cannot be snookered by cushion

[ADR147]

OK. Is this then a 'fair' stroke?

Cue-ball jammed in jaws of a corner pocket. Object ball in the jaws of the middle pocket on same side as that of cue-ball. There are no other balls along that cushion or within 1 ft of that cushion (or pockets).
Player manages to 'jump' the cue-ball onto the rail, where it travels along the rail, hits the object ball, which drops into the pocket, and the cue-ball ends up back on the bed of the table.

YES that is legal

[The Statman]

I guessed as much, and if I was reffing a frame and the player tried this, I would have to watch very carefully to make sure the object ball dropped in the pocket, before the cue ball landed back on the table (I'm sure that the cue-ball cannot land back on the table without passing over some part of the object ball).

I might try it down my club.

Yse I guess the white COULD just about land on the table, at the same time just clipping the finest part of the red, to avoid the jump shot.

In some sports, there is a "benefit of the doubt" rule to make the ref's job a little easier. Is there any such guideline in snooker?

Well it is universally acecpted that the referee, in the case of any doubt, gives the striker the benefit. Basically, a referee cannot call a foul unless he is 100% certain that it occurred.

Not sure if that's written anywhere, but it is at least common sense.

[Lee Vilenski]

Yeah, Thats like sending off someone in football, but you werent really sure about it

[Joe99]

Yse I guess the white COULD just about land on the table, at the same time just clipping the finest part of the red, to avoid the jump shot.

Is it necessary to only clip the "finest part" of the red?
I know the rule says a jump shot occurs if the cue ball passes over any part of the object ball, but then it goes on in para (b) to say it is OK as long as it does not land on the far side of the object ball.
Does this not mean that the cue ball could fly so high in the air that it is travelling almost vertically downwards when it strikes, as long as it hits the near half of the object ball, it is no foul? - notwithstanding the fact that prior to the collision, some part of the cue ball would quite clearly have been over some part of the object ball.

[Lee Vilenski]

Yeah, so long as it doesn't jump the red.

[The Statman]

Is it necessary to only clip the "finest part" of the red?
I know the rule says a jump shot occurs if the cue ball passes over any part of the object ball, but then it goes on in para (b) to say it is OK as long as it does not land on the far side of the object ball.
Does this not mean that the cue ball could fly so high in the air that it is travelling almost vertically downwards when it strikes, as long as it hits the near half of the object ball, it is no foul? - notwithstanding the fact that prior to the collision, some part of the cue ball would quite clearly have been over some part of the object ball.

Yes it is quite in order for the cue-ball to be travelling vertically downwards at the time it strikes the red, but this does not fit in well with the scenario that it has just rolled along the top of the cushion rail.

[Lee Vilenski]

It could just land on top of the object ball!?

[The Statman]

Yes, I don't actually think the finest edge woudl HAVE to be the only possible contact to avoid the jump shot – I used 'finest edge' more by way of illustrating a CERTAIN non-jump.

Looking at the jump shot stipulation, i.e. that the cue-ball must not land the far side of the object ball, consider the case where the cue-ball, as it jumps, strikes the red at a 45° angle. One would have to then judge whether the red had travelled far enough to be on the near/far side of the white when it landed, i.e. as if they were travelling in the same direction.

Look at this, one of The Statman's artistic moments!:


I ought mention that the dotted line on this diagram refers to the airborne path of the white UNTIL IT FIRST LANDS.

[ADR147]

it not a foul as long as the white does not travel over the red? - surely in your first diagram its legal - just rotate it to a straight line and i can see any reason why you can't do that?

[The Statman]

The first one would be a foul. The cue-ball has travelled (when it first lands) farther than the red; therefore it had been a straight shot, the cue-ball would indeed have landed beyond the white.

The outline red shows thow far the red had got when the white landed (which is indicated by the end of the dotted line).

The cue-ball has partially passed over the red at the point of contact.

[ADR147]

umm - so hit it harder jump higher and then............

[t.lavery55]

Would it be a legal shot if the cue-ball jumped onto
the floor and rebounded directly back onto the table?

What if it landed on a different snooker table in the arena?