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

[Souwester]

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.

With respect the governing criteria in this scenario are covered in Section 3 Rule 14(c).

Whether the cue ball is snookered is immaterial. The main criterion in whether a frame can be awarded for three consecutive F&Ms is whether central full ball contact is available. As we've seen that can happen if you're snookered (because there are obstructions to hitting both finest edges) or not snookered as in your initial scenario, or where there are no obstructions at all.

[Souwester]

It should also be made clear that once the first Miss has been called when central full ball contact is available, further misses can be called regardless of the difference in scores (ie a second or third miss can be called even if that then makes the player require snookers).

[The Statman]

We seem to have deviated from my original question.

Of course. What did you expect?

[Kyra]

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?

A question:
I recently asked an examiner about this because I wasn't sure. He told me that this situation was discussed at a tutors meeting some time ago and they couldn't agree. The examiner told me that after a F&M the position of the balls should be replaced not the situation (freeball). What part of the rules covers this situation ? It may be only a rare occation but it can happen.

[Krypton]

A question:
I recently asked an examiner about this because I wasn't sure. He told me that this situation was discussed at a tutors meeting some time ago and they couldn't agree. The examiner told me that after a F&M the position of the balls should be replaced not the situation (freeball). What part of the rules covers this situation ? It may be only a rare occation but it can happen.

The rule has been quoted earlier in this tread and reads:

(a) After a foul and a miss has been called, the next player may request the offender to play again from the position left or, at his discretion, from the original position, in which latter case the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on,
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table, or
(iii) a colour of the striker's choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.

The free ball is not mentioned. But, according to the above, I would say (and I might be wrong of course, let's wait for the referees to answer):

The free ball is STILL a free ball. When a color was on, you are free to chose a different color. You may chose a different red, every attempt, if red had been on. According and following to this, I think the free ball is still available.

[The Statman]

The free ball is not mentioned. But, according to the above, I would say (and I might be wrong of course, let's wait for the referees to answer):

The free ball is STILL a free ball. When a color was on, you are free to chose a different color. You may chose a different red, every attempt, if red had been on. According and following to this, I think the free ball is still available.

I would agree.

If the balls are replaced after a Miss, it is surely the most fundamental logic that the player should be able to attempt the same ball for his second attempt. So the free ball must stand! It is the same principle as colour-after-red; the player is entitled to play the same ball as before, or to change his mind and play any other ball that was available to him on the first attempt.

As an afterthought to this, if there was a free ball first time round, there is a good chance he doesn't have full-ball contact available on a red. So if we replace the balls and the free ball becomes void, he may be forced to play a ball he cannot see; and what then - can he be warned that a third Miss will lose the frame? He had full-ball choices available on the first go but not on the second.

[Souwester]

It was me who actually brought this topic up at a European referees and tutors meetings in early 2009, and the 40 or so present were indeed split almost 50:50 as to the answer.

I firmly believe that if the balls are replaced after a F&M has been called, that the player is put back into the same position with exactly the same choices as he had the first time around: ie that the free ball DOES still exist. I think I've managed to persuade several examiners to change the mind over the last couple of years!

The Statman presents an excellent argument in support of the free ball remaining. If Rule 14(b) applied to the first Miss (because he will have a straight line to at least one of the colours which might be on) then para 14(c) comes into play for a subsequent Miss, and it would be totally unfair if a player was then to lose a frame because he was being called for Misses when he didn't have central full ball contact on the red.

[Kyra]

The rule has been quoted earlier in this tread and reads:



The free ball is not mentioned. But, according to the above, I would say (and I might be wrong of course, let's wait for the referees to answer):

The free ball is STILL a free ball. When a color was on, you are free to chose a different color. You may chose a different red, every attempt, if red had been on. According and following to this, I think the free ball is still available.

The rule says "original position" not "situation". That's what makes me think. You're being awarded a freeball because you're snookered after a foul. Normally your opponent would commit the foul. When the balls are being replaced you kind of snookered yourself. IMHO this shouldn't be "rewarded" with another freeball. But perhaps my thinking on this is not correct. I hope the referees can help to clarify this.

[Souwester]

I hope the referees can help to clarify this.

Well you've had opinions from The Statman and myself.

[Kyra]

Statman & Souwester:
You both definitely have a point here !
But as Souwester said, it doesn't seem to be clear. The examiner I talked to was not of your opinion. Another referee I asked about this agreed with you.

Thanks for the help.

[Krypton]

I did, intentionally, NOT say "situation".

I only told you that, in our (not me only, by now) opinion even thought this is not mentioned explicitly, the free ball shall stand.

The Statman gave an excellent example of what could happen else...

[DawRef]

So having started this thread and the topic now deviating to 'Free Ball', am I right in assuming that the question is this:

Player A is awarded a 'free ball'. He nominates green, for example, but fails to hit it. The referee calls Foul and a Miss and awards the appropriate penalty. His opponent, even though he may be able to see the original object ball(s), decides to have the balls replaced and the player play again.
Is he still on a free ball?

And if I have read above correctly, the answer is YES (which is what I would say is correct).

Am I correct?

[Souwester]

Yes you are right.

[APK]

I agree. When a 'Foul and Miss' is replaced the player shall have the same options available to him as on his first attempt. Therefore the Free Ball must still stand.


I do, however, need to clear something in my own mind.
I have scanned the above posts and it seems that there is an opinion that for the 'three misses and forfeit' to be valid you must be able to play the cue ball in a straight line such that it can replace the object ball in exactly the same position. This would imply that you must have 52.5mm (plus a little clearance) between 2 balls not-on with the ball-on directly in line with the gap.

I do not agree with this interpretation.
The Rule states that you must have full ball central contact on the object ball. This is easily possible without a full balls diameter on show.
The section which states that a full balls diameter must be available is meant for a situation where a red is obstructed by other reds.
It is meant to show that the striker must be able to make full ball central contact on any ball-on but is worded to show that a red cannot be snookered by a red.
Otherwise the striker could not have a Foul and Miss called at the opening stroke because at that time full ball central contact is not available on any ball-on without disregarding other balls-on.

[Souwester]

I can see where you're coming from, and I had this discussion with another senior tutor just last week.

Central full ball contact does indeed mean that you must be able to see the full ball width.

This rider to para (c) though -"(in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour)" is there to make it clear(!) that a red cannot count to obscuring another red, so that, for example, when you break off, you are deemed to have central full ball contact on four of the reds in the row of five nearest the top cushion, and the two outside reds in the rows of 3 and four. Hence you have central full ball contact available at the break-off shot and could be called for a Miss.