Another free ball conundrum.

[FOXMULDER]

I'm afraid the free ball judgement only takes account of whether a hit is available on the finest edge - if it results in a push shot, that's nothing to do with it; you're not snookered just because you have to play a push shot.

No, but you are disadvantaged. The free ball rule was designed to give the advantage to the non-offender.

In your scenario with the red over the lip of the pocket, the non-offended gets no advantage. Why? Because although he can hit both sides of the red (technically) in doing so he would commit a foul.

Perhaps a situation like that should be given to the referee to consider whether it be judged a 'snooker' or not, since common sense denotes that the shot cannot be played, realistically speaking.

[vmax4steve]

The reality is that the definition of an edge constitutes not giving a free ball in this scenario. The definition should be made to be clear cut that both edges of a ball on can be struck in order to move the ball on in opposing directions, which would not be the case in this scenario as the cue ball can only make the ball on move in one direction even when the cue ball is struck from opposite directions. Maybe a minimum distance could be enforced as a rule for obviously a ball on can't be made to move in exactly directly opposite directions due to physical geometry

If this definition of an edge is used then rolling up dead weight when snookered to a ball on and leaving it short by enough to not be able to move the ball on in opposing directions would then be a free ball, so would the scenario in this thread. Might also result in more free balls being given rather than replacing the cue ball time and again.

Even with the definition as it is, if I found myself in this position I would argue vehemently that I could hit opposing extreme edges of the ball on only by moving the cue ball to the other side of the ball on as the other edges are covered by balls not on. To claim that the same edge is in fact both edges just because the cue ball is so close is not in the spirit of the rule as intended, and I am unanimous in that to quote Mrs. Slocombe.

Something for the rule makers to look into and change.

[The Statman]

The reality is that the definition of an edge constitutes not giving a free ball in this scenario. The definition should be made to be clear cut that both edges of a ball on can be struck in order to move the ball on in opposing directions, which would not be the case in this scenario as the cue ball can only make the ball on move in one direction even when the cue ball is struck from opposite directions. Maybe a minimum distance could be enforced as a rule for obviously a ball on can't be made to move in exactly directly opposite directions due to physical geometry...

But where do you draw the line? It is in fact never possible to send the object ball in completely opposite directions. What if the cue-ball is 6, or 8 inches from the red? Even with no obstructing colour, you can only send the ball (roughly) perhaps 80º to the left or right.

If the cue-ball comes to rest only half an inch from the red, then even if there was no colour in the vicinity you would not be able to hit the red in two extreme directions. Are you suggesting this would then be a free ball also? It has complex side effects if you go down this road. Imagine having an unlucky kiss that knocks a baulk colour in, and the cue-ball then comes to rest very close to a red. A free ball would be ridiculous when it is designed to aid the new striker when he hasn't got a clear path to a red - impossible to argue if the white is right next to it!

[throtts]

There is an easy snooker on for the player with ball in hand. You can lay a snooker behind either colour and leave the red in the middle of table , so that means its advantage to the player with ball in hand anyway..

[vmax4steve]

But where do you draw the line? It is in fact never possible to send the object ball in completely opposite directions. What if the cue-ball is 6, or 8 inches from the red? Even with no obstructing colour, you can only send the ball (roughly) perhaps 80º to the left or right.

If the cue-ball comes to rest only half an inch from the red, then even if there was no colour in the vicinity you would not be able to hit the red in two extreme directions. Are you suggesting this would then be a free ball also? It has complex side effects if you go down this road. Imagine having an unlucky kiss that knocks a baulk colour in, and the cue-ball then comes to rest very close to a red. A free ball would be ridiculous when it is designed to aid the new striker when he hasn't got a clear path to a red - impossible to argue if the white is right next to it!

Who said extreme directions, I said opposing directions. To leave the cue ball within 6 to 8 inches makes it possible to play the ball on in opposing directions so that a pot or a safety shot can be made. I would draw the line where a player leaves the cue ball so close to the ball on that it can't be potted directly into any pocket, can't be played without committing a foul, and can only be moved in one direction, others would draw the line somewhere else, it's open to discussion, but the definition of an edge as given now is wrong in my book and to argue that one edge is in fact both just because the cue ball is very close is just as impossible an argument.

Imagine having an unlucky kiss that knocks in a baulk colour and the cue ball ends up behind the brown snookering you with one red left on the table. Free ball is awarded now so what's the difference. Luck and run of the balls are part of the game. What shouldn't be part of the game are the foul and a miss calls that are constantly called when players fail to reach a ball on by less than an inch and leave nothing but for the referee to replace the balls all the bloody time, dragging out the frame. If the player knows that he will leave a free ball if he leaves the cue ball short enough that contravenes this new definition of an edge then he will make a more concerted effort to hit it.
The free ball rule is designed so that a player can't benefit from a foul whether it's unlucky or not. The scenario shown in this thread shows that he in fact can in certain situations. This new definition of an edge would put a stop to that. There are probably other scenarios that arise from time to time and the rule makers have to look at them and make changes to stop them, after all they did when Ronnie touched a ball when attempting to escape a snooker and the referee couldn't call miss.

[vmax4steve]

There is an easy snooker on for the player with ball in hand. You can lay a snooker behind either colour and leave the red in the middle of table , so that means its advantage to the player with ball in hand anyway..

That's true, but what if there are two reds left on the table and the player is snookered on the other one also from all points within the D yet could take on the blue say as a free ball and then attempt a clearance. The rule as it stands now says that he can't thus instigating negative snooker through rules rather than players choice.

[The Statman]

Surely the easiest thing to do if you want the rule changed - and it has been mooted now and then for decades including by no lesser man than Steve Davis - is to scrap the Free Ball entirely.

After all, the striker has the choice of whether to play the shot himself or put his opponent back in.

[throtts]

Surely the easiest thing to do if you want the rule changed - and it has been mooted now and then for decades including by no lesser man than Steve Davis - is to scrap the Free Ball entirely.

After all, the striker has the choice of whether to play the shot himself or put his opponent back in.

Totally agree. A free ball to take, pot and win the match is a bitter pill to swallow. It's can be too much of an unfortunate double wammy. As you say, the player just can make the player play again, then he has no arguments. How often do you see miss miss miss and miss and then miss and free ball, that does not seem fitting for this very professional sport IMO..

[The Statman]

Totally agree. A free ball to take, pot and win the match is a bitter pill to swallow. It's can be too much of an unfortunate double wammy. As you say, the player just can make the player play again, then he has no arguments.

Especially since, often, with a free ball, you can actually see a substantial amount of red.

How often do you see miss miss miss and miss and then miss and free ball, that does not seem fitting for this very professional sport IMO..

Well, not very often, really, in my experience. In fact, sometimes the Miss results more from not wanting to leave a free ball than not wanting to leave an opening.

[cantpotforshíte]

but the definition of an edge as given now is wrong in my book and to argue that one edge is in fact both just because the cue ball is very close is just as impossible an argument.

But surely it's only one edge if the cue ball is actually touching the object ball, otherwise there are always two seperate edges?

And don't you think that the referees might struggle to bend over the table if they have an 8" measuring stick in their trouser pocket at all times? I know I don't find it easy

[vmax4steve]

But surely it's only one edge if the cue ball is actually touching the object ball, otherwise there are always two seperate edges?

And don't you think that the referees might struggle to bend over the table if they have an 8" measuring stick in their trouser pocket at all times? I know I don't find it easy

So you're not a sore loser either then

[cantpotforshíte]

So you're not a sore loser either then

Back to Freud then? In that case I've never minded losing.

[FOXMULDER]

Surely the easiest thing to do if you want the rule changed - and it has been mooted now and then for decades including by no lesser man than Steve Davis - is to scrap the Free Ball entirely.

Not until we get a 155 on TV.

[wlorcb]

Just new here and reading all the various situations. Again interpreting the rules can cause some funny things to appear when you have not played the game for a long time.

How can having the sole remaining red sandwiched between two colours be a snooker when the cue ball is in hand. The player can hit the red full on when he places it in the D.

Isn't the definition of the snooker that if a player can hit both edges of an on colour, then he is not snookered? If both edges are blocked, surely it isn't a snooker if the player can actually hit the object ball? I have always played that the snooker exists if you can't hit the ball, and that if the only part of the ball that is free is the extreme edge, then it is not a snooker?

[Souwester]

Just new here and reading all the various situations. Again interpreting the rules can cause some funny things to appear when you have not played the game for a long time.

How can having the sole remaining red sandwiched between two colours be a snooker when the cue ball is in hand. The player can hit the red full on when he places it in the D.

Isn't the definition of the snooker that if a player can hit both edges of an on colour, then he is not snookered? If both edges are blocked, surely it isn't a snooker if the player can actually hit the object ball? I have always played that the snooker exists if you can't hit the ball, and that if the only part of the ball that is free is the extreme edge, then it is not a snooker?

This is the definition of a snooker:

17. Snookered
The cue-ball is said to be snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If one or more balls on can be struck at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.
(a) If in-hand, the cue-ball is snookered if it is obstructed as described above from all possible positions on or within the lines of the “D”.
(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.
(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.

You are snookered if you cannot hit both extreme edges of at least one ball on. If the ball on is very close to the cue ball, that means simply playing left and right to the finest edges, which will be very close to the centre of the ball. If you're 12 feet away, then this will almost be the very left and right sides of the object ball.

In your question, this means that if the cue ball is sandwiched between two colours, then you cannot hit both extreme edges, so you are snookered.