What would happen in this situation...

[flame]

Quackers, the situation described by the OP, is that he is left with the position when he comes to the table that the cue-ball is ALREADY touching two balls that are 'on', such that he can't play away from them, because the cushion prevents this. Therefore, any shot he plays will automatically be a foul.

Souwester you are quite right,ball impossible to hit rule covers this situation.

[Quackers]

Yes, Souwester I see that.
About 15 years ago in the Bolton League a player came to the table where he had no shot and basically had to play a foul. A class C(?) referee who was there at the time was asked after the match what should happen. The referee said that if the match referee was of the opinion that the player "attempted to hit the ball on" no foul should be called.
As I say this was 15 years or so ago and things could have changed now - and indeed he could have been wrong at the time - I don't know. But that was his response to the question.

[PatBlock]

Yes, Souwester I see that.
About 15 years ago in the Bolton League a player came to the table where he had no shot and basically had to play a foul. A class C(?) referee who was there at the time was asked after the match what should happen. The referee said that if the match referee was of the opinion that the player "attempted to hit the ball on" no foul should be called.
As I say this was 15 years or so ago and things could have changed now - and indeed he could have been wrong at the time - I don't know. But that was his response to the question.

Seems a little harsh, but OK thanks for your help.

[flame]

Yes, Souwester I see that.
About 15 years ago in the Bolton League a player came to the table where he had no shot and basically had to play a foul. A class C(?) referee who was there at the time was asked after the match what should happen. The referee said that if the match referee was of the opinion that the player "attempted to hit the ball on" no foul should be called.
As I say this was 15 years or so ago and things could have changed now - and indeed he could have been wrong at the time - I don't know. But that was his response to the question.

if the player attempts to hit the ball on with enough power to reach it,it will be a foul, but not a miss,15 years ago in Bolton you could walk to the table wearing your cloggs and the vibrations would move the balls apart , no problems with touching balls then.

[Souwester]

Souwester you are quite right,ball impossible to hit rule covers this situation.

No, Flame, it doesn't. 'The Ball on Impossible to Hit' part of the 'Foul and a Miss' rule s3.14 covers the situation where say instead of two reds touching the cue ball, it was two colours whilst reds were still on the table.

How can a ball on be impossible to hit when the cue-ball is already touching two balls on?

In the situation described, a ball on is not impossible to hit, but it's impossible to play a legal stroke. There is a difference!

[Souwester]

Yes, Souwester I see that.
About 15 years ago in the Bolton League a player came to the table where he had no shot and basically had to play a foul. A class C(?) referee who was there at the time was asked after the match what should happen. The referee said that if the match referee was of the opinion that the player "attempted to hit the ball on" no foul should be called.
As I say this was 15 years or so ago and things could have changed now - and indeed he could have been wrong at the time - I don't know. But that was his response to the question.

My recollection of the odl rule book is that it should still have been called a foul then, because it is without doubt, an 'infringement' of the rules.

As a matter of interest, although the WSA introduced a new rule book a couple of years back, it is 99% the same as what was in the old light blue rule book, which came into effect on 1 September 1995, almost 15 years ago now. The EASB still sells the blue books, with an 'Amendments' sheet inserted, to cover a small number of cumulative changes.

[Quackers]

Clogs! LMAO I'm a duck!
flame and Souwester, I bow to your superior knowledge. I shall humbly quack away in my clogs. :-)

[flame]

No, Flame, it doesn't. 'The Ball on Impossible to Hit' part of the 'Foul and a Miss' rule s3.14 covers the situation where say instead of two reds touching the cue ball, it was two colours whilst reds were still on the table.

How can a ball on be impossible to hit when the cue-ball is already touching two balls on?

In the situation described, a ball on is not impossible to hit, but it's impossible to play a legal stroke. There is a difference!

i take your point of view regarding this situation, but my understanding is(i am not being aggressive in any way here)ball impossible to hit legally.

[Souwester]

The phrase 'impossible to hit the ball on' should be interpreted in the proper context. It is mentioned in the opening paragraph of s3.14 'Foul and a Miss':

14. Foul and a Miss

The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. 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.


In the pre-1995 rules, there was a simpler note to Rule 3(l) 'Mode of Play':
The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and miss.


NOTE

Ball on impossible to be hit - In this situation it has to be considered that the striker *IS* attempting to hit the ball on

[matoski]

If you come at the table with the situation ilustrated on the picture, then i guess you'll just hit the cue ball through the reds, because the cueball is already touching the reds.
The question should be, what if a player pots a red and finishes in a situation as ilustrated on the picture? There is no way to hit a coulour without making a foul.

[flame]

The phrase 'impossible to hit the ball on' should be interpreted in the proper context. It is mentioned in the opening paragraph of s3.14 'Foul and a Miss':

14. Foul and a Miss

The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. 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.


In the pre-1995 rules, there was a simpler note to Rule 3(l) 'Mode of Play':
The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and miss.


NOTE

Ball on impossible to be hit - In this situation it has to be considered that the striker *IS* attempting to hit the ball on

i think we both understand what we are saying.

[Quackers]

Souwester, thanks for your endeavours!

[Souwester]

The question should be, what if a player pots a red and finishes in a situation as ilustrated on the picture? There is no way to hit a coulour without making a foul.

Well that's exactly what the mention in s3.14 of 'impossible to hit a ball on' is about, but that is a different situation to when you come to the table already touching a ball or balls on.

The 'impossible to hit' reference is made in the context of it not being a MISS if you play the stroke with sufficient strength, either directly or indirectly, to have hit the object ball if the obstructing balls not on weren't there.

[Souwester]

If you come at the table with the situation ilustrated on the picture, then i guess you'll just hit the cue ball through the reds, because the cueball is already touching the reds.

You don't need to play through them, you could simply touch the cue ball, if, by playing through them, you;re likely to leave your opponent with an easy pot. That's why I mentioned earlier, that it may well be the makings of a stalemate situation.

[matoski]

You don't need to play through them, you could simply touch the cue ball, if, by playing through them, you;re likely to leave your opponent with an easy pot. That's why I mentioned earlier, that it may well be the makings of a stalemate situation.

In that case, a rerack will sort out all problems.