touching ball

[macsho]

after potting a red the cue ball ended up between two reds it was impossible to hit any coloured ball, the only ball that could be seen was the black but the cue ball was touching the reds . what would the foul be as you played the shot the player nominated green .I guess 4

[steveflanuk]

There wouldn't be a foul unless one of the reds moved. It's a similar situation to the cue ball touching a colour when a red is the ball on, where you don't commit a foul although, technically, you've hit the colour first.

I'm sure some of the regulars here can give you chapter and verse from the rule book.

[DeanH]

yes, 4 as the nominated ball on was Green and the Green was not hit.

In the case of impossible snooker, the player must play in such a direction and strength that with out the obstruction/s, the nominated ball would have been hit.
If the player does not play in such a manner, I believe that the player could be warned for not playing at the best of his ability and could be ungentlemanly behaviour, the shot maybe replaced; any further non-attempts could result in loss of frame.

[DeanH]

with the touching balls, if the Reds don't move, no foul. If the player plays in such a manner that he does not directly play the cue ball into the touching ball/s, and the touching ball/s moves it is not necessarily a foul.

Sec 3 8.(f) If the referee is satisfied that any movement of a touching ball at the moment of striking was not caused by the striker, he will not call a foul.
For example the touching ball moves in to a small dip in the cloth.

[SnkrRef]

If you're on a colour but are touching two reds, then you must still make a reasonable attempt to hit a colour of your choice. BUT, if either of the reds moves then a foul (and a Miss) will be called, as in virtually all cases it should at least be possible to get away from the reds without either moving. However, if any such movement was deemed to be due to a deficiency of the table as in a ball rolling into a divot, then that wouldn't be called a foul.

The requirement is still there to make contact with a colour, and, provided you've made a good effort to hit one, either directly or indirectly, with sufficient strength, then no miss would be called if you don't disturb the reds.

A further proviso: if it was impossible to play away from the reds in such a way that you couldn't avoid other reds (ie ball on impossible to hit) then in that case it would be in order to play into a red, either directly or indirectly towards a colour, with sufficient strength to have hit it had the red not been there, WITHOUT a miss being called.

Got it?

Hmmm, it's a bit complicated to explain, but it all depends on whether the referee considers that a colour really is impossible to hit.

[SnkrRef]

with the touching balls, if the Reds don't move, no foul.

Assuming of course that he hits the nominated colour.

[SnkrRef]

If the player does not play in such a manner, I believe that the player could be warned for not playing at the best of his ability and could be ungentlemanly behaviour, the shot maybe replaced; any further non-attempts could result in loss of frame.

No, I wouldn't necessarily warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct but a Miss would certainly be called.

[DeanH]

Assuming of course that he hits the nominated colour.

of course yes, forgot that bit, thanks

[steveflanuk]

Assuming of course that he hits the nominated colour.

Of course SnkrRef - correct as usual

However, the way I read the original post was that because the cue ball was touching a red (or reds in this case), and it didn't matter what the player did - they've hit a red first because it was touching the cue ball (probably because macsho said his opponent could see the black but nominated green)

[DeanH]

No, I wouldn't necessarily warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct but a Miss would certainly be called.

Yes, Foul and Miss called, yes, but...

this has been discussed before, where a player makes no attempt to hit the ball on, personally I would class this as ungentlemanly, and if you recall that video of ROS, that was discussed at the time, just hitting the CB around and just Foul&Miss being called and no warning at all... I thought that was wrong on the part of the referee.

[DeanH]

Of course SnkrRef - correct as usual

However, the way I read the original post was that because the cue ball was touching a red (or reds in this case), and it didn't matter what the player did - they've hit a red first because it was touching the cue ball (probably because macsho said his opponent could see the black but nominated green)

yes I think I was reading it the same way, that the foul was for the touching reds, as the OP never says the nominated ball was hit or not.

[SnkrRef]

yes I think I was reading it the same way, that the foul was for the touching reds, as the OP never says the nominated ball was hit or not.

Whatever position you're playing from you always have the obligation to hit a ball on. The fact that you're hampered by the cue ball being sandwiched between two reds when you're on a colour is immaterial: you still need to hit a colour without making the reds move, else at least a foul will be called.

[SnkrRef]

this has been discussed before, where a player makes no attempt to hit the ball on, personally I would class this as ungentlemanly, and if you recall that video of ROS, that was discussed at the time, just hitting the CB around and just Foul&Miss being called and no warning at all... I thought that was wrong on the part of the referee.

There's a difference between making no effort to hit a ball on, in which case, yes, I'd warn the player, and not playing a good enough attempt, such as the referee deeming the player didn't play it hard enough to have hit ball on had an obstructing ball not been there (in a ball on impossible to hit situation) , which would simply be a foul and a miss.

[DeanH]

There's a difference between making no effort to hit a ball on, in which case, yes, I'd warn the player, and not playing a good enough attempt, such as the referee deeming the player didn't play it hard enough to have hit ball on had an obstructing ball not been there (in a ball on impossible to hit situation) , which would simply be a foul and a miss.

of course, agreed

[jonny66]

But would any side be transferred to the object ball?