Touching Ball - Possible Re-Spotted Black?

[DawRef]

This is the scenario with the scores level and only the Black remaining.

The cue-ball is in the jaws of a corner pocket and right on the edge. The Black is directly in front and touching the cue-ball. The only direction the cue-ball can be played WITHOUT playing a push shot, is into the pocket.

In this situation, and in the interests of fair play, would you agree to re-spot the black, with the cue-ball played from in hand?

[andy carson]

im not 100% sure but i woukld think that situation warrants a re-rack

[RGCirencester]

fair play -respotted black
but according to the rules you lose don't you?
or you could play the white directly at the back of the pocket hoping to hit it hard enough to rebound and hit the black without falling in the pocket

[The Statman]

No.

The player could conceivably play the ball so lightly that it does no more than rock and land in the same place, leaving his opponent with the same situation.

Certainly not a re-spot, though.

[rambon]

The referee could decide stalemate and ask both players if they agree to a complete re-rack I suppose

[RGCirencester]

So the two options are to try and hit it extremely softly or hard enough to rebound off the back of the pocket

[missneworleans]

no respot for sure you must shoot the black somehow without a push

[DawRef]

The player could conceivably play the ball so lightly that it does no more than rock and land in the same place, leaving his opponent with the same situation.

So if both players managed to just lightly tap the cue-ball, without it falling in a pocket or a push shot occurring, could that not then constitutre a re-set?

[RGCirencester]

If they do it repeatedly the referee could ask if both players want a rerack. But you would both have to be very good at lightly tapping the ball.

[The Statman]

So if both players managed to just lightly tap the cue-ball, without it falling in a pocket or a push shot occurring, could that not then constitutre a re-set?

Yes then it might do, but you would have to go through the stalemate process, i.e. either the players' agreement or the decision of the referee.

But I don't believe the situation you initially described, when it first happened, can be a stalemate. A stalemate by definition develops.

So the two options are to try and hit it extremely softly or hard enough to rebound off the back of the pocket

Yes. Even then, of course, if the cue-ball rebounds over any part of the black, it is a jump shot and therefore still a foul.

[magicman]

You could play for a million years without this scenario occurring!

[nlm247]

Yes. Even then, of course, if the cue-ball rebounds over any part of the black, it is a jump shot and therefore still a foul.

would this be a foul though as jump has happened after contact as it is touching ball?

[The Statman]

Yes. Even then, of course, if the cue-ball rebounds over any part of the black, it is a jump shot and therefore still a foul.

would this be a foul though as jump has happened after contact as it is touching ball?

An interesting point. No, it would still be a foul.

I spoke with a number of referees about this, including the late John Street. The consensus was that the touching ball situation does not count as having "struck" the object ball in the application of the jump shot. The wording of the jump shot refers to "striking" the object ball and being touching at the start of the shot does not fit in with the word "strike".

The specific scenario for which I raised the question was this: Cue-ball touching a red, and there is another red over a pocket. Between the cue-ball and the red over the pocket, there are two colours set so that a plant is not available. The decision was that you [b]cannot[/u] jump the two colours to pot the red, as this will be a foul for a jump shot. (If there was only one colour in the way, the plant could be played colour-red and that would be fine.)

[Monique]

why would the situation with 2 coulors between the touching cue ball and the red over the pocket conduct to a foul?
This is another situation of course but let's suppose that the player at the table must play a red and does indeed hit one, then the cue ball continues to run and hits a colour, that hits another colour that hits a red that is then pocketed. Would that be a foul? Would that be a fluke pot?

[The Statman]

why would the situation with 2 coulors between the touching cue ball and the red over the pocket conduct to a foul?
This is another situation of course but let's suppose that the player at the table must play a red and does indeed hit one, then the cue ball continues to run and hits a colour, that hits another colour that hits a red that is then pocketed. Would that be a foul? Would that be a fluke pot?

That would be a fluked pot.

But it is a jump shot (i.e. foul) if the cue-ball should jump over any ball, before having legally struck another ball.

If the cue-ball starts touching a red, it has not "struck" the red. You cannot strike something from a position touching it. To "strike" is to physically make contact with something (usually at some speed). The cue-ball made contact with the red at the end of the previous stroke; it must have done to have landed touching it.

As I said, if there was only one colour in the path (or the two colours happened to be aligned with the red over the pocket), it would be quite legal, with the cue-ball touching a red in the first place, to make direct contact with the colour(s) to knock the red in.

The foul in this instance is not to do with failing to hit the ball on – the touching ball dictates that initial contact with the ball on has already happened – but for causing a jump shot to take place, which is outlawed.