free ball situation

[bally969]

Oh boy, two lads havin a knock about, I was watchin their game, reds all gone green to black on table, green behind black [black on it's spot] slightly obscuring the green, players in hand after an in off,He puts cue ball in "d" and rolls up to blue after nominating it as his free ball, wow pistols at dawn "tha can't roll behind a free ball to snooker me" his mate say's. So I put my two peneth in and said, it's a legal shot as the black is now the snookering ball not blue.
well I think a solicitors letter may be on the way, He He, but it WAS a fair shot right.

[snookerdad]

The ball closest to the cue-ball is considered to be the snookering ball. So it was a foul.

[Souwester]

As Snookerdad says, the obstructing ball closest to the cue ball is deemed to be the *effective* snookering ball, so in the OP's scenario it is indeed a foul, as blue was closer than the black. It doesn't matter whether the snooker was intentional or not, it is still a foul.

However, when only pink and black remain on the table, then it *IS* a perfectly legal shot if you snooker behind black taken as the free ball.

Also, consider this scenario, when there are two reds left on the table (as an example). They are in a line with the cue ball and two colours, in this order: red, yellow, cue ball, green, red. In that scenario, it is perfectly legal to roll up to either yellow or green: the reason is that whichever one you choose, that colour is not snookering you on the other red. For it to be a foul, the ball taken as the free ball must be the effective snookering ball on *all* remaining reds.