Question about Jump Shot & Four-handed Snooker

[Hyperonic]

Q1. What does far side of the ball mean ?

(b) when the cue-ball jumps and strikes an object ball, but does not land on the far side of that ball,


Q2.
(e) Partners may confer during a frame but not
(i) whilst one is the striker and at the table, nor
(ii) after the first stroke of the striker’s turn until the break ends.

In our club when the striker, if weak in breaking snookers, is snookered his partner helps him out by placing his finger on the cushion. I warned him that it will be a foul of 4 if he didn't lift his finger before the striker played. I explained to them the above rule and they were amazed as they didn't know about this. They asked me that what is the purpose of four-handed snooker if the players can't confer all through till the end of frame. What is the answer ?

In my club the conferring in four-handed rule, the miss rule and foul due to dress touching a ball are not followed.

[DawRef]

Q1. What does far side of the ball mean ?

This means that if the cue-ball jumps and lands on the other side of the object ball, even if it hits it in the process, it is a foul. Note, it doesn't have to jump over the centre of the object ball. If it jumps over any part of the object ball it is a foul. Note also, that if it legally strikes an object ball first and then jumps over another ball it is not a foul.

Q2 Unlike pool, it is a foul to confer when the striker is at the table.
As far as I am aware, this has always been in the official rules. They can confer when their opponents are at the table, but once one of them becomes the striker, then they cannot confer. They can confer up to the point one of them becomes the striler. i.e. when one of them approaches, or starts to approach, the table.
In 4 handed snooker, the partner of the striker is considered an extension of the striker. According to the late John Street's and Sussex Referees Assoiciation handbooks, it is like passing a comment during a 'starter for ten' on BBC's University Challenge and is ruled as conferring - a foul with a penalty of the value of the ball on.

[Hyperonic]

This means that if the cue-ball jumps and lands on the other side of the object ball, even if it hits it in the process, it is a foul. Note, it doesn't have to jump over the centre of the object ball. If it jumps over any part of the object ball it is a foul. Note also, that if it legally strikes an object ball first and then jumps over another ball it is not a foul.

What is other side ? Is it the part that is after top center point of the object ball ?
Even if it lands on the near side or any side, then hasn't cue ball passed over certain part of the object and thus foul ?

[The Statman]

Q1. What does far side of the ball mean ?

(b) when the cue-ball jumps and strikes an object ball, but does not land on the far side of that ball,

Essentially, if the cue-ball, when it lands, has travelled further than the ball over which it jumps, then it is a foul.

Picture it like this: When the cue-ball jumps over a ball and hits it in the process – and hits it more or less full ball – it is an easy call because when the cue-ball comes back to the table it will either land beyond the red (which would be a foul) or the player's side (which would not be foul because it has not jumped over the red.

If, however, the red has been hit at an angle it is a more difficult call. But look at the following diagram. The hollow red circle marks the position that the red had reached at the moment the cue-ball returned to the table.

If the red is pocketed, or rebounds off a cushion, a similar judgement would have to be made, as to which ball has travelled the further when the white lands on the table.

[Hyperonic]

What will be the value of foul if the partners confer after the red has been potted ?

12. Penalties
(a) value of the ball on by
(x) conferring with a partner contrary to Section 3 Rule 17(e).

[The Statman]

What will be the value of foul if the partners confer after the red has been potted ?

12. Penalties
(a) value of the ball on by
(x) conferring with a partner contrary to Section 3 Rule 17(e).

That will be a foul 7 for making a foul before nominating a colour (assuming indeed that no colour has yet been nominated).

[Hyperonic]

In during four-handed snooker, what will happen if it is somehow later discovered that the turns have been changed and the foul was committed by the opponent group. Will they be penalised and what about the order of turns ? Will it be changed back to original order ?

[The Statman]

In during four-handed snooker, what will happen if it is somehow later discovered that the turns have been changed and the foul was committed by the opponent group. Will they be penalised and what about the order of turns ? Will it be changed back to original order ?

All fouls are condoned once the next shot is played. So if someone goes out of turn, and it is noticed, that player will be fouled even though the original wrong-turn play might have been a long time earlier. (It is probable that nobody can establish exactly when and by whom the order got changed, otherwise it would have been noticed at the time.)

Once the foul is called, the correct order must immediately be re-established. So whoever played the last shot, rightly or wrongly, must be followed by the player who should indeed follow him.

[Hyperonic]

All fouls are condoned once the next shot is played. So if someone goes out of turn, and it is noticed, that player will be fouled even though the original wrong-turn play might have been a long time earlier. (It is probable that nobody can establish exactly when and by whom the order got changed, otherwise it would have been noticed at the time.)

Will the player's break be stopped immediately or after it ends, if he is noticed playing out of turn during the break ?

Once the foul is called, the correct order must immediately be re-established. So whoever played the last shot, rightly or wrongly, must be followed by the player who should indeed follow him.

I think it is the offending partners who should then follow the original order rather than the other way round :

(c) If a foul is committed and a request to play again is made, the player who committed the foul plays again, even if the foul was made out of turn, and the original order of play is maintained such that the offender’s partner may lose a turn.

What do you think now ?

[DawRef]

Will the player's break be stopped immediately or after it ends, if he is noticed playing out of turn during the break ?

Stopped imediately. To play out of turn is a foul. Section 3 Rule 11(b) states: "If a stroke has been made, the referee will wait until completion of the stroke before announcing the penalty."

(c) If a foul is committed and a request to play again is made, the player who committed the foul plays again, even if the foul was made out of turn, and the original order of play is maintained such that the offender’s partner may lose a turn.

In four handed snooker, the order of play MUST be maintained. So if Players A and C are playing B and D, the order could be A-B-C-D. At some point it is found that player B has just played out of turn in place of D, and a foul is called. The order of play is now restored by A playing the next stroke (because he normally follows D, whose turn it should have been).

[The Statman]

Will the player's break be stopped immediately or after it ends, if he is noticed playing out of turn during the break ?

As with all fouls, it ends the turn. Any points scored in a break prior to the shot just played will stand (they were all actually fouls but each foul was condoned as the next shot was played) and the shot just completed will be called foul. Four away (unless blue pink or black was the ball on, of course).

I think it is the offending partners who should then follow the original order rather than the other way round :

(c) If a foul is committed and a request to play again is made, the player who committed the foul plays again, even if the foul was made out of turn, and the original order of play is maintained such that the offender’s partner may lose a turn.

What do you think now ?

Just after I answered it, I doubted myself and I didn't have a rulebook to hand.

However, that which you quote is specifically referring to the player who fouled being asked to play again.

Let's look at this scenario. The order is A B C D, A and C being partners.

The frame proceeds properly A B C D A B C D A B C D A B ... but then, instead of C playing, A plays out of turn. This is called foul. The BD pairing decided to say "play again" and the part that you quoted makes plain that it is A who must play again, and that after that has happened B follows because that is the order that was established. So the sequence goes

A B C D A B C D A B A(foul) A(play again) B C D A B C D etc. Therefore D missed a turn (or B had an extra turn, however you care to look at it).

I remember refereeing our leage Pairs final one year and a player went out of turn; he was asked to play again and they were not sure which player should do so – and they chose wrong so his partner was also fouled! Of course, then they knew what was the correct procedure but the other side didn't ask them to play again again!

[davis_greatest]

What happens if A can hit the object ball full ball, and has just made two consecutive misses and been warned that a third miss will result in forfeiture of the frame, and his crafty partner C comes and plays the next shot in his place?

[DawRef]

If that happened while I was refereeing, then I would apply 'Ball moved other than by striker', warn the player that if he done it again he would be penalised for Ungentlemanly Conduct, replace all balls and remind the (correct) player that he was still under a warning.

[davis_greatest]

If that happened while I was refereeing, then I would apply 'Ball moved other than by striker', warn the player that if he done it again he would be penalised for Ungentlemanly Conduct, replace all balls and remind the (correct) player that he was still under a warning.

Thanks. So you wouldn't even call a foul on Player C even though he played out of turn?

[The Statman]

If that happened while I was refereeing, then I would apply 'Ball moved other than by striker', warn the player that if he done it again he would be penalised for Ungentlemanly Conduct, replace all balls and remind the (correct) player that he was still under a warning.

Are you sure? I believe the striker's partner is considered an extension of the striker for this purpose. The other two players (the opposition) are non-striker but the two on the striking side are.

If I was refereeing in this situation, I would call a Foul on player C (for playing out of turn). If he also missed the ball on, it would be loss of frame for three consecutive Misses.