How would one referee this

[chasmmi]

There are two reds left on the table, one in a easily pottable position, the second is over the pocket but almost completely covered by the black (it would take a milimetre perfect shot to hit the red first and even then the in off is a possibility).

Player A is at the table is 40 behind and chooses to pot the penultimate red leaving him 39 behind and then plays the obvious snooker knowing that he is 99.9% certain to be left a free ball next shot.

Player B looks at the situation and plays a wild shot of one cushion that arguably has a vague 1 in a thousand shot of hitting the red and escaping but in reality is most likely to (and in fact does) hit the black full on knocking the red into the pocket in the process, giving away seven points.

However with the red potted Player A is 32 points behind with only 27 remaining and thus in a vastly inferior position than before the escape 'attempt' was made.

Player A is livid by this and argues that Player B should be penalised in some way as in his eyes this was clearly a deliberate (or at very best expected) foul on player B's part.


So what does the referee do? Is this just an unfortunate loophole in the miss/foul/freeball etc rules, or can the ref make a judgement that Player B has acted unfairly and bring player A back into the frame.

[Gwynston]

This is almost exactly a scenario I ruminated over years ago and I think it all boils down to the ref's interpretation of the attempt to hit the last red. For instance, there are situations where it IS impossible to get out of a snooker when there is no path for the cue ball to fit through. In such cases, the player must aim to attempt to hit the object ball as if the snookering balls weren't in the way. Obviously a foul will automatically be committed, but the player has to be seen to aim for the object ball.

In your scenario, I think it's up to the ref's discretion how good the attempt was. And also, if it is interpreted that deliberate foul play had led to an unfair advantage, the ref can warn the player that they could be docked a frame. It's unlikely that outcome would happen on a first offence, so in this case I'd say Player B would get away with it, as the maximum foul that can be given is 7 points, which obviously doesn't help Player A much!

[Souwester]

Even if a ball on is impossible to hit, then the player may play either directly *OR INDIRECTLY* at it, with sufficient strength to have hiot it had the obstructing balls not been there, without a Miss being called.

In the OP's scenario, it really depends on whether the referee thinks the player was making a valid attempt at indirectly hitting the red (or indeed, whether, in his opinion, it was actually impossible to hit).

Quite often, though, in these cases, it really is just rub of the green that you lose out by your opponetn's foul.

[thelongbomber]

Tough situation. Worth noting though that at 39 points down, player A needs one 5 point snooker to win, whereas at 32 down and 27 on, player A needs one 6 point snooker to win. Obviously the frame hasn't gone his way in either situation. Probably in his best interest to leave the last red on and play safe if possible or use the 2nd last red to pot the red in front of the black