Free Ball Questions

[mick745]

I was playing with my friend who had failed to hit the final red leaving me with a free ball. I nominated the green and attempted a pot (which I missed). However, the green ball came back and rested on the white meaning he was now snookered. I know you are not allowed to snooker behind your chosen free ball but does it have to be played as a deliberate snooker? What is the punishment in this case (if any - is it four points away?). Please help.

[sammyts]

Yes foul 4 and a free ball, UNLESS if you removed the green from the table your opponent would still be snookered.

[DeanH]

as said, a foul, 4, and your opponent now has the choices, play himself - free ball or ball on, or ask you to play ball on.

It is unfortunate that when the green bounces back and snookers the ball on, regardless being a deliberate shot or not, you get punished.
Now, if another colour was between the green and the cue ball it would not be a foul; as the first ball between the cue ball and ball on (from the cue ball) is considered the snookering ball and any other subsequent balls are not considered.

[sammyts]

Its still not a foul whichever of the snookering balls is nearest the cue ball, strange but because of the way the rule is worded.

[warren132]

Easy on this defo a foul...deliberate or unintentional as the green was the free ball.

[DeanH]

Its still not a foul

sorry? but what is not a foul, snookering behind a nominated free ball?
Sec 3.10 (a) (viii) "causing the cue-ball to be snookered behind a free ball, except as provided for in Section 3 Rule 12(b) (ii);" [when only Pink and Black on the table]

...whichever of the snookering balls is nearest the cue ball,

sorry but it is
Sec 2.17 (b)(I) "...the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective snookering ball;..."

...strange but because of the way the rule is worded.

again, sorry but which rule?

[sammyts]

My apologies, consulted a referee friend of mine and the rule was re-written some years back apparently, can tell how long it's been since I was playing competitions ! !

[DeanH]

My apologies, consulted a referee friend of mine and the rule was re-written some years back apparently, can tell how long it's been since I was playing competitions ! !

no worries

[merry crimbo]

[sammyts]

Was a daft rule anyway, bit like the way the miss rule is interpreted nowadays

[SnkrRef]

My apologies, consulted a referee friend of mine and the rule was re-written some years back apparently, can tell how long it's been since I was playing competitions ! !

The rule has been the same since at least 1987!

Maybe you're thinking of a different scenario, where different colours are snookering different reds. If after a foul the two reds come to rest on a cushion, with say the yellow cue ball and gree between them, then it would not be a foul if you nominated either of the two colours and rolled up to it, because the nominated free ball won't be snookering you on the other red.

[sammyts]

To be fair was probably more like 1981 I learnt the rule from a guy who was still a professional referee at the time, and never having encountered it in a match had no reason to think it had changed, thanks though snookerref for making me feel REALLY old ! Lol

[mick745]

Thank you for all your replies. Is the sanction always 4 points away? In the original scenario if you replaced the green with pink would the foul be four points or six?

[Londonlad147]

Thank you for all your replies. Is the sanction always 4 points away? In the original scenario if you replaced the green with pink would the foul be four points or six?

No. The penalty is the value of the ball on. Imagine just blue, pink and black left on the table. Blue is obviously ball on, but you nominate pink as your free ball, and by accident the cue ball comes to rest behind the pink. The penalty is five, because blue is the ball on and the pink was effectively a blue for that stroke.