Another 'free-ball' situation!!!

[thinsy]

Ok, so I'm bored at work and have thought of another scenario where you CAN snooker behind a nominated free-ball:

There are two reds left on the table, your opponent has just mis-hit the cue ball and fouled leaving the balls in the following position.... The white is inbetween the pink and black and the two reds are each side of the colours:


o o o o o

If I tap onto the pink I have snookered him/her behind the free-ball played... However, because I have also snookered him/her from the other red with the black (not used as the free-ball) this is concidered a legal shot!!!

I'm 99.9% sure this is correct.. I'm sure someone here will confirm this for me.

[Souwester]

I'm 99.9% sure this is correct.. I'm sure someone here will confirm this for me.

Indeed, that is correct.

[Souwester]

When else can you snooker behind the nominated ball?

[The Statman]

Ok, so I'm bored at work and have thought of another scenario where you CAN snooker behind a nominated free-ball:

You are quite right with the ruling; that is indeed a fair shot. But you haven't actually snookered behind the free ball - you haven't snookered behind any specific ball.

[thinsy]

When else can you snooker behind the nominated ball?

When just pink and black are left.
(there is another thread somewhere about it!)

[Krypton]

Well, you're correct in you assumption that the shot is a legal one, but your explanation is incorrect.

Playing that way, you don't snooker the opponent "behind" a free ball.

Free ball rule says:

(b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should...
(i) ...
(ii) be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball thus nominated, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.

So, it's important to specify WHICH ball is the snookering ball. Let's see the Rule about the Snooker situation:

(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball not on
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective snookering ball, and
(ii) should more than one obstructing ball be equidistant from the cue-ball, all such balls will be considered to be effective snookering balls.
(c) When Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by different balls not on, there is no effective snookering ball.
(d) The striker is said to be snookered when the cue-ball is snookered as above

(c) says quite clear: in this case, NEITHER of the balls can be called "the snookering ball", and therefor you are NOT snookering by/behind a free ball.

Shot correct.

[dantuck_7]

o o o o o

Yep this is correct, come across it on here about a year ago! I had the sitiuation below recently, where I nominated black as the free ball, played it onto the cushion, but the black came back and ended up touching the edge of the red (obscuring the right-hand edge of the blue) so was called a foul!

o o o o

[The Statman]

When else can you snooker behind the nominated ball?

When there is another object ball between the free ball and the cue ball (at the end of the stroke)

[thinsy]

Yep this is correct, come across it on here about a year ago! I had the sitiuation below recently, where I nominated black as the free ball, played it onto the cushion, but the black came back and ended up touching the edge of the red (obscuring the right-hand edge of the blue) so was called a foul!

o o o o

Ah yes.. The old 'nominated ball coming back to bite you in the ass' scenario

[Krypton]

When there is another object ball between the free ball and the cue ball (at the end of the stroke)

but that's not a snooker behind the free ball, actually.

[The Statman]

but that's not a snooker behind the free ball, actually.

Quite true. In the same way that I mentioned above - I then fell for it myself!

[thinsy]

Let's see the Rule about the Snooker situation:

(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball not on
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective snookering ball, and
(ii) should more than one obstructing ball be equidistant from the cue-ball, all such balls will be considered to be effective snookering balls.
(c) When Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by different balls not on, there is no effective snookering ball.
(d) The striker is said to be snookered when the cue-ball is snookered as above

but that's not a snooker behind the free ball, actually.

The way I read it is the nominated ball has come to rest either level or slightly in front (distance wise) from the white... Creating a situation where the red is now snookered by both the blue and black, therefore a foul under ruling b(i) or b(ii)

I'm now confussed and haven't got a clue what? where? why? or when?

[Krypton]

for the cue ball to be snookered by both blue and black, they got to be equidistant to the cue ball. If the blue is closer - ever so slightly! - then the blue is the snookering ball, and only the blue.

EVEN if the blue covers, let's say, the left edge of the red, and the black covers the right edge of the cue ball, and on the straight line from white to red there's a gap so a direct hit is even possible. As long as one ball is closer to the cue ball than the other, the rule clearly says that the ball close to the white shall be considered the actual snookering ball.

[The Statman]

for the cue ball to be snookered by both blue and black, they got to be equidistant to the cue ball. If the blue is closer - ever so slightly! - then the blue is the snookering ball, and only the blue.

EVEN if the blue covers, let's say, the left edge of the red, and the black covers the right edge of the cue ball, and on the straight line from white to red there's a gap so a direct hit is even possible. As long as one ball is closer to the cue ball than the other, the rule clearly says that the ball close to the white shall be considered the actual snookering ball.

Yes.

To arrive at the answer, we ask up to three questions:

1 - Has the free ball landed in a position where it is preventing both-sides contact on EVERY red?

(NO = no foul, YES = go to question two)

2 - Is there any other colour also preventing both-sides contact on EVERY red?

(NO = foul, YES = go to question three)

3 - Of the colours that are preventing both-sides contact on every red, is the original free ball the one closest (or equal closest) to the white?

(YES = foul, NO = no foul)

[thinsy]

I understand the rules... It's just not always easy to explain in words...

I have thought of another two scenario's to show how the position of the white can determine whether a free ball is awarded or not.... But I'm not even going to try and explain it.... Maybe I will take photo's and post them!!!!