Ideally for referees

[DawRef]

There has already been a thread posted about the 'impossible snooker'.

However, what I would like to know is how would a referee decide that it was an impossible snooker and not call 'foul and a miss' after the players attempt at hitting the object ball, assuming that penalty points were not required.

Section 5, Rule 1(b)(ii) states that the referee shall not give any indication that a player is about to make a foul stroke.

So if the player said "Ref I can't get out of that snooker without hitting the black", for example, can the referee say anything except, "play your stroke" (or words to that effect).

[DandyA]

So if the player said "Ref I can't get out of that snooker without hitting the black", for example, can the referee say anything except, "play your stroke" (or words to that effect).

DawRef - I'm not a referee but can I clarify ... is the white ball totally surrounded so that there is no possible excape whatsoever ... ie the white will not fit through any gaps between the snookering ball or balls and cushions ...

[steveflanuk]

I would say the only time it is impossible to get out of a snooker is if the white ball is totally surrounded and there are no gaps that are big enough for it to pass through. In this case the rules are quite clear:

Rule 14: Foul and a Miss
"... If the referee considers the Rule 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 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 the obstructing ball or balls."

If it is a case of whereby there is a small gap for the white to escape from but virtually impossible to assert enough side spin on the ball to get the white to hit the object ball then that is a question as to whether the referee themself thought the striker made a good enough attempt to hit the ball on.

[The Statman]

I would say the only time it is impossible to get out of a snooker is if the white ball is totally surrounded and there are no gaps that are big enough for it to pass through. In this case the rules are quite clear:

Rule 14: Foul and a Miss
"... If the referee considers the Rule 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 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 the obstructing ball or balls."

If it is a case of whereby there is a small gap for the white to escape from but virtually impossible to assert enough side spin on the ball to get the white to hit the object ball then that is a question as to whether the referee themself thought the striker made a good enough attempt to hit the ball on.

Yes. I think that if the cue-ball is surrounded by colours, then it is simply a matter of aiming in the direction that would make contact with the object ball, but for the ring of colours.

If there is a gap in the ring of colours, wider than a ball, then I would say:
If by playing through the gap, there is no access to the ball on or to a cushion, then the 'impossible snooker' is in force. I would suggest that a Miss could be called if the player simply played through the gap and then unavoidably hit a ball not on
If by playing through the gap, there is access to a clear cushion, then there is not an 'impossible snooker' situation. The player must play through the gap – failure to do so is tantamount to deliberately hitting the (nearby) ball not on – but if there is no reasonable route from the cushion to the ball on, the player should not have a Miss called against him if he uses the maximum sidespin available, as long as the stroke would have been hard enough.

Of course, it could be the ball on that is hidden in a ring of colours, not necessarily the cue-ball. For instance, it would only take two colours, in a certain position, to block a red that is on the cushion. Three colours would do it comfortably.

In these circumstances, I would suggest that the player must make contact with one of the obstructing colours. Say this situation exists with the last red on the cushion, directly behind the black spot, surrounded by the yellow, green and pink such that contact is impossible – with the white on the brown spot and the blue on its spot. You are certainly impossibly snookered on the last red, but I would say that you should not permit the player to aim directly towards the red, since the blue is squarely in the way and would be even without the impossible snooker.

If a red is almost surrounded by colours but there is a gap just big enough to enter, then the player must attempt to hit the red from that direction. A fair leeway would be allowed; i.e. imagining the path that the white would have taken but for the ring of colours, and decide whether you would have called a Miss for an attempt that got that close.

As to the original point about whether the referee may answer, I would suggest that he can give no information at all concerning on-table matters and his opinion of whether a ball will spot, pass another, etc. If the player came to the table able to see a red virtually full ball and asked me, as the referee, whether I considered him to be in the Three-Miss situation (essentially asking if full ball contact were available, it being a close call) I would not answer.

[Strickimicki]

If through playing away from the obstructing ball/balls, one plays a cushion shot in such a way that the cue ball jumps over the obstructing ball, is that a foul? If not, no is snooker is impossible!

I know that jumping directly over balls is a foul but after contact with a cushion?

[The Statman]

If through playing away from the obstructing ball/balls, one plays a cushion shot in such a way that the cue ball jumps over the obstructing ball, is that a foul? If not, no is snooker is impossible!

I know that jumping directly over balls is a foul but after contact with a cushion?

No that's still a foul. A jump shot refers to jumping over a ball before the cue-ball has struck another ball, not a cushion.

[davis_greatest]

If through playing away from the obstructing ball/balls, one plays a cushion shot in such a way that the cue ball jumps over the obstructing ball, is that a foul? If not, no is snooker is impossible!

I know that jumping directly over balls is a foul but after contact with a cushion?

As The Statman says, jumping over another ball (regardless of whether before or after contacting a cushion) before striking the object ball is a foul stroke, but you are right that it may still be possible to pay a legitimate stroke even if the cue ball is surrounded by other balls and the cushion.

For instance, he may strike the ball up onto the cushion, so it rolls along the cushion and then back onto the bed of the table. Even onto the cushion, so it ricochets into the air, bounces off the light fitting, hits the radiator and lands back on the bed of the table - so long as it does not jump over a ball on its path. Therefore, many so-claimed impossible snookers are not impossible - just somewhat tricky!

[RGCirencester]

i like that davis.
In the situation where the last red is obstructed so as to make hitting it impossible the player has no choice but to hit one of the surrounding balls or he will leave a free ball. So in doing so i would say no miss would be called, and even without the free ball you would still be snookered if your oponent puts you back in.
However recently my friend was in a situation that was basically an impossible snooker. The white landed on the cusion and the pink came to rest directly in front touching it. Now the only two angles he could play were into either corner pocket. In the end he just hit it as hard as he could at the corner pocket jaws hoping ot hit a red, which he did not. However it is not inconcievable that the black and blue for instance could lie anywhere along the cusion preventing you from getting to either corner pocket.

BTW here is my collection of impossible snookers, the only one as Davis points out that is impossible is the third one down technically.



According to the letter of the rules, the ref cannot give any indication to the player any way. But it is a situation that can crop up much more often that you would think

[davis_greatest]

BTW here is my collection of impossible snookers, the only one as Davis points out that is impossible is the third one down technically.

The first one just needs the white to be struck so that it lands on the cushion (i.e. initially off the bed of the table) where the red is, and then rolls off to hit the red. It even looks like there may be room to hit the red off the left cushion without striking the yellow, but it is very close and hard to see on screen.

The 2nd one looks like a 2 cushion escape could even be possible!

[RGCirencester]

In the second example the pink is touching the white so you can only possibly play at 90 degrees to it. I suppose you could play the worlds greatest masse.... Youve given me a new way of looking at this davis im going to be thinking of inventive ways off getting out of snookers for days! Thank you very much...
But given the pink touching the white on the top cusion, so that you can only possibly hit the jaws of the pockets and nowhere else (barring insane masses...), what would the refs do i was wondering. Because say the white rolled up the side cusion and landed safe, you may not consider that to be a good enough attempt, and once you have called a miss once do you have to continue until snookers are required or you hit a red? If the white landed in open player or hit a colour i would personally see this as a good enough attempt, but theoretically the player could have played to rattle the jaws and land on the side cusion.

[davis_greatest]

In the second example the pink is touching the white so you can only possibly play at 90 degrees to it.

Remember that cushions have a degree of elasticity, so in practice it is possible to play into the cushion (at, say, a line 20 degrees from a line parallel to the cushion) and the white can come out without striking the pink. It would be different if we were viewing the cue ball bouncing off the cushion as light reflecting off a mirror - the mirror is rigid and so does not have any give in it! The other difference is that a ball bounces off a cushion when the edge of the ball hits the cushion, which is different from considering the path taken by the centre of the ball.

once you have called a miss once do you have to continue until snookers are required or you hit a red? ...

Sometimes it seems that professional referees, having called a miss once, just continue calling misses until the object ball is struck, even when a player misses by the tiniest fraction. But that is not, and should not be, the case. Just because a miss has been called once does not mean it should be again - each subsequent shot should be judged on its merits (assuming that central full ball contact is not possible, which it isn't here)!

[Strickimicki]

For instance, he may strike the ball up onto the cushion, so it rolls along the cushion and then back onto the bed of the table. Even onto the cushion, so it ricochets into the air, bounces off the light fitting, hits the radiator and lands back on the bed of the table - so long as it does not jump over a ball on its path. Therefore, many so-claimed impossible snookers are not impossible - just somewhat tricky!

Sorry it took so long to respond!

Are you taking the p*ss

Point taken!

[The Statman]

... For instance, he may strike the ball up onto the cushion, so it rolls along the cushion and then back onto the bed of the table. Even onto the cushion, so it ricochets into the air, bounces off the light fitting, hits the radiator and lands back on the bed of the table - so long as it does not jump over a ball on its path. Therefore, many so-claimed impossible snookers are not impossible - just somewhat tricky!

However, if it touches anything other than the table or the player – such as light fitting or radiator, then it comes under "ball moved by other than striker" and whould have to be positioned by the referee where he judges it would have finished. In the case of the radiator, he would certainly judge that it would have ended up on the floor! So a foul in any case for forcing a ball off the table.

[davis_greatest]

However, if it touches anything other than the table or the player – such as light fitting or radiator, then it comes under "ball moved by other than striker" and whould have to be positioned by the referee where he judges it would have finished. In the case of the radiator, he would certainly judge that it would have ended up on the floor! So a foul in any case for forcing a ball off the table.

I must admit that I would have interpreted the "ball moved by other than striker" rule as referring to when something (an object or person) moves and strikes a ball, rather than the ball striking something which was there already and stationary (such as a light or radiator). (I think one of my snooker books asserted that a ball could legitimately hit a light fitting, for instance, and return to the bed of the table, but unfortunately I can't refer to it as I think I may have lent the book out long ago!)

Is it really clear that the rules distinguish between a ball bouncing up onto the cushion rail and back onto the bed of the table (which we all agree is allowed) and the same ball hitting a light fitting and back onto the table (which you say would fall under this rule)?

[The Statman]

Well, a ball leaving the table (and the space above it) cannot return to the table under its own devices, where as a ball on top of the cushion has not left the table in the first place.

If any ball left the table and returned via, say, a radiator when I was refereeing, I would not allow the shot to stand.