Impossible snooker?

[bobbond]

What would happen if a player was snookered and it was impossible to get out of?

Say the cue ball was over the corner pocket and there were obstructing balls surrounding it with no path to get past them, what would happen?

[Snooker Rocks!]

He plays in a straight line towards the object ball and the ref calls a foul but no miss, I think

[DawRef]

Section 3 Rule 14:
'The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule to be infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed that the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee's opinion, to have reached the ball on, but for the obstructing ball or balls.'

Therefore, in your example, if the player just tapped the cue-ball into the pocket (and before the 1995 re-write, that was a legal stroke), he would be called FOUL AND A MISS. He MUST make an attempt to hit the ball on.

[bobbond]

cool, thanks for that. seems logical enough. i always thought it might be foul and a miss over and over until snooker were required haha

[147Alexandra]

If the cue ball was surrounded by reds after potting a red, what is the penalty in points? Is it max at 7, or could you elect the yellow for example as the ball on?

[Johnnycash]

presumably it would depend on which ball you then nominate to hit. I suspect if you nominated a colour which was nigh on impossible to hit (if you weren't completely surrounded by reds) then the referee would call a miss and award the penalty in points as with any other scenario.

[Johnnycash]

i suspect if you were surrounded by all the reds and therefore snookered on a colour you would go for the most direct colour anyway in order to avoid scattering all the reds everywhere as a consequence of playing with more pace than necessary.

[The Statman]

presumably it would depend on which ball you then nominate to hit. I suspect if you nominated a colour which was nigh on impossible to hit (if you weren't completely surrounded by reds) then the referee would call a miss and award the penalty in points as with any other scenario.

Yes in a way that is a logical response. Say you potted a red, the cue-ball landed on the side cushion and two reds then nestled in front of the cue-ball so there was no way out. If the pink was nearby and the green, say, was directly behind the pink I think a Miss would be in order if green was nominated.

Basically, if impossibly snookered you have to pretend to hit the ball on to the best of your ability. Choosing one colour which was obstructed by another would not fit that description.

[davis_greatest]

Basically, if impossibly snookered you have to pretend to hit the ball on to the best of your ability. Choosing one colour which was obstructed by another would not fit that description.

By extension (and while I agree), are you saying (The Statman) that a player must not only, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on, but must also (if given the option) nominate such ball as to make it most likely that he will hit such ball?

For instance, suppose a player pots a red and has an easy black to follow, but instead nominates yellow (the easiest way to hit the yellow being around 3 cushions)? And she endeavours, to the best of her ability, to hit the yellow, by the easiest possible route, and it is a fair attempt, but she just sails past it, missing by a cigarette paper's width?

Would you then call Foul and a Miss, because she could have nominated the easier black, but didn't?

If so, why? Section 3, rule 14 only states that "The striker shall, to the best of his [or her] ability, endeavour to hit the ball on" - and if she nominated yellow, then that is the ball on. It does not say anything about endeavouring to hit a ball which could have been on...

[DawRef]

If so, why? Section 3, rule 14 only states that "The striker shall, to the best of his [or her] ability, endeavour to hit the ball on" - and if she nominated yellow, then that is the ball on. It does not say anything about endeavouring to hit a ball which could have been on...

Section 2 Rule11....Ball On

Any ball which may be lawfully struck by the first impact of the cue-ball, or any ball which may not be so struck but which may be potted is said to be on.

Section 2 Rule 12... Nominated Ball
(a) A nominated ball is the object ball which the striker declares, or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee, he undertakes to hit with the first impact of the cue ball.

Therefore, if the player nominated yellow when the black was easier to hit and misses, Foul and a Miss.

[davis_greatest]

Thank you DawRef. However,

Section 2 Rule11....Ball On

Any ball which may be lawfully struck by the first impact of the cue-ball, or any ball which may not be so struck but which may be potted is said to be on.

1) What is an example of a ball which may not be struck first but which may be potted? The only example I can readily conjure is a ball on which one is snookered after one has nominated a free ball (e.g. snookered on a red - nominate green as free ball - then must not strike red before green).

In this example, if the red is a ball on but must not be struck first, it contradicts section 3, rule 14, that "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on"

Section 2 Rule 12... Nominated Ball
(a) A nominated ball is the object ball which the striker declares, or indicates to the satisfaction of the referee, he undertakes to hit with the first impact of the cue ball.

Therefore, if the player nominated yellow when the black was easier to hit and misses, Foul and a Miss.

2) I am not clear how your final sentence follows as a deduction from the extracts above....? Why does it mean that nominating and missing a more difficult ball, which then becomes the ball on, is automatically Foul and a Miss? (even though I know it is, as the rules are applied in practice)

[DawRef]

I will quote from the late John Street's book, which I hope will clear this up:

"The words 'or any ball which may not be so struck but which may be potted' have been added to this Rule to cover things like the 'free ball' situations where the 'ball on' may not be struck by the first impact of the cue-ball but may still be potted by a subsequent contact, either by the cue-ball or an object ball. It also covers the Reds in the centre of the pack early in the frame which cannot be struck by the first impact of the cue-ball (because that would be a jump shot) but they can still be potted."

[The Statman]

By extension (and while I agree), are you saying (The Statman) that a player must not only, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on, but must also (if given the option) nominate such ball as to make it most likely that he will hit such ball?

For instance, suppose a player pots a red and has an easy black to follow, but instead nominates yellow (the easiest way to hit the yellow being around 3 cushions)? And she endeavours, to the best of her ability, to hit the yellow, by the easiest possible route, and it is a fair attempt, but she just sails past it, missing by a cigarette paper's width?

Would you then call Foul and a Miss, because she could have nominated the easier black, but didn't?

If so, why? Section 3, rule 14 only states that "The striker shall, to the best of his [or her] ability, endeavour to hit the ball on" - and if she nominated yellow, then that is the ball on. It does not say anything about endeavouring to hit a ball which could have been on...

I see what you mean, and yes that is a possible downfall of the wording of the Rule.

However, one could argue that choosing which ball to nominate is a part of making your best endeavour to hit the ball on. In that way, you are not making your best effort to hit the ball on because you are not nominating the most appropiate ball on.

[davis_greatest]

I see what you mean, and yes that is a possible downfall of the wording of the Rule.

However, one could argue that choosing which ball to nominate is a part of making your best endeavour to hit the ball on. In that way, you are not making your best effort to hit the ball on because you are not nominating the most appropiate ball on.

I accept your point also; however, one could then argue that, if the rule meant that, it should instead require the striker to make his best "endeavour to hit a ball on", not the ball on - since the ball on is only determined in such a case after nomination.

The rules are mostly very well-written, but there are some bits that should be amended. Especially this rule, since if the striker does hit the ball on first, having endeavoured to do so as the rule requires, and if he had nominated a free ball, it is actually a foul!

[The Statman]

Another case where, from an impossible snooker, you might have to play "indirectly" to avoid a miss – consider this.

The blue, pink and black are on their spots. The last red is on the brown spot. The cue-ball is on the cushion directly behind the black, with the three baulk colours surrounding it.

I would argue that, if you just played directly towards the red, a Miss could be called because, were it not for the impossible snooker, that route would still end up hitting the black.