rule question

[alabadi]

thanks for all your comments and clearing that up

[DandyA]

Yes, it would be a foul. This is covered by 2.17(b)(ii)

17.
(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.

once again, many thanks SnkrRef for another excellent and precise answer

[DeanH]

yep, many thanks from me too SnkrRef ...

a slightly different question ... say there's one red on the table, you nominate a free ball and, after your shot, both the free ball and another colour both snooker the red and both of them are exactly the same distance from the cue ball ...

is that a foul or not ... and why?

To extend this scenario further, if the nominated free ball is potted, spotted, and is now the (only) snookering ball, this is not a foul.
The reasoning behind this (I believe) is that after it has been potted it is no longer a nominated free ball but back to "itself". i.e. the Blue is no longer considered a Red anymore as the shot has been completed.
This came up before on another thread

[SnkrRef]

To extend this scenario further, if the nominated free ball is potted, spotted, and is now the (only) snookering ball, this is not a foul.
The reasoning behind this (I believe) is that after it has been potted it is no longer a nominated free ball but back to "itself". i.e. the Blue is no longer considered a Red anymore as the shot has been completed.
This came up before on another thread

Yes, but if you've potted the free ball then you're on a break, and you can't be fouled for snookering yourself!

If another foul was committed during that stroke, then of course the incoming player would be awarded a free ball.

[DeanH]

Yes, but if you've potted the free ball then you're on a break, and you can't be fouled for snookering yourself!

If another foul was committed during that stroke, then of course the incoming player would be awarded a free ball.

Very true (on a break) and it does mean you can roll up behind that same ball (the previously nominated ball) on your next shot
a few people forget this.
Of course a free ball could be called if you subsequently foul - say fail to hit the ball on the attempted roll up

[t.lavery55]

Yes, but if you've potted the free ball then you're on a break, and you can't be fouled for snookering yourself!

If another foul was committed during that stroke, then of course the incoming player would be awarded a free ball.

Looks like this is another case of applying common sense to the rules then, as there is nowhere in the rules that specifically states that it has to be your opponent that is snookered by a free ball, as opposed to yourself, for it to be a foul.

Section 3 rule 12 b (i) "It is a foul if the cue-ball should ... be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball this nominated..."

Section 3 rule 10 a (v) "Penalties are value of the ball on by... causing the cue-ball to be snookered behind a free ball..."

The only stated exception being when pink and black are the only object balls remaining.

Neither is it implied by the definition of 'snookered'.

[t.lavery55]

To extend this scenario further, if the nominated free ball is potted, spotted, and is now the (only) snookering ball, this is not a foul.
The reasoning behind this (I believe) is that after it has been potted it is no longer a nominated free ball but back to "itself". i.e. the Blue is no longer considered a Red anymore as the shot has been completed.
This came up before on another thread

For similar reasons, it is also not a foul if you plant your free ball onto the ball on, so that you are then snookered on the next ball on. For example, imagine that the ball on is the green and the green, brown and pink are all in a line, with the pink nearest the cue-ball. You have a free ball, nominate and play the pink, planting the green into the pocket via the brown. If the balls don't deviate much from their original angles with respect to each other, you have now snookered yourself on the brown by the pink! Not a very sensible shot admittedly, but definitely something that could happen, especially bearing in mind the official definition of 'snookered'.

[DeanH]

For similar reasons, it is also not a foul if you plant your free ball onto the ball on, so that you are then snookered on the next ball on. For example, imagine that the ball on is the green and the green, brown and pink are all in a line, with the pink nearest the cue-ball. You have a free ball, nominate and play the pink, planting the green into the pocket via the brown. If the balls don't deviate much from their original angles with respect to each other, you have now snookered yourself on the brown by the pink! Not a very sensible shot admittedly, but definitely something that could happen, especially bearing in mind the official definition of 'snookered'.

correct, you can snooker yourself (silly though it is ) but it is not a foul.

[DeanH]

Looks like this is another case of applying common sense to the rules then, as there is nowhere in the rules that specifically states that it has to be your opponent that is snookered by a free ball, as opposed to yourself, for it to be a foul.

Section 3 rule 12 b (i) "It is a foul if the cue-ball should ... be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball this nominated..."

Section 3 rule 10 a (v) "Penalties are value of the ball on by... causing the cue-ball to be snookered behind a free ball..."

The only stated exception being when pink and black are the only object balls remaining.

Neither is it implied by the definition of 'snookered'.

true, nothing explicit in the rules stating it must be the opponent that is snookered by a free ball for it to be a foul.
But by interpretation of a foul, when a foul occurs the offending player's turn is over (sec2 5(b)) and it is the non-offending players turn, with the options allowed, including a Free Ball option if the cue ball is snookered on the ball(s) on as a result of the foul.

[t.lavery55]

true, nothing explicit in the rules stating it must be the opponent that is snookered by a free ball for it to be a foul.
But by interpretation of a foul, when a foul occurs the offending player's turn is over (sec2 5(b)) and it is the non-offending players turn, with the options allowed, including a Free Ball option if the cue ball is snookered on the ball(s) on as a result of the foul.

Hmmm... making it a foul seems to create something of a paradox, as if you apply the above principle this way, then suddenly it is your opponent that you have snookered behind your free ball! So if it is a foul to snooker yourself then that means you have snookered your opponent as it is then his turn!

[t.lavery55]

To extend this scenario further, if the nominated free ball is potted, spotted, and is now the (only) snookering ball, this is not a foul.
The reasoning behind this (I believe) is that after it has been potted it is no longer a nominated free ball but back to "itself". i.e. the Blue is no longer considered a Red anymore as the shot has been completed.
This came up before on another thread

If this was a foul, I can just imagine the problems this would cause for the referee, who is supposed to state 'foul' immediately. It would be especially bad if all the spots were occupied, so that it took some time for the ball to be re-spotted correctly. And I can just imagine the players suggesting alternative places for the referee to try and place it, as it could affect whether they would be allowed to play the next shot!

[DeanH]

Originally Posted by DeanH
true, nothing explicit in the rules stating it must be the opponent that is snookered by a free ball for it to be a foul.
But by interpretation of a foul, when a foul occurs the offending player's turn is over (sec2 5(b)) and it is the non-offending players turn, with the options allowed, including a Free Ball option if the cue ball is snookered on the ball(s) on as a result of the foul.

Hmmm... making it a foul seems to create something of a paradox, as if you apply the above principle this way, then suddenly it is your opponent that you have snookered behind your free ball!
So if it is a foul to snooker yourself then that means you have snookered your opponent as it is then his turn!

Hmmm... making it a foul seems to create something of a paradox,

sorry you have lost me, make what a foul? I defined what a foul is and in the respect that when a foul is committed the offending player’s turn is finished to answer you first question of “there should be a definitive statement in the rules stating that it must be the opponent that is snookered behind the free ball". As I see it, such a statement is not required because by definition of a foul it will always be the “opponent’s” (the non-offending player’s) turn. And in their turn they get the standard choices of what to do next.

as if you apply the above principle this way, then suddenly it is your opponent that you have snookered behind your free ball!

Yes, correct, that is what we are discussing, leaving the cue ball snookered behind the nominated free ball is a foul, clearly defined in the rules, and yes it would be the opponent that is snookered as your turn has ended at the time of the foul.

So if it is a foul to snooker yourself then that means you have snookered your opponent as it is then his turn!

Sorry, I did not say that, I said that it is not a foul to snooker yourself (it is a silly thing to do, but not a foul), it is never a foul to snooker yourself.
But it is a foul to leave the cue ball snookered on the ball on behind the nominated free ball.
As at the beginning, you lost me with your reply, hope this clarifies the situation a bit for you

[DeanH]

Originally Posted by DeanH
To extend this scenario further, if the nominated free ball is potted, spotted, and is now the (only) snookering ball, this is not a foul.
The reasoning behind this (I believe) is that after it has been potted it is no longer a nominated free ball but back to "itself". i.e. the Blue is no longer considered a Red anymore as the shot has been completed.
This came up before on another thread

If this was a foul, I can just imagine the problems this would cause for the referee, who is supposed to state 'foul' immediately. It would be especially bad if all the spots were occupied, so that it took some time for the ball to be re-spotted correctly. And I can just imagine the players suggesting alternative places for the referee to try and place it, as it could affect whether they would be allowed to play the next shot!

Thank heaven it is not a foul
There are clear guidelines as to the respotting of balls, the order in which they are respotted there placement if spot/spots covered
So it should not take too long and the players should not assist in that exercise

[t.lavery55]

sorry you have lost me, make what a foul? I defined what a foul is and in the respect that when a foul is committed the offending player’s turn is finished to answer you first question of “there should be a definitive statement in the rules stating that it must be the opponent that is snookered behind the free ball". As I see it, such a statement is not required because by definition of a foul it will always be the “opponent’s” (the non-offending player’s) turn. And in their turn they get the standard choices of what to do next.

Sorry, maybe that was a little unclear. We agreed that snookering yourself behind a free ball was not a foul. The point that I was trying to make was that IF IT WAS, then it would become your opponent's turn, because this is what happens after any foul, as per Section 2 rule 5b. But if it is your opponent's turn, then in effect it is him that has been snookered by the free ball.

Although in reality snookering yourself behind a free ball is not a foul, it is not clear to me why the rules could not be interpreted to mean that it is a foul and is then your opponent's turn.

[t.lavery55]

it should not take too long and the players should not assist in that exercise

Not usually no, but there are exceptions!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjqSNZnytow