Snooker Question stalemate

[Cyrus]

Hi everyone. I've got a question about stalemate situation in which one of the players decides to hit a red ball strong enough that leads to rearanging all the balls on the table. Is that considered to be a faul or what?
WHat should a referee do in this case?

[DeanH]

Confused by your scenario, why would what you describe be a stalemate?
A stalemate is where the players can not or do not make progress in the game, such as playing the same shots over and over again (small shots to the pack of reds, etc.).
The referee will tell the players they have a few more shots each (usually 3) to improve the game progress or a rerack will happen.

In your scenario - a player hitting the cue ball very hard is NOT a foul in itself, as long as the cue ball hits the ball on first.
Rearranging all the balls is again not a foul in itself, unusual but not a foul.
Of course any ball not on going into a pocket is a foul, any ball coming to rest off the playing surface is a foul, etc, etc.
If a foul occurs, the non-offending player receives the appropriate penalty points and has the usual 2 or 3 options as appropriate to the situation.

NOW, if the very hard shot is regarded to be of unsporting conduct by the referee then the player can be warned by the referee if such unsporting conduct continues the frame will be awarded to the opponent.

Make sense?

[Cyrus]

Confused by your scenario, why would what you describe be a stalemate?
A stalemate is where the players can not or do not make progress in the game, such as playing the same shots over and over again (small shots to the pack of reds, etc.).
The referee will tell the players they have a few more shots each (usually 3) to improve the game progress or a rerack will happen.

In your scenario - a player hitting the cue ball very hard is NOT a foul in itself, as long as the cue ball hits the ball on first.
Rearranging all the balls is again not a foul in itself, unusual but not a foul.
Of course any ball not on going into a pocket is a foul, any ball coming to rest off the playing surface is a foul, etc, etc.
If a foul occurs, the non-offending player receives the appropriate penalty points and has the usual 2 or 3 options as appropriate to the situation.

NOW, if the very hard shot is regarded to be of unsporting conduct by the referee then the player can be warned by the referee if such unsporting conduct continues the frame will be awarded to the opponent.

Make sense?

Thanks for your answer. Let me explain one more time. Imagine you pocket a red ball and you need to go for a colour ball but the cue ball is surrounded by few red ball. so referee gives the player three shot. But the player hit the red ball and it causes all the massive change on the table. considering no ball have gone into any pocket, but what the referee should do? Is that a foul? Or should give another chance to that player or Let them continue the game or rerack. I hope you understand my poor English.

[itsnoteasy]

I'll try and cover anything you might be asking and hope one of them is right.
If the player is snookered and there is no possible path to a colour, they have to nominate a colour and play the shot at a pace they would use to hit it. Obviously it will be a foul as there is no path but it won't be called a miss and you can either ask them to play from where they lie after the shot or you can play. . If they are snookered and there is a path to any colour, three shots don't matter, they can be put back until they either hit a colour or they require snookers. The three shot rule only applies if the ball on can be seen full ball, so your not snookered. One other thing you might be asking. If they play the shot and scatter lots of balls all over the place, even though it's hard the ref has to try and put the balls back to the best of their ability. Normally with the agreement of both players but the refs decision is final..

[Cyrus]

I'll try and cover anything you might be asking and hope one of them is right.
If the player is snookered and there is no possible path to a colour, they have to nominate a colour and play the shot at a pace they would use to hit it. Obviously it will be a foul as there is no path but it won't be called a miss and you can either ask them to play from where they lie after the shot or you can play. . If they are snookered and there is a path to any colour, three shots don't matter, they can be put back until they either hit a colour or they require snookers. The three shot rule only applies if the ball on can be seen full ball, so your not snookered. One other thing you might be asking. If they play the shot and scatter lots of balls all over the place, even though it's hard the ref has to try and put the balls back to the best of their ability. Normally with the agreement of both players but the refs decision is final..

Thanks very much

[Cyrus]

I guess the situation I had is not considered a stalemate.
if a player pockets a red ball and the cue ball get surrounded by other reds and there's no path toward any colour. What is the correct decision to make by the referee. And is that stalemate or not?

[Nifty50]

I guess the situation I had is not considered a stalemate.
if a player pockets a red ball and the cue ball get surrounded by other reds and there's no path toward any colour. What is the correct decision to make by the referee. And is that stalemate or not?

Read answer by Itsnoteasy.

[DeanH]

Thanks for your answer. Let me explain one more time. Imagine you pocket a red ball and you need to go for a colour ball but the cue ball is surrounded by few red ball. so referee gives the player three shot. But the player hit the red ball and it causes all the massive change on the table. considering no ball have gone into any pocket, but what the referee should do? Is that a foul? Or should give another chance to that player or Let them continue the game or rerack. I hope you understand my poor English.

ah ha, not how I read the first post

...the cue ball is surrounded by few red ball...

as in the cue ball is completely surrounded by reds with no physical path wide enough to pass any red.
Commonly called "the Impossible Snooker".
as Itsnoteasy says above, in this case, the player has to play as if the intervening balls are not there, so in the manner and power that the cue ball would hit the ball on. Yes a Foul will be called but not a Miss, if the Referee is satisfied so. As no Miss called replacing the balls is NOT an option, so the non-offending player has the usual two options, play themselves from were the balls come to rest, or put the offender into to play from where the balls come to rest.
If there is a path, not an impossible snooker, then the player must try to hit the ball on, if they don't then a Foul and Miss is called and there is no "three Miss" ruling as there is no "full Ball contact" in a direct path contact possible from cue ball to ball on. This third option after a foul will continue until the ball is is hit, or the non-offender does not ask form the balls to be replaced, or either player needs snookers. Also the non-offending player can also either play themselves or ask the offender to play from where the balls come to rest.

I guess the situation I had is not considered a stalemate.
if a player pockets a red ball and the cue ball get surrounded by other reds and there's no path toward any colour. What is the correct decision to make by the referee. And is that stalemate or not?

I think you should forget about the term stalemate. as described in my first reply, stalemate is when both players are not making progress in the game with the shots they are doing. Nothing you describe is anything like a stalemate situation; your scenarios are basically one player is buggered

[DeanH]

... only applies if the ball on can be seen full ball, so your not snookered.

apologies for this correction, you CAN have full ball contact AND be snookered.

Remember a snooker is defined by the cue ball not being able to hit both extreme edges of the ball on, you can have full ball contact AND not see both extreme edges.
example here

[itsnoteasy]

apologies for this correction, you CAN have full ball contact AND be snookered.

Remember a snooker is defined by the cue ball not being able to hit both extreme edges of the ball on, you can have full ball contact AND not see both extreme edges.
example here

How is that snookered? You can hit as much of the ball as is humanly possible( without some swervy trick shot) so why is that considered a snooker?
Nah I'm talking bollicks, I see what you mean.

[vmax]

apologies for this correction, you CAN have full ball contact AND be snookered.

Remember a snooker is defined by the cue ball not being able to hit both extreme edges of the ball on, you can have full ball contact AND not see both extreme edges.
example here

Is it not so that the three miss rule applies when a ball on can be struck full ball as in the picture and the striker tries and fails to hit another ball on that can't be struck full ball or on both extreme edges, which to me is another reason the miss rule is bollocks, either you're snookered or you're not

[DeanH]

Is it not so that the three miss rule applies when a ball on can be struck full ball as in the picture...

That is correct.

...and the striker tries and fails to hit another ball on that can't be struck full ball...

If the player decides to not go for the ball on that has a straight direct full contact available, that is their prerogative and their own fault if they do not make a contact on the ball on and will be punished by the penalty Foul and Miss and appropriate penalty points. The non-offender then has the three options, play themselves or put in the offender from where the balls came to rest, or have the balls replaced.

...or on both extreme edges...

Not part of the decision for a Miss to be called or not.

... which to me is another reason the miss rule is bollocks, either you're snookered or you're not

Sorry but whether a snooker exists or not has nothing to do with whether a Miss is called or not.
I don't think the rule is bollocks, difficult to get "head around" sometimes but it definitely has worked to stop really poor attempts at playing a shot by some players over the years
The essence/intent of the rule is clear but the detail is where it gets tricky to cover "all bases" and make it "clear for all".
I would say that the wording is not "there yet" and I am sure the rule will be tweaked again next time the rules committee publish changes

[wlorcb]

apologies for this correction, you CAN have full ball contact AND be snookered.

Remember a snooker is defined by the cue ball not being able to hit both extreme edges of the ball on, you can have full ball contact AND not see both extreme edges.
example here

Good picture illustrating this.

In my own mind when I explain snookered to people, I say it's not that a player doesn't have a or any shot(in the diagram, the cue ball can cleanly hit the red on ball), it that the player does not have available all the shots he may want. I usually illustrate by having a pocket to the left of a red and a colour blocking the path to the right edge of the red. The player can clearly hit almost all of the red, but what he wants to hit is the right edge so he can pocket it.