cue ball angled in pocket , after foul

[highbreak 8]

Sorry if this has already been posted .

What if a player say goes for final red misses and leaves the cue ball angled in say the black pocket the red object ball is on the black cushion . Is it a free ball as i was told that a cushion does not count , i was also told if you do not wish to make opponent play again there was a rule that the cue ball can be moved , is any of the above correct or have i been consuming way too much beer ?

regards Hi Break 8

[jim evans]

foul and a miss put back lol

[Souwester]

Sorry if this has already been posted .

What if a player say goes for final red misses and leaves the cue ball angled in say the black pocket the red object ball is on the black cushion . Is it a free ball as i was told that a cushion does not count , i was also told if you do not wish to make opponent play again there was a rule that the cue ball can be moved , is any of the above correct or have i been consuming way too much beer ?

regards Hi Break 8

The 'angled ball' rule was deleted from the rules when they published the September 1995 version (the old light blue book). For some time until then, if the cue ball was left angled after a foul, then the non-offender had the usual options (play himself from the position left, or put his opponent in from that position) OR he could choose to play from in-hand. As I say, that hasn't been an option for the last 17 years!

You're right, the cue ball cannot be snookered by a cushion, so it's just tough luck, and the only options are to play from the position left either yourself (as non-offender) or let the offender play from there.

S2 R17(e)

(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.

[Terry Davidson]

Souwester:

What if in the normal course of the game a player ends up being angled after a fair shot and he misses the object ball.

What would be the correct call here, obviously a 'MISS' on the first shot, then he misses on the second shot and would the referee now give him the warning if he misses again his opponent will be awarded the frame?

This has never happened to me that I can remember but I'm sure with the tables we play on it will happen sometime

Terry

[Souwester]

Souwester:

What if in the normal course of the game a player ends up being angled after a fair shot and he misses the object ball.

What would be the correct call here, obviously a 'MISS' on the first shot, then he misses on the second shot and would the referee now give him the warning if he misses again his opponent will be awarded the frame?

This has never happened to me that I can remember but I'm sure with the tables we play on it will happen sometime

Terry

No, a frame cannot be awarded if you're angled. S3 r14 provides the condition "that when there is a clear bath to an object ball, such that central full ball contact ius available..." Since you're angled and don;t have a straight path to any part of a ball on then this clause cannot apply, so no warning would be given and a frame could not be lost in this way.

Although technically not snookered, the referee will judge the shot as if the striker is playing out of a snooker... ie he will have due regard for the difficulty of the escape and the ability of the player.

[double_kiss]

Hi Terry, do you remember this thread?: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...-a-bit-of-fun)

[Terry Davidson]

double:

Nope I didn't. At my age short-term memory is the first thing to go and that string was in 2010. I would not place the '3-Miss' rule into effect for an angled ball

Terry

[DeanH]

Souwester, can I ask what the is the thinking behind the rule for this situation, many friends of mine comment that this situation "must" be a snooker as they "cannot play a direct stroke in a straight line" to the ball on especially after a foul, i.e. why was the "angled ball" rule was removed in 1995?
Thanks

[Souwester]

Hi Terry, do you remember this thread?: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...-a-bit-of-fun)

Blimey, that's almost two years ago! Seems like yesterday.

[Souwester]

Souwester, can I ask what the is the thinking behind the rule for this situation, many friends of mine comment that this situation "must" be a snooker as they "cannot play a direct stroke in a straight line" to the ball on especially after a foul, i.e. why was the "angled ball" rule was removed in 1995?
Thanks

That's a very good question. Even in the pre-1995 rule book the definition of a snooker referred only to obstructing balls not on, with no mention of cushions.

I'm not entirely sure why the angled ball rule was removed in the 1995 rules, but I suspect it was because the feeling was it offered to much of an advantage to the non-offender.

It's worth pointing out that there was an odd anomaly in the pre-1995 rules, where a player had no direct line to a ball on yet was neither snookered nor angled! Imagine the cue ball is in the jaws of the yellow pocket, and there are two reds left. One is in the open near the yellow side rail. If that was the only red left, then the player would have been angled. The other red is the far side of the green which is on its spot. If that red was the only one left then the player would be snookered. However, because the player is neither snookered on all reds nor angled on all reds, he is neither angled nor snookered! He therefore only has the options of playing himself from the position left, or letting the offender play from that position.

[The Statman]

Souwester, can I ask what the is the thinking behind the rule for this situation, many friends of mine comment that this situation "must" be a snooker as they "cannot play a direct stroke in a straight line" to the ball on especially after a foul, i.e. why was the "angled ball" rule was removed in 1995?

I think the reason it was originally considered differently is probably to do with ease of description.

It would be difficult to differentiate between the 'angled' position where the curve of the cushion comes in, and the ordinary situation of a red on the cushion - not unhittable but obviously not hittable on the extreme edge.

What if the cue-ball is in the jaw and the red was partly hittable but not on one extreme edge (because the curve of the jaw was in the way)? To what extent would that have been different to the red being against the cushion and the cue-ball diagonally in open play?

As for it being removed in 1995, I agree with Souwester in that it was probably because playing from the 'D' was too much of an advantage from what was obviously not a deliberate leave.

I would have thought, though, that some compromise could be found - perhaps a free ball awarded. But these are fine lines and the arguments could be huge if it was too subjective.

[The Statman]

What about this scenario, though? Last red - free ball?
Diagram 8.bmp

It obviously is a free ball, as it is identical to what it would be if a few feet further along the cushion. But according to the rules, technically, no free ball.

It is the cuvrved part of the cushion and the blue which are preventing contact on both edges but, because the curved part of the cushion is nearer than the blue to the cue-ball, the blue cannot be considered the 'effective' obstruction.

Clearly that is not what the rule means and I think a lot of referees would allow a free ball in this scenario. But technically, the way the rule is worded, a free ball is not applicable.

[DeanH]

What if the Red and Cue Ball were swapped? The curve of the jaw is still closer than the Blue, so the Blue is not considered the effective obstruction.
So essentially as described earlier, if only the Cue Ball was in the jaw and the curve was obstructing the ball on, with no other balls in the area, still no snooker.
It is obvious that ball-in-hand is too much of an advantage and hence removed from the rules but in this situation the non-offending player is at a disadvantage after the foul, with only one option - let the offending player attempt to hit the ball on.
It would seem fair that a free ball was allowed in the rules. Would that mean though the curve of the jaw would be deemed to be considered for a snooker now?

[Souwester]

Statman, I think you're trying to be a little too clever in your interpretation of the rules there.

Quite obviously the cushion, or curved part of the pocket cannot give rise to a free ball. However, because the cue ball cannot strike the right hand edge of the last red, then it is that fact which is the deciding factor in determining that this *IS* unequivocably a free ball. Move the balls three inches in towards the middle of the table, and there would be no second thought about it.

The rule is quite obviously designed for those situations where the cue ball is in the jaw of the pocket, and both the curve of the cushion and a ball not on are in a straight line and preventing the cue ball from hitting the same part of the object ball. In your scenario there are two different obstructions each preventing the cue ball from hitting a different part of the object ball.

[The Statman]

What if the Red and Cue Ball were swapped? The curve of the jaw is still closer than the Blue, so the Blue is not considered the effective obstruction.

Yes, but the blue would no longer be an obstruction because it would not in the way of the cue-ball's path to the red.

The point is, farther down the table, this would be a free ball because it would be the straight part of the cushion, which does not feature in the description of 'angled'. It is only because this happens to be a part of the cushion which has started curving.

I am comparing this with an identical situation but shifted a foot or two along the cushion. This is an unintended flaw in the rules.