Rule's help

[luke-h]

Player A breaks off but miscues and ends up behind the blue without touching any reds he ends up behind the blue but still able to see the last two reds in the triangle. in this situation because player B can still see the last two reds but is unable to hit both edges is this a free ball situation?

Thanks luke

[jrc750]

Yes .........well assuming he couldn't hit both sides of one of the reds, the fact that other reds may be blocking the edge is irrelevant

[luke-h]

Yes .........well assuming he couldn't hit both sides of one of the reds, the fact that other reds may be blocking the edge is irrelevant

Thankyou, thats what i thought. bit of a weird situation i guess

[RogiBear]

i thought that if a red blocked the path to the edge of another then it couldn't be called a free-ball, assuming the direct line between the cue ball wasn't blocked by colours

[jrc750]

i thought that if a red blocked the path to the edge of another then it couldn't be called a free-ball, assuming the direct line between the cue ball wasn't blocked by colours

Which is what i said, didn't i ?? lol

[DeanH]

This has been asked before and, IIRC, as a single Red cannot be hit at both extreme edges this would be a Free Ball situation.
but rule 17 (c) states:
(c) When Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by different balls not on, there is no effective snookering ball.
so by reverse logic, when Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by a Single ball not on, there is an effective snookering ball.
Interested to hear other comments

[jrc750]

This has been asked before and, IIRC, as a single Red cannot be hit at both extreme edges this would be a Free Ball situation.
but rule 17 (c) states:
(c) When Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by different balls not on, there is no effective snookering ball.
so by reverse logic, when Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by a Single ball not on, there is an effective snookering ball.
Interested to hear other comments

Your answers always confuse me lol, need it in Plain English

[DeanH]

i thought that if a red blocked the path to the edge of another then it couldn't be called a free-ball, assuming the direct line between the cue ball wasn't blocked by colours

From my reading of the original post is that the snookering ball is the Blue and the two extreme Reds in the pyramid can only be hit at their extreme outside edge, nothing about other Reds being in the way.

But you are correct, a Red can't Snooker another Red. Also remember, the closest ball to the cue-ball is the snookering ball, all others that would otherwise be in the way are not taken into account.

[jrc750]

I guess we need a diagram lol, depends if he can see enough of the closest red, that if it wasn't there he could then of hit the extreme edge of the last red, which means no free ball

[DeanH]

Your answers always confuse me lol, need it in Plain English

LOL, I know...

see http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...f-you-have-one
this clearly discusses the OP in the "More than one red on the table" section it states "If there is more than one red remaining, then each red must be considered, pretending that it is the only red on the table. If any one red is NOT snookered by a colour, then no free ball can be called."
So to me this would mean that the answer would be Free Ball as a colour (the Blue in the OP) partially obscures the two Reds.

[jrc750]

...
So to me this would mean that the answer would be Free Ball as a colour (the Blue in the OP) partially obscures the two Reds.

Which is what i said at the start
(I was just bringing the scenario that maybe the angle allowed the player to see the edge of one red if the other red wasn't there)

[DeanH]

Which is what i said at the start
(I was just bringing the scenario that maybe the angle allowed the player to see the edge of one red if the other red wasn't there)

yep you did
sorry did not see your reply until after I pressed Post Quick Reply.

[luke-h]

Basically the player has broke off not moved any reds landed behind the blue but far enough behind that the outside two reds of the triangle are hittable so it's obviously a foul four away just unsure if a freeball could be given, but as has been said you can't be snookered by a red when hitting the reds. hmmmm confuddled

[DeanH]

Basically the player has broke off not moved any reds landed behind the blue but far enough behind that the outside two reds of the triangle are hittable so it's obviously a foul four away just unsure if a freeball could be given, but as has been said you can't be snookered by a red when hitting the reds. hmmmm confuddled

in your scenario it is a Free Ball. as the Reds that could be hit can only be hit on one extreme edge because the Blue is the effective snookering ball.

Your scenario does not include Red covering a Red, not from my reading.
Did you have a look at the link in one of my previously posts? This was written by a long standing referee, who unfortunately no longer comes on TSF.

[luke-h]

in your scenario it is a Free Ball. as the Reds that could be hit can only be hit on one extreme edge because the Blue is the effective snookering ball.

Your scenario does not include Red covering a Red, not from my reading.
Did you have a look at the link in one of my previously posts? This was written by a long standing referee, who unfortunately no longer comes on TSF.

Yes just looked and you were right they could only be hit a glancing blow, but now i have looked it's cleared the whole thing up so thanks