What would happen in this situation...

[PatBlock]

Sorry if this has been asked before, what happens if the white ends up in a possition where it can't legaly be hit? Say, up against a cushion with 2 other balls touching it and hemming it in.

[flame]

Sorry if this has been asked before, what happens if the white ends up in a possition where it can't legaly be hit? Say, up against a cushion with 2 other balls touching it and hemming it in.

please clarify,(white cannot be legally be hit)

[montoya10]

I think he is trying to imagine a snooker position when there is no valid escape to play.. I don't know the answer, but it's always one of those questions that keeps coming to my mind..

[flame]

please clarify,(white cannot be legally be hit)

i presume you mean ball impossible to hit(object ball),in this situation the striker must hit the cue ball with enough power to hit the object ball if it was not impossible to hit & in the right direction to hit the object ball, yes it would be a foul.

[PatBlock]

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The white is resting against the cussion, and there are 2 reds touching the white. The reff declares touching ball on both reds, so the player cant legally hit either of them, or play away from them (because the white is also touching the cushion). D'you see what I mean?

[flame]

i presume you mean ball impossible to hit(object ball),in this situation the striker must hit the cue ball with enough power to hit the object ball if it was not impossible to hit & in the right direction to hit the object ball, yes it would be a foul.

hope this answers your question to your satisfaction,sorry for misunderstanding your original post.

[PatBlock]

hope this answers your question to your satisfaction,sorry for misunderstanding your original post.

So are you sayinng that if I went to the table facing that situation, I would be forced into playing a foul shot, and pay the penalty?

[Souwester]

I think what the OP is trying to say is that the touching balls are both balls 'on' and therefore it is impossible to play away.

The answer simply is that the stroke would be an automatic foul (but not a Miss, because you've obviously first made contact with a ball on).

This might just be a case that a stalemate was developing, unless you chose to force the cue-ball through the touching reds into a safe position.

[flame]

I think what the OP is trying to say is that the touching balls are both balls 'on' and therefore it is impossible to play away.

The answer simply is that the stroke would be an automatic foul (but not a Miss, because you've obviously first made contact with a ball on).

This might just be a case that a stalemate was developing, unless you chose to force the cue-ball through the touching reds into a safe position.

i agree with your answer, i thought the op was asking about ball impossible to hit.

[Quackers]

I can't see how this position could arise, but I was under the impression that the player must "attempt to hit the ball on". Maybe that's old-fashioned nowadays but that terminology is in my mind from somewhere.

[flame]

I can't see how this position could arise, but I was under the impression that the player must "attempt to hit the ball on". Maybe that's old-fashioned nowadays but that terminology is in my mind from somewhere.

you can't see how three balls could touch at the same time,that's queer.

[Souwester]

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.

[Quackers]

3 balls touching and the white against the cushion -I've never seen it, but I suppose it's a possibility.

[Mr P]

I have never seen it either. Only probably once in a million matches this will happen.

[PatBlock]

You come to the table and this is the situation, both reds touching the white.