Not a question for referees (just a bit of fun)

[Krypton]

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

Would it be a miss if the referee thinks the striker honestly endeavoured to hit the snookered ball on but missed it from quite a distance due to his poor judgement ?

this is not what this thread is all about...

[Souwester]

To answer the OP's question you need to consider the conditions required for awarding a frame, and these, as I said earlier, are given in s3 r14(c) quoted above.

Whether the player is snookered or not is irrelevant in deciding whether the referee can continue to call F&M and award a frame, because the criteria are different. You can be snookered on the ball on but still award a frame for a third miss. By the same token you might not be snookered but a frame cannot be awarded for a third Miss.

[The Statman]

The best example to show this is:

all colors on their spots, last red touching the brown, but exactly on the imaginary center line of the table (on the place the brown would be spotted, if all spots were occupied). The cue ball has just dropped/gone in-off.

The next player is technically snookered on the last red (has a free ball from "in hand").
Let's say he puts the cue ball close to the green and decides to go for the red: of course this is a snooker - technically spoken - as he cannot hit the red on the right side. BUT he can hit it center ball.

So, should he miss the red (unlikely), the 3-miss-frame-lost-rule is applied!

Other example: one red left, 2 colors between cue ball and the red, but with a gap in between them wide enough for the cue ball to go through, but not wide enough so both extreme edges of the red can be hit. This is a snooker, yes, but there's a clear path. Better hit this red, at least in the 3rd attempt.

I am not sure that you are right.

In the situation you describe, although you can hit the ball in the dead-centre (i.e., sending it in a direct straight line), I believe the wording of the rule is intended to mean that the whole of the cue-ball's path to the full-ball red is unhindered by a colour.

In your situation, the brown does in fact impinge on the path, even though the cue-ball will have made contact with the red before it would touch the brown.

This is certainly what I understand from John Street's comments in the Billiards & Snooker Referee's Handbook. The reason is exactly what you pinpoint in your last paragraph: what if the blue were in a similar position on the other side of the red? The 'three-misses' scenario would come into play even if there was only the tiniest bit of red available, requiring spot-on accuracy.

The rule does specify, "(c) After a miss has been called under paragraph (b) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or that could have been on, such that central, full-ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour)" for that very reason. The part in brackets is very important.

[Krypton]

then maybe my example was not accurate enough - the scenario was dealt with longer ago in a specific thread.

Just change the following:

the cueball is not in hand, but touching the green. (on the "same side" as the red is touching the brown, so towards the black end of the table).

A) clear path for center ball hit available, but this is a snooker
B) 3-miss-frame-lost-rule applicable

[Souwester]

Krypton, the answer given by Statman is right: in your first example, the brown does prevent the cue ball from seeing the full diameter of the last red, so a frame could not be awarded. The cue ball would have to be at least half a ball's width down from the baulk line before there would be the full diameter of the red available.

I'm not sure that either Statman or myself are reading your second scenario as you intended. You say there is a gap for the cue ball to go through. If you mean right through, then the three-miss scenario depends on whether the red can be hit full ball. If it can, then the cue ball obviously had the full diameter of the red available to it, so a frame could be awarded after three misses.

However, if the two colours are closer together with just a little bit of the red poking forward between them (imagine pink and blue just less than a ball's width apart with the last red behind but touching both colours), then although central full ball contact is available, the full diameter of the red is not available, so no frame could be awarded for three misses.

[Souwester]

then maybe my example was not accurate enough - the scenario was dealt with longer ago in a specific thread.

Just change the following:

the cueball is not in hand, but touching the green. (on the "same side" as the red is touching the brown, so towards the black end of the table).

A) clear path for center ball hit available, but no snooker
B) 3-miss-frame-lost-rule applicable

I'm even more confused now. If the last red is touching the brown and immediately in front of it (ie on the centre line of the table between brown and blue spots) then if the cue ball is near the green spot, then it will surely be prevented from hitting the right hand edge of the red and a snooker will exist?

[Krypton]

AAAAAAARGH, what a terrible typo...

that's a snooker, of course...

nevertheless, you got to hit it in 3 attemps. Let me correct it, and see if i can post a picture...

sorry, I'm VERY sorry confusing you

[The Statman]

Krypton

I agree with your latest scenario, with the red touching the brown, towards the blue, and the cue-ball likewise touching the green, towards the blue but parallel with the long side cushion.

However, in your original scenario, you stated that the cue-ball had gone in-off in the previous stroke, so the cue-ball couldn't have been placed in front of the green; it would have to have been in the "D".

If the green were not spotted but elsewhere on the table, the cue-ball could be placed from hand on the green spot. The brown would still then be preventing the full diameter of the red, however marginally.


Souwester, thinking about this situation a bit more, you could call a miss with third-attempt frame loss, because the incoming player had a free ball and could thus have chosen the brown rather than the red! !?!?!?!?

[Krypton]

So you say "a full diameter of the red available" means, geometrically, that you could roll the cue ball into the red's position, on a straight line, without touching a color? That would be strange, but I'd have to accept it... (maybe I mis-translate something...)

[Souwester]

So you say "a full diameter of the red available" means, geometrically, that you could roll the cue ball into the red's position, on a straight line, without touching a color? That would be strange, but I'd have to accept it... (maybe I mis-translate something...)

That is indeed correct.

[Souwester]

Souwester, thinking about this situation a bit more, you could call a miss with third-attempt frame loss, because the incoming player had a free ball and could thus have chosen the brown rather than the red! !?!?!?!?

Yes, I suppose that is true!

However, why would someone not want to nominate a colour and choose to play the red instead, and it would be a pretty poor player to miss the red from in hand in the first place.

All in all I thinki this is a very unlikely scenario.

More likely is the last red hanging over say a centre pocket, with only the finest edge available to pot it. The incoming player has a free ball but elects to play the red. Since any colour could be a ball on then a miss would be called if he failed to hit the red, and a frame could be awarded for three misses.

Just a further thought. If a player has a free ball and then is called for F&M, should the referee reiterate 'free ball' after replacing the cue ball? The player DOES still have a free ball, but should the referee remind him?

[Krypton]

In that very rare scenario, a non-written, very special rule comes into effect:

The referee should, if the miss option is chosen:

a) laugh out loud as the striker is dumb enough to elect a ball as a free ball that is so very difficult to hit he managed to miss it (unless it's due to a miss cue), and
b) walk over to the originally fouling player (the one who left a free ball), and kick him for taking the miss. he deserves it

the player put back in charge may select any color and just simply pot it...

[Souwester]

Ah yes, the unwritten rules.

Like the one where, when a player plays at the pack of reds at pace, misses them but hits the pink instead and balls scatter everywhere. I think in that case, the unwritten rule requires the referee to call 'Foul and a Mess'.

[The Statman]

Yes, I suppose that is true!

However, why would someone not want to nominate a colour and choose to play the red instead, and it would be a pretty poor player to miss the red from in hand in the first place.

All in all I thinki this is a very unlikely scenario.

More likely is the last red hanging over say a centre pocket, with only the finest edge available to pot it. The incoming player has a free ball but elects to play the red. Since any colour could be a ball on then a miss would be called if he failed to hit the red, and a frame could be awarded for three misses.

Just a further thought. If a player has a free ball and then is called for F&M, should the referee reiterate 'free ball' after replacing the cue ball? The player DOES still have a free ball, but should the referee remind him?

Yeah your scenario is far more likely. But it could happen.

There may be no attractive pot from the D, he could choose the last red to stun the cue-ball behind the brown and leave a certain snooker; there may be a colour by the cushion behind the red which would almost certainly deflect the red into the yellow half of baulk and the resulting position of the white, stunned to a halt behind the brown, would be a very attractive option. Because the free ball was not taken, there would be no restrictions as to what ball he snookers behind.

He miscues or simply misjudges the amount of red available to him and thus the situation presents itself!

[DawRef]

We seem to have deviated from my original question.

The answer is of course NO. There is no clear path between the cue-ball and the last red (opening paragraph of Section 2 Rule 16). That is the governing criteria in this scenario.