Angled after a foul

[wanderer]

First post, so hoping this turns out to be an interesting question and not an obvious answer.

There are two parts to this question. Part two only really comes into play if my understanding of part one is correct, and I'd be interested to know what a referees interpretation would be in the scenarios mentioned in part two, if valid.

Part one - Let's say the "ball on" is the yellow and player A commits a foul leaving the yellow on the side cushion near the blue/yellow middle pocket (ie right hand middle looking "up" the table). The brown finishes between the yellow and the yellow pocket, again on the cushion, and the white finishes in the jaws of the yellow pocket preventing a shot at the yellow. So the white cannot hit the yellow firstly due to the cushion and secondly due to the brown. My understanding is that a free ball can only be called when "snookered" after a foul, and since a player cannot be "snookered" by a cushion [Section2 Rule17(e)] there would be no free ball.

Part two - Assuming part one is correct ...... and I am refereeing as an amateur home-team player ...... let's say the blue is over the green pocket.

Scenario 1 - Player B assumes that this must be a free ball and quickly gets down and pots the blue. I would have to call foul and impose a five point penalty.

Scenario 2 - Player B nominates the blue. Would I be expected to remain silent and then impose the penalty? Or should I interrupt the shot and inform player B that he cannot nominate as I hadn't called a free ball?

Any other twists that can arise from this situation? I can actually think of one but I'll save that for post 2.

Thanks for any help,

wanderer

[wanderer]

Hmm. Having looked at Section 5 more closely it appears that I should just sit back and wait for him to commit the foul. I'm pretty sure a large percentage of amateurs would expect to have a free ball given in this situation, though I suppose there's really no difference between player B nominating blue incorrectly or announcing before any shot that he intended to play a deliberate foul.

[The Statman]

An interesting post.

Yes you are correct in your understanding that it would not be a free ball.

In your first scenario - yes a foul 5 away, but also, of course, a Miss (not even subject to difference in scores, arguably, because he definitely deliberately failed to contact the yellow).

In scenario two, player B might cotton on to the fact that you haven't repeated his colour call, which might give him a hint to query it. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving the player an indication that he is about to make a foul." Better, perhaps, to simply repeat his call of 'blue' as you ordinarily would. But I'm not sure that I would do that if faced with the scenario.

[Souwester]

You are correct: it would not be a free ball. In the old days (pre-1995 rules) it would have been an 'angled ball' and the player would have had the option of playing from in-hand.

In the first scenario, it is definitely a penalty of five points, and I guess Statman is right in saying that a Miss should also be called, although this does seem a little harsh.

A referee cannot warn the player that he is about to commit a foul, and if he declares he's playing at blue, I don't think the referee should respond. Again, as Statman says, the lack of the referee repeating the declaration could be a give away. What should have been even more of a give away though, is the lack of a 'free ball' call from the referee in the first place.

What though, would/should the referee do if the player realises the referee hasn't repeated his nomination and asks if he heard? I think I'd just say 'I heard your nomination'. Could turn ugly though when the foul is called.

[Terry Davidson]

statman, souwester:

In the first case I believe you are both incorrect if I am understanding the set-up correctly. My understanding is this, both the yellow and brown are on the side cushion and the cueball is angled by the jaw of the yellow pocket.

In this case the referee has to look at the position left WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ANGLED CUEBALL. If the brown in any way blocks a direct shot to the yellow (as it must since both are on the cushion) then after a foul this would definitely be a free ball situation.

Jan V did an example of this where he angled the cueball first with no ball intervening (not a free ball) and then he moved the blue over to block a direct shot to the object ball without considering the effect of the angle and he said this was a free ball. I believe this was in the 2008 World Championships where they did some referee questions as fillers.

Would you both agree? I would say the angle plays no part in considering the case of a free ball because 'you cannot be snookered by a cushion' as some people say.

In part two, if the referee gives the free ball decision, then the point is moot.

In addition, moving the brown ball 2.5" from the cushion would also remove the free ball option and then in part 2 when player pots the blue ball it would be a 'foul & a miss' although I would assume most players would realize the referee hasn't called 'free ball' and therefore would have their opponent shoot again after the foul.

Terry

[Souwester]

No Terry, I don't agree. S2 rule 17(e) (previously 16(e) in the 1995 rules) states:

(e) The cue-ball cannot be snookered by a cushion. If the curved face of a cushion obstructs the cue-ball and is closer to the cue-ball than any obstructing ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.

This makes it crystal clear that it is the curved part of the jaw that is relevant and not the obstructing ball.

[The Statman]

I agree with Souwester on this one, Terry.

It holds the same principle as snookering behind a free-ball, where the nearer (or nearest) colour is the effective snookering ball if more than one intervenes. The principle is maintained by saying that there are two agencies preventing contact - the jaw cushion and the brown. The nearer on is thus considered the effective agency and therefore it is not a free ball.

(It is possible to perceive a position where there is a ball closer than the cushion jaw, when both are preventing a direct path: Imagine the cue-ball and object ball on the each side of the lip of the middle pocket, with the ball on resting against the same side cushion. Here, the object ball and the curved cushion may well both prevent contact but it could be the ball that is the closer obstruction.)

[02aleric]

I saw the jan ver haas broadcast that Terry speaks of and i completely agree with Terry. If a player cannot be snookered by a cushion then the white being angled is irrelevant, the brown creates a snooker on the yellow thus a free ball situation

[nrage]

To me, the wording of the rules do agree with what The Statman and Souwester have said.

On the surface of it, it seems that the rules are on the one hand ignoring the obstructing cushion and then on the next taking it into account, and that probably seems unfair/wrong to many people. I am personally on the fence about how fair/unfair it might be.

On the one hand you could say; If the cushion cannot "snooker" you then surely it should be ignored when determining whether you're "snookered". (This is basically what I think Terry and others are suggesting)

On the other; If you cannot physically play the white directly into the obstructing ball, then it's clearly not actually obstructing you, something else (the cushion) is. (This is what the current rules reflect I believe).

So, which is a more fair way of ruling it? I am on the fence.

[Terry Davidson]

Jan V must be interpreting the rule incorrectly as when he moved the blue ball into an obstucting position with the cueball already angled he said this changed the ruling to a free ball.

It seems to me the rule is written plainly enough and the angled cueball effectively rules out whether there is an obstucting ball or not.

Does anyone know Jan well enough to email him and ask if he now considers his original explanation in 2008 to be incorrect?

Although I would be incorrect I still prefer the idea that any part of a cushion, even the 'curved face' cannot snooker the cueball as it seems to me to be more consistent even though they have added a caveat on the curved face. I can't remember if I've ever had this situation arise, but going forward I shall have to amend my idea.

Thanks for the clarification

Terry

[wanderer]

Glad to see the original question has resulted in a bit of healthy debate as I find part one of my original post to be a bit of an oddity in the rules for reasons I'll explain at the end.

As nrage says above there seems to be two interpretations of the wording of the rules:
.................................................. .................................................. .............
INTERPRETATION 1 "On the one hand you could say; If the cushion cannot "snooker" you then surely it should be ignored when determining whether you're "snookered". (This is basically what I think Terry and others are suggesting)

INTERPRETATION 2 "If you cannot physically play the white directly into the obstructing ball, then it's clearly not actually obstructing you, something else (the cushion) is. (This is what the current rules reflect I believe)."
.................................................. .................................................. ..............

I lean towards interpretation 2, as breaking the rules down to their simplest form they read that a free ball can only be awarded if the cue ball is snookered after a foul, S3 rule 12 "After a foul, if the cue-ball is snookered (see Section 2, Rule 17), the referee shall state FREE BALL." And S2 rule 17e specifically states that "If the curved face of a cushion obstructs the cue-ball and is closer to the cue-ball than any obstructing ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered." So. if not snookered then no free ball.

Having said that, if a professional referee has interpreted this rule differently as Terry suggests, then I now have some doubts.

Now, I don't want to sidetrack from my original post but the other twist I hinted at in the first post seems very relevant to the whole "angled ball" debate and in the interest of fair play I could see how Terry's interpretation would be fairer in this instance.

Let's look at this different scenario:

The green is the ball on and sits touching the side cushion near the blue/yellow middle pocket (ie right hand middle looking "up" the table). My opponent plays a foul shot and leaves the cue-ball in the jaws of the yellow pocket and the pink 1/2cm away from the cue-ball roughly in line with the green. I nominate the pink as my free ball. Obviously I am not allowed to snooker my opponent behind the pink S3 rule 12(b)(ii) but here comes the oddity for me. If I play the pink and leave the cueball touching the cushion so that my opponent is angled on the green then, if interpretation 2 is correct above, there would be nothing preventing me from playing the shot such that the pink blocks any escape route from the yellow pocket (as long as the cue-ball is closer to the cushion than to the pink), or even from rolling the pink onto the green to minimise the the amount available for my opponent to hit. This seems unfair when I look at it logically. Interpretation 1 would seem more fair in this instance.

[1blonde]

For the basis of explaining this imagine the red was fouled and the player was angled on other reds or reds are in the way of hitting both sides.

If by taking the cushions and other reds out of the picture the player could hit both side of the ball on then it is NOT a freeball.

I was told cushions and other balls dont count and if the cushion was not in the way or another (red) ball and he could see hit both sides of the object ball if cushion and other red balls where taken away from the line of play then it is not a free ball.

As for the other parts of your question. If the ref does not say free ball the player must assume that its not.

The player can always put the other player back in play in this situation = and if angled then this would be a better idea than trying to pot a long blue as a free ball anyway.

If the player just gets down assuming a free ball and hits it without the ref nominating a free ball then its a foul

Would love to know if I am correct by the way.
(Dont ask me what offside is though, have not got a scooby do)

[Camio]

Does anyone know Jan well enough to email him and ask if he now considers his original explanation in 2008 to be incorrect?

I've asked Eirian Williams so we'll see what he says.

[poolqjunkie]

In this case, can the striker ask his opponent(who is the ref) if this is a free ball?

[wanderer]

In this case, can the striker ask his opponent(who is the ref) if this is a free ball?

If there were just the two of you playing I don't think any of you would be classed as the ref officially so can't see a problem with that. In my case, in our league matches, the home team provide a referee for each frame, i.e. someone who isn't actively involved in the frame and is expected to be neutral.

If I was refereeing you both though and the balls had all been in open play (and not angled) I would have no problem answering you as I would be merely re-stating a matter of fact and not a ruling. (ie if your snookered after a foul it is a free ball).

However, if the balls were situated as in my first post, I wouldn't be able to advise you as far as I'm aware since I can't offer advice regarding the rules, and the onus would be on you to know that you cannot be snookered by the cushion so a free ball cannot be called. I do feel it would be ok though for me to say "I didn't declare a free ball". Seems a bit pedantic really in the cold light of day but maybe on of the more experienced refs can comment, if they haven't already (I'm not the quickest typist).