Free Ball Question (sorry)

[sixofclubs]

My opponent is on the last red on the table after I foul and leave him a free ball, which he nominates as green but misses and pots the brown by mistake.

In my eyes this is a foul and four points to me, he reckons it should be a red down and the 'break' should continue. Who is right please?

[shanerayner28]

Free Ball Question (sorry)

it's a foul only the green acts as the red

[Souwester]

If you have a free ball, then the ball you nominate must be the ball the cue-ball strikes first. So yes, it is a foul, four points.

[bally969]

if with just colours in play a player takes say blue as a free ball but also accidentaly pots yellow as well this is a fair stroke as yellow was the ball on, yellow stays down and blue spotted two points are scored [not four as many people think]

[Souwester]

if with just colours in play a player takes say blue as a free ball but also accidentaly pots yellow as well this is a fair stroke as yellow was the ball on, yellow stays down and blue spotted two points are scored [not four as many people think]

Indeed, that is correct.

[Particle Physics]

Related question. I was watching ROS v. Higgins last night, the famous one where ROS tries in vain to hit a baulk colour having snookered himself on the intended black behind a red (after potting a red) and also snookering himself on all other colours. Ronnie has a load of gos at hitting the yellow, green etc, and keeps missing and Jan Ver Haas calls multiple misses, rightly so. Jan Ver Haas keeps putting the cue ball back on Higgins wish, but calls a new foul after ROS admitted touching a red on his last attempt to get out of the snooker, thus cancelling the original foul. This meant ROS no longer had to play out of snooker and Higgins had to play a shot instead. In general, does a secondary foul supersede the primary foul, which is now cancelled?

[Souwester]

The 2011 rule book includes a new addition, no doubt prompted by this very incident.

s3 r11(i) states:

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, if requested by his opponent to play again, the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) The colour on where all the Reds were off the table; or either
(iii) A colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted; or
(iv) The option of playing the next Red or Yellow when there are no Reds remaining.
Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by
the referee if requested by the non-offender.

Thus under the new rules John would have been entitled to ask ROS to play either a colour of his (ROS's) choice, or at another red (or, if the foul had occurred after having just potted the last red, the yellow).

It took me some while to get my head round this rule when it came out, and we had to seek clarification from Alan Chamberlain that it meant what I thought it meant. There was a long debate on a thread I started here probably late last year.

[Particle Physics]

The 2011 rule book includes a new addition, no doubt prompted by this very incident.

s3 r11(i) states:

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, if requested by his opponent to play again, the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) The colour on where all the Reds were off the table; or either
(iii) A colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted; or
(iv) The option of playing the next Red or Yellow when there are no Reds remaining.
Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by
the referee if requested by the non-offender.

Thus under the new rules John would have been entitled to ask ROS to play either a colour of his (ROS's) choice, or at another red (or, if the foul had occurred after having just potted the last red, the yellow).

It took me some while to get my head round this rule when it came out, and we had to seek clarification from Alan Chamberlain that it meant what I thought it meant. There was a long debate on a thread I started here probably late last year.

I think that's a fair rule, and being snookered on a colour occurs quite a bit, especially for amateur players. This stops a DF, not that many players would DF mind. Thankyou.

[bally969]

yep/ It Ron was put back in, he would now still be on a colour, of his choice

[Souwester]

yep/ It Ron was put back in, he would now still be on a colour, of his choice

NO! As I've previously stated, the new rule wording allows the non-offender to decide whether the offender is on a colour or a red (if the offender is asked to play again).