Tweet
Hi all, was wondering if someone could tell me the correct answer to this question, i was playing a league game last week and my opponent fouled, there were 2 reds left on the table, one touching the side of the black on its spot and the other red directly behind the black but hittable on one side. the ref said free ball, which i though correct but my opponent seemed to think it wasnt and although accepting the decision, whinged about it all night....his argument was that the red touching the black was already unhittable on one side prior to the foul and the other red was behind it.....no other balls affected the shot. Any ideas?
-
-
See the following thread that was posted by a senior referee, hopefully it will help you clarify your situation.
http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...f-you-have-one
enjoy
ps, wlecome to TSF
Last edited by DeanH; 30 September 2012, 02:09 PM.Up the TSF! :snooker: -
Thanks for that but cant seem to get that link to work. MickComment
-
sorry, try again
Up the TSF! :snooker:Comment
-
Many thanks for that, it would appear he was right.......good job it didnt affect the outcome of the game, although i suppose it probably did.Comment
-
sorry - can you explain your comment there that the opponent was right, i.e. it was not a free ball.
The red touching the black is snookered, the other red snookered behind the black, so to me Free Ball, no?Up the TSF! :snooker:Comment
-
Free Ball
Surely it was a free ball. You have to be able hit both sides of the object ball which clearly you couldn't.Did you put my "1" up ?
Comment
-
well according to the information i got from the link, it wasnt a free ball because you can be snookered on a red by another red. which in this case it was. so although the closest red was touching the black, the red behind could just be hit, which is the same reason it isnt a free ball if you miss the pack and they do not split even though you wouldnt be able to see both sides of all reds. Glad im not a ref, sounds far too complicated.Comment
-
Reading your initial scenario, it still was a free ball.Originally Posted by micky5280 View Post
The black was preventing the first red, obviously, from being hit on both sides.
For the second red, when judging for a free ball, we have to ignore the first red and ask if the black was preventing both-edges hit.
Basically, you have to judge each red as if it is the only one on the table.
Looking at my Diagram 2 in the above link, that is not a free ball (because the back red only has the other red in the way). But in the scenario you described, the back red was further over towards the black, so the black was also preventing a thin-edge strike on it. (Even though it's theoretical, because the front red is also in the way.)
Does that make sense!?Comment
-
Perhaps it is best to amend the diagram, to show what I read in your opening post:
free ball 2.bmp
Here, because the black is further over (to the right as we look), it is indeed a free ball, because it is preventing the thin edge on the front red (obviously) and also on the back red.Comment
-
yes that has cleared it up fully, i think the ref was right then, because if the red touching th black was removed the one behind would not be able to be hit on the one side because of the black, that makes good sense now. Many thanksComment
-
Cool.
And as for your opponent moaning "it was already unhittable before the foul", what's that got to do with anything?!Comment
-
quite right, that picture you did was almost exactly how the balls were positioned, glad the ref got it right then, and i now understand a little more. Many thanksComment
-
I'd just like to add one further comment to clear up any possible confusion. Mention was made of a ball being unhittable before the foul. That is irrelevant: a free ball is judged solely on the position left after the foul.Comment
Comment