cannot be snookered by cushion

[Joe99]

I found this question on the BBC sport page under "If you were the ref..." (For some reason I cannot get back for a second look - all I get is "403 forbidden" so I am relying on memory)

The situation, after a foul is:
Cue ball between the jaws of one of the centre pockets.
Blue ball about 6 inches away close to the cushion.
Last red a further 6 inches away, also close to the cushion.

The question is whether there should be a free ball.

If I understood the video clip correctly, the answer is no free ball because the rules say a ball cannot be snookered by a cushion.

Without meaning any disrespect to the referee involved, I would have thought that if cushions are to be considered as "transparent", a snooker would still exist due to the presence of the blue.

Or have I missed the point somewhere? Thanks in advance for an explanation.

[missneworleans]

That makes interesting playing on zig-zag or L-shape tables!

[Semih_Sayginer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...er/default.stm

top left of the page above is the link

[RaNeN]

It is not a free ball when the knuckle of the pcoket snookers the cue ball. Earlier, I think in 1994 if this happened the cue ball was awarded as ball in hand and the player could place it in the D and play. However now the ball stays snookered but a free ball is not awarded.

[ADR147]

in reality you just put the shot maker back in from where the ball lies.

[RaNeN]

Where are the Ref's????? When we need them?

[DawRef]

Cannot Be Snookered By Cushion

Joe99 you are correct.

Section 2 Rule 16(e) states:

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.

In JS book, he quotes (p41):

"Whereas the ball not on that is closest to the cue-ball is the only effective snookering ball, so the principle holds good when it is something else that is closer to the cue-ball and partially or wholly blocking the path to at least one ball on. In the case where the cue-ball is in the jaws of a pocket and the curve of a cushion at a pocket opening is the nearest such obstruction, the cue-ball is not snookered."

RaNen is correct in that before the 1995 re-write, there was the option of playing from in hand (the old Angled Ball Rule). Now the only options are, if no miss has been called, to play the stroke yourself or, which is more likely, put your opponent back in.

A further point. If the curved face of a cushion is the only thing stopping you from hitting the ball on, the 3-miss rule (Section 3, Rule 14(c)(ii)) will not be applied. I clarified this with John Street a couple of years ago.

I hope this clears the question up.

DawRef - a referee!

[The Statman]

Yes indeed, it is difficult to add to DawRef's excellent explanation. However, I will add:

The Miss Rule only states that a full ball is available for the three-miss situation – it mentions nothing about 'snookered' so the fact that you are technically not 'snookered' does not come into it.

One reason (I suspect) that the free-ball option is not available in this situation is that the wording of the Rule would become so complicated. Because, if it just stated that the cushion preventing contact would result in a free ball, then after a foul, if the ball on happened to be very close to a cushion, you might claim a free ball simply because it was too close to the cushion for the extreme edge to be available.

[Joe99]

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.

It seems to me there is a curious consequence of this in that you could have a "ball impossible to hit" situation, but if the cue ball was between the jaws of a pocket the player would be "not snookered".

[The Statman]

It seems to me there is a curious consequence of this in that you could have a "ball impossible to hit" situation, but if the cue ball was between the jaws of a pocket the player would be "not snookered".

Well that is indeed true, but what material difference does it make (except that you don't get a free ball). If you put your opponent back in, he's still buggered!

[Lee Vilenski]

Truth is, that A snooker only applies to balls. It is interestesting however, that it isn't a Free ball, if you cna hit the ball plain ball. If you had a ball ON the cussion that is also a free ball. I dunno if it's ever happened.

[The Statman]

Truth is, that A snooker only applies to balls. It is interestesting however, that it isn't a Free ball, if you cna hit the ball plain ball. If you had a ball ON the cussion that is also a free ball. I dunno if it's ever happened.

If you have a ball ON (as in, on top of) the cushion then it has left the table. It would be re-spotted (if a colour), discarded (if a red) or played from the 'D' (if the cue-ball).

[Lee Vilenski]

Ah, well it was a thought.... What about I dunno, a ball on top of another ball?

[The Statman]

Technically possible that a ball could land on top of the pack when the triangle is still reasonably tight, I guess. It would once again be a foul for not coming to rest on the playing surface (or in a pocket), so it would be deemed to have left the table.

[Lee Vilenski]

As, in a touching ball situation, your not allowed to move the touching ball, (Becuase its a push shot) then, if you had three touching balls, it's possible to be snookered on all reds, by the reds!