong to suggest that both teams have the responsibility to agree which team plays next.”)
- PL: It is the responsibility of both teams to reach an agreement about which team has the point and which team should throw the next boule.
- FIPJP: Team A did not have any obligation or responsibility to speak up when they saw B2 move the jack. (“In this scenario, Team B should check after playing a boule…Team A is not obliged to advise or inform Team B to check who is holding the point.”)
- PL: Team A did have a responsibility to speak up. Because they remained silent when they could easily have spoken up, team A is considered to have agreed that team B should throw the next boule.
and when it is discovered that B2 had gained the point:
- FIPJP: Team A may declare team B’s three boules to be dead.
- PL: No boules are declared to be dead. Since both teams had agreed that team B should throw those boules, they were legally thrown.
This is, I think, an accurate comparison of the FIPJP rules (or at least: the consensus interpretation of the FIPJP rules) and the PL rules regarding boules thrown out-of-turn.
As of September 2018, the FIPJP rules governing the petanque jack (the little target ball, cochonnet, bouchon) are as follows. We will discuss synthetic and paramagnetic jacks later in this post.
- The jack must be made of wood.
- The jack must be 30mm, +/- 1mm in diameter.
- The jack must weigh between 10g and 18g.
- The jack may be unpainted or painted any color.
- A painted jack may not be painted with paramagnetic paint.
Table of Contents
- Documents containing the rules governing jacks
- A short history of changes to the rules governing jacks
- Synthetic jacks
- Paramagnetic jacks
- The weight of jacks
- The future of jacks
When a player or team breaks the rules in some way, we are confronted with two questions.
The first question is the How to Continue Question. “What should the players do, so that they can carry on with the game?” This question has two possible answers. (a) “Undo the illegal event.” (b) “It is not possible to undo the illegal event, so just leave everything where it is and carry on with the game.”
The second question is the Penalty Question. “What penalty, if any, should an umpire impose on the offending player or team?”
In non-umpired games players need to deal only with the How to Continue Question, but in umpired games the umpire must deal with both questions. An umpire must ask himself, “In this case, should I apply a Continue Rule? a Penalty Rule? both?” This can be a tricky question, especially in the case of foot faults, where the Penalty Rules interact with the Continue Rules. This was illustrated in a recent discussion of a question on Ask the Umpire. The question was
A player lifted a foot while throwing. His thrown boule successfully shot away an opponent’s boule. The umpire gave the player a warning (yellow card) but let the situation on the ground remain unchanged. Did the umpire rule correctly?
International umpire Mike Pegg’s answer was NO. Mike’s opinion was that “The umpire should have disqualified the boule and put back the original boule because the player who lifted his foot should not be given this unfair advantage.” FPUSA umpire Gary Jones’s answer was YES. “Since Article 6 clearly states that Article 35 should be applied for the infraction of lifting one’s foot while throwing, and Article 24 clearly states that it is applicable only where the rules do not provide for specific and graduated penalties as outlined in Article 35, I would rule exactly as the presiding umpire did.”
Gary’s surprising (but I believe correct) answer points out the way that Penalty Rules can interact with Continue Rules. Here is the text of the relevant rules. I have underlined the important clause in Article 24 noted by Gary.
The player’s feet… must not leave the circle or be completely lifted off the ground until the thrown boule has touched the ground… Any player not respecting this rule shall incur the penalties specified in Article 35.
Article 24 – Boules thrown contrary to the rules
Except for cases in which these regulations specify the application of specific and graduated penalties in article 35, any boule thrown contrary to the rules is dead, and anything that it displaced in its travel is put back in place, if those objects had been marked.
In short, Article 24 says
Normally, if a boule is thrown contrary to the rules, the boule is dead and the effects of the thrown boule should be undone, if possible. BUT… if in a particular situation the rules specify the imposition of an Article 35 penalty, impose an appropriate penalty and then leave everything where it is and carry on with the game.
So the umpire’s decision in this case was correct. The umpire gave the player a warning (yellow card) but let the situation on the ground remain unchanged.
This interpretation of Article 24 raises the question of what it means for a boule to be “thrown contrary to the rules”. (Read other posts on this topic.) As far as I can tell, the FIPJP rules contain only two articles that both (a) cover situations in which a boule is thrown contrary to the rules, and (b) specify that the penalties in Article 35 should be applied.
Article 6 covers foot faults. The player’s feet are not entirely inside the circle when throwing, or the player lifts a foot (or touches the ground outside the circle with any part of his body) before the thrown boule hits the ground.
Article 16: The player fails to remove mud from his boule before throwing it.
In these cases an umpire may give the player an appropriate penalty (probably a warning), but the game on the ground should be allowed to remain as it is.
The Penalty Rules haven’t always interacted with the Continue Rules in this way— the underlined clause in Article 24 hasn’t always been there— it was inserted into the rules as part of the 2016 rules revisions. I assume that the FIPJP International Umpires Committee knew the implications of what they were doing, and that they inserted the clause because they wanted what it implied. But old habits die hard for umpires who have been umpiring for many years under the old rules. I expect that different umpires will mentally merge the old and new texts of Article 24 and come up with different ways of interpreting the rule about foot faults. Take Mike Pegg for example.
In the past, Mike Pegg has ruled that if a foot fault gave the player an unfair advantage then BOTH Article 6 AND Article 24 should be applied— the player should be given a warning AND the thrown boule should be declared dead and illegally-moved balls put back. Before the 2016 rules revision this was a reasonable way to interpret the rules, especially in cases where committing a foot fault clearly gave a player some advantage (e.g. a player stands on the side of the circle in order to get a better line of play around a blocking boule). (On the other hand, it opens a can of worms about whether or not a player gained an advantage from a foot fault. Does a player gain any advantage by stepping on the front of the circle? On the back? By lifting a foot?)
The new clause in 2016 changed that. Now Article 24 seems pretty clearly to prohibit applying both Article 6 and Article 24 for a foot fault. Mike Pegg may still apply both of them, but other umpires do not. The umpire whose decision prompted the question on “Ask the Umpire” didn’t. In July 2017, during the final of the Masters de Pétanque at Clermont, an umpire gave Dylan Rocher a yellow card for a foot fault, but he didn’t disqualify Dylan’s thrown boule. So Mike’s interpretation of the rules seems to differ from other umpires.
Mazlan Ahmad has suggested that it might be a good idea to revoke the new clause. “Without that clause, enforcement of Article 24 for all foot-fault infractions becomes mandatory— just like the days before the 2016 rules revision.” We’ll have to wait for the next revision of the FIPJP rules to see if the international umpires agree with him.
In December 2016 the FIPJP released a new version of its international rules of petanque. Perhaps the most confusing change was the insertion of two new sentences in Article 35.
1) A warning, which is indicated officially by the showing by the umpire of a yellow card to the player at fault.
However, a yellow card for exceeding the time limit is imposed on all the players of the offending team. If one of these players has already been given a yellow card, he will be penalized by disqualification of a boule during the mene in progress or for the following mene if he has no more boules to play.
What this means, in effect, is that if a player hesitates too long in the circle and exceeds the one-minute time limit for throwing the next boule, each member of the team is considered to have violated the time limit, and each member of the team is penalized with a warning (indicated by a yellow card). For a triples team, the umpire issues 3 warnings and shows his yellow card 3 times, once for each player on the team.
The two new sentences could have been written much more clearly. The first sentence could be this.
The second sentence is simply a statement of a longstanding rule-of-thumb of umpiring— First offense gets a warning; second offense gets a disqualified boule. This has always been an unwritten guideline which umpires interpreted and applied at their discretion. What the second sentence does is make that unwritten guideline into an explicit and mandatory rule for umpires— mandatory at least in cases involving a time-limit infraction.
When the two new sentences appeared in Article 35, they caused a lot of confusion among both French-speaking and English-speaking players. The month after they were released upon the innocent petanque players of the world, the CNA (the French National Umpires Committee) issued some (clarifying?) comments. Here is my English translation of those comments. The original French documents can be found on the FFPJP website as well as HERE and HERE. Side-by-side French/English text is HERE (docx) or HERE (pdf).
Decisions of the FIPJP National Umpires Committee
28 and 29 January 2017 in Marseille
Different cases concerning exceeding the time during the course of a single game.
The following examples are for a team composed of three players A, B and C.
No player has been given a yellow card.
Player A exceeds the time.
There is a collective yellow card (one for Player A, one for player B and one for player C).
After [a team has received] a collective yellow card,
[a player commits some kind of infraction of the rules].
For a player who commits an infraction of the rules (whatever the infraction) the next boule played or about to be played is disqualified and the player is shown an orange card.
After [a team has received] a collective yellow card,
player B exceeds the time. (So this is the second collective infraction for the team.)
In this specific case, the offending player (B) has a boule disqualified and receives an orange card. But his partners do not receive an orange card and do not have any boules disqualified because there is no collective orange card.
Only player C has received a yellow card for an infraction other than exceeding the time (e.g. encroaching on the circle, sweeping, etc.)
Player B exceeds the time.
A and B receive a yellow card
C has a boule disqualified, but does not receive an orange card (he is not the one who committed this new infraction). (Note that an orange card can be given only to the direct author of an infraction.)
Player A and player B have each received an individual yellow card for an infraction other than exceeding the time.
Player C exceeds the time.
Players A and B each have a boule disqualified, but they do not receive an orange card. (Note that an orange card can be given only to the direct author of an infraction.) Player C receives a yellow card.
Players A, B and C have each received a yellow card for individual infractions.
The time is exceeded.
Three boules are disqualified (one per player) and the player who exceeded the time receives an orange card.
– Always make sure of who made the mistake.
– Know which players of the team have already been sanctioned during the game.
– Distinguish between a collective infraction (time exceeded) and an individual infraction.
– Remember that there is no collective orange card.
The CNA comments, written even more badly than the text that they were supposed to clarify, muddied the water considerably for the few players that actually read them.
The FPUSA rules are quite clear that when an umpire awards a penalty to a player who has broken a rule, “[the penalty] is indicated officially by the showing by the umpire of [an appropriate color] card to the player at fault.” In short, the showing of a colored card is merely a sign or indication that a penalty has been imposed. It is a confusion to think that “giving a player a colored card” is something separate from giving him a penalty, as if the umpire (1) gives a player a penalty, and then IN ADDITION (2) gives him a colored card. A colored card is merely a sign that a penalty has been imposed. So the wording of several of the CNA’s cases makes absolutely no sense, e.g. “Players A and B each have a boule disqualified, but they do not receive an orange card.”[Case 5]
Part of the problem is that the CNA comments are confused about whether a colored card indicates an infraction or a penalty. In Case 1, the yellow card indicates a penalty— a yellow card (warning penalty) is given to all of the players, even though only one player violated the rules. In Case 5, the yellow card indicates an infraction— a yellow card is given only to player C (because he was the “direct author” of the infraction) even though players A and B were both penalized by having a boule disqualified.
The CNA comments use the adjective “collective”, which Article 35 itself does not use. There is only one kind of collective infraction — a time-limit infraction. And there is only one kind of collective penalty— a warning. (“There is no collective orange card”.) The CNA can’t use this terminology consistently. It would be much better to abandon the “collective” jargon and simply say that the first time any member of a team exceeds the time limit, each member of the team is considered to have exceeded the time limit. That actually contradicts the text of Article 35, which says in effect that any time any member of a team exceeds the time limit, each member of the team is considered to have exceeded the time limit. But it is a reasonable position to hold.
As an umpire you are of course immediately inclined to ask—
What should I do if a team, after exceeding the time limit once, exceeds the time limit again? What if only one player is at fault, e.g. for hesitating too long in the circle? What if the whole team is at fault, e.g. for conferring as a group for too long?
Basically, you have to use your own best judgment. You have two choices.
One option is to follow the letter of Article 35. Any time any member of a team exceeds the time limit, each member of the team is considered to have exceeded the time limit. That means that in both situations each member of the team loses a boule; so a triples team loses 3 boules.
Your other option is to follow the CNA. The first (but only the first) time any member of a team exceeds the time limit, each member of the team is considered to have exceeded the time limit. That means that the second time any member(s) of the team exceed the time limit, only the offending member(s) lose a boule. If only one player is at fault, for hesitating too long in the circle, then only that player loses a boule. If every member of the team is at fault, for conferring as a group for too long, each member of the team loses a boule.
The FIPJP rules use many terms without defining them. The worst offender in this regard is the word “obstacle”. “What is an obstacle?” is probably the most-frequently-asked question about the rules. So… What is an obstacle?
In the FIPJP rules, “obstacle” is not a technical term. It is an ordinary word that means, roughly, “something that interferes with the normal course of some activity or process.” The relevant activity or process must be inferred from the context. The context differs from rule to rule.
- In Article 10, an “obstacle” is any natural feature of the terrain that might make pointing difficult. Article 10 says that even though a player might want to pick up or push down an “obstacle” like a stone or a hump in the ground, or tamp down some soft earth, he is not allowed to do so.
- In Article 19, an “obstacle” is anything that causes a boule to bounce back in-bounds after it has gone out-of-bounds.
- In Article 25, an “obstacle” is something on the terrain (a big rock, a tree root) that gets in the way of measurement.
The two important uses of the term “obstacle” are…
Both Article 6 (on placing the circle) and Article 7 (on throwing the jack) say that the throwing circle must be at least one meter from any “obstacle” and at least 2 meters from another throwing circle in use. The purpose of these rules is to move the circle away from throwing obstacles— features of the playing area that might interfere with a player’s normal throwing form. The most common kind of throwing obstacle are objects that might interfere with a player’s backswing. Trees, telephone poles, trash receptacles, walls, and crowd-control barriers count as throwing obstacles if they are too close to the circle. The category of “throwing obstacles” also includes features of the terrain that might interfere with a player’s footing. A patch of ground that is too irregular for a player to stand with a solid footing, a patch of slippery mud, a puddle of rainwater— all of these count as throwing obstacles.
Article 7 (on throwing the jack) also says that the thrown jack must be a minimum of 1 meter from any “obstacle” and from any dead-ball line. This rule is designed to insure that there is at least one meter of clear space around the thrown jack, so that it is possible for a player to point a boule anywhere within a meter of the jack. Here, pointing obstacles are things such as walls or buildings on the terrain that infringe on the clear space around the thrown jack. The dead-ball line is in effect a pointing obstacle, which is why Article 7 says that the thrown jack must be at least a meter from any dead-ball line.
There are a number of questions about “obstacles” that are frequently asked.
Is a wooden surround a throwing obstacle? It might interfere with the backswing of a squat pointer.
Mike Pegg has ruled that a wooden surround is NOT a throwing obstacle for a squat pointer, because the player can always stand (rather than squat) when pointing. I think, however, that (depending on the circumstances) another umpire might reasonably rule that players should be able safely to use their normal throwing form, whatever that form might be, and that a wooden surround can be considered a throwing obstacle if a squat pointer expresses concerns at the time that the circle is being placed. The primary goal here is to allow players to throw normally, and to do so without fear of injury.
Are tree trunks considered to be throwing or pointing obstacles?
Are tree roots considered to be throwing or pointing obstacles?
Generally speaking: NO. They are considered to be features of the terrain, like rocks.
Article 19 says that a boule is dead if it goes out-of-bounds, hits an “obstacle”, and then comes back on to the terrain. Are things ABOVE the ground “obstacles”? If a thrown (or hit) boule or jack hits something ABOVE the terrain, is it dead?
The answer is NO, it is not dead. The relevant question here has nothing to do with what is considered to be an obstacle— it is: “Are objects above the terrain out-of-bounds?” And the answer to that question is NO. Think of the dead-ball lines as imaginary invisible walls that the visible dead-ball lines project vertically into the sky. Any object that is directly above the terrain— any object that is inside the invisible dead-ball walls— is in-bounds. That means that if a boule or a jack hits an overhanging tree branch, a low-hanging light fixture, or a boulodrome ceiling, and drops down onto the terrain without going through one of those invisible walls, it is still alive. (Local or tournament rules may over-ride this general rule of course.) Here is an outdoor boulodrome in Seaside, Florida. Note the low-hanging light fixtures. Most of the light fixtures are in-bounds and are therefore normal features of the terrain, just as rocks on the terrain are normal features of the terrain.
Here is a Frequently Asked Question about moving a boule during measuring.
Article 28 of the 2016 version of the FIPJP rules says:
The point is lost by a team if one of its players, while making a measurement, displaces the jack or one of the contested boules.
Here is a typical situation that raises questions about this rule:
Boules A1 and B1 are “contested boules”, that is, they appear to be about the same distance from the jack and it is not clear which one of them holds the point. While measuring, Albert (from team A) accidentally bumps boule B1 a few millimeters farther away from the jack. So (per Article 28, because Team A moved a boule while measuring) Team A loses the point. Boule A1 loses the point, boule B1 has the point, and Team A plays the next boule.
During the agreement of points, Team A starts to use the normal point-counting procedure. The relative positions of A1 and B1 have not changed. A1 is closer to the jack than B1, so Team A naturally says that A1 beats B1. Team B disagrees, arguing that A1 earlier lost the point to B1. What is the correct ruling?
In a reply to this question on Ask the Umpire, Mike Pegg has ruled that as long as none of the involved balls (jack, A1, B1) has been moved, when points are counted A1 cannot be counted as beating B1. In other places he has ruled that A1 does not count in a measure for points as long as neither the jack nor A1 has been moved during play. The bottom line is that Team B is correct— when points are counted, A1 must still be considered farther away from the jack than B1.
Accidentally moving a ball while measuring is an illegal event. An “illegal event” is an event that is not possible within the rules of the game, but that is physically possible and actually occurs in real life. (In chess, for instance, accidentally upsetting the board is not a legal move, but sometimes it happens.) The ideal response to an illegal event is to undo it: to put everything back where it was before the illegal event occurred. In petanque, this would mean that the two teams would agree on how to put the illegally-moved things back. (This is the philosophy of Petanque Libre.)
When nothing is marked, an FIPJP umpire must rule that everything should be left where it is. Interestingly, Mike Pegg has suggested that it is possible for the two teams to agree to undo an illegal event even in a game supervised by FIPJP umpires. If an unmarked boule is moved accidentally, he says, agree with your opponent to replace the boule. “Do not call the umpire because if you do he or she will say the boule must remain where it is.”
Read other posts in the Putting Things Back category