White in middle of pack?

[sharkster63]

I think this rule should be changed. I think if they put themselve in this situation they should lose the game. Does not happen often and avoids all the stupid rules they have invented to cover this situation.

[Ramon]

Well, I saw S Davis talking about this on TV ( last yr ) . If the CB srnded by reds in such a way that thr is
No way to scape ( without hitting the red first ) . Than player is allowd to hit de red . But first, he has to
Nominate a clour ball . so , Lets say , he nominate the green !! He's allowd to hit one of the reds and after that , he has to hit the green !! In case the CB is on the cussion an sernded by 2 Or 3 reds ,, the player has to nominate a colrl ball and is allowd to hit the red first !!! ( it's no foul ) .

[snookerdad]

This is the relevant rule:

Foul and a Miss
(a) The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a
ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless:
(i) any player needed penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke
being played;
(ii) before or after the stroke, the points available on the table are equal to the points difference excluding the value of the re-spotted black; and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.
(iii) a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee‟s opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls.


Tim Dunkley (World Snooker coach)

[Londonlad147]

Eh - that don't make sense - because if its a miss the reds could be replaced - so you have to nominate a ball on then really is what you are saying I take it?

If the ball on is impossible to hit then you still have to nominate a ball on, and play at it either directly (ie in a straight line to it) or indirectly (ie off one or more cushions) so that you'd have hit it had the intervening balls not been in the way.

[Londonlad147]

This is an interesting thread as it's not something I've really ever considered but there has to be a provision for it in the rule book.

There is also the option of the oponent agreeing to a re-rack. I don't think I've ever seen a televised match where the player is forced to play a shot they know will foul because either the player or ref has asked the seated player if they can re-rack. Maybe it's a rule among the pros that if someone ends up surrounded by the pack during the opening moves of a frame they will agree to a restart. It's probably following an incredible long red so to punish it even more would be cruel and we all get it wrong sometimes

There is a provision in the rule book (s3.14) as Tim quotes below.

There is NO option for a re-rack (sic). The table will only ever be re-set and the frame re-started if there is a stalemate situation. The rules are quite clear on the 'ball on impossible to hit' scenario, so no stalemate needs to arise. You have to commit a foul, end of, but no miss if you meet the criteria.

[Londonlad147]

I think this rule should be changed. I think if they put themselve in this situation they should lose the game. Does not happen often and avoids all the stupid rules they have invented to cover this situation.

But a 'ball on impossible to hit' can arise in other situations: for example you could come to the table with the cue ball in the jaws of a pocket with a colour immediately in front of it preventing a path to any of the reds on the table. That situation isn't of your own making, so you can't say the player should lose the frame as a result.

[chessking]

Also, if you have a referee he has to declare the snooker as impossible or at least your opponent does if no referee. You have to take the foul and try and get the cueball safe if you can but your opponent cannot call a MISS but he can have you play again, the same as after any foul.

Just to clarify, do you mean he can have you play again from where the balls lay after your foul shot? Not play again by replacing the balls, and attempting the impossible snooker shot again?

[DeanH]

After any and all fouls, the non-offender can ask the offender to play again from where the balls come to rest after the foul stroke.
As a miss has not been called, replacement of the balls is not an option.

[tetricky]

How about being able to declare the shot unplayable? The opponent can choose to take the shot on instead, and if executing it successfully be awarded the frame. If the opponent declines, no miss can be called.

[Terry Davidson]

How about being able to declare the shot unplayable? The opponent can choose to take the shot on instead, and if executing it successfully be awarded the frame. If the opponent declines, no miss can be called.

Not in the rules. Once the situation is there the striker can ask the referee or his opponent (if no referee) if it's unplayable. The striker has to take a shot even though he will foul. No MISS is called but for sure a FOUL is called. Then the non-striker has just 2 options...either play the shot himself or put the original striker in to 'shoot again'.

[Londonlad147]

Once the situation is there the striker can ask the referee or his opponent (if no referee) if it's unplayable.

If asked if it is impossible/unplayable the referee CANNOT answer. The referee must, of course, form his own opinion before the stroke is played, and make his call accordingly. He certainly cannot call 'impossible shot'.

A slightly related scenario. One of my colleagues has recounted the story (umpteen times) that one player was attempting to play out of a snooker to a particular red. He questioned the referee when he was warned that a third miss would lose him the frame. The referee couldn't say why he warned him, but repeated the warning. The player looked at the table again and it dawned on him that there was another red which he could see full ball. Now imagine the player thinks he's in an impossible snooker, and asks for the referee's confirmation. If there is another option, if the referee even was to simply to say 'no, not impossible' then that could well assist the player, which is a definite no-no in the rules.

[Terry Davidson]

If asked if it is impossible/unplayable the referee CANNOT answer. The referee must, of course, form his own opinion before the stroke is played, and make his call accordingly. He certainly cannot call 'impossible shot'.

A slightly related scenario. One of my colleagues has recounted the story (umpteen times) that one player was attempting to play out of a snooker to a particular red. He questioned the referee when he was warned that a third miss would lose him the frame. The referee couldn't say why he warned him, but repeated the warning. The player looked at the table again and it dawned on him that there was another red which he could see full ball. Now imagine the player thinks he's in an impossible snooker, and asks for the referee's confirmation. If there is another option, if the referee even was to simply to say 'no, not impossible' then that could well assist the player, which is a definite no-no in the rules.

You are wrong. This case is covered by it's own rule (can't remember the number) and the referee or opponent has to answer. Canada's chief referee during my match judged a snooker hittable and said so. After the match he said it was 'a simple 5 cushion hit' so I asked him to explain it. I tried it on my own table with perfect cushions and it took me 11 attempts, 3 of which hit the black ball.

I wish I could have asked him to try it on the table I was on though as it had dodgy cushions

[DeanH]

You are wrong. This case is covered by it's own rule (can't remember the number) and the referee or opponent has to answer. Canada's chief referee during my match judged a snooker hittable and said so. After the match he said it was 'a simple 5 cushion hit' so I asked him to explain it. I tried it on my own table with perfect cushions and it took me 11 attempts, 3 of which hit the black ball.

I wish I could have asked him to try it on the table I was on though as it had dodgy cushions

Terry - your scenario was not an impossible to hit the ball-on scenario - effing difficult but not impossible

where does it say in the rules that you can ask the referee whether a situation is impossible and he has to answer?
rule 14(a)(iii) a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee's opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls.

maybe you are thinking of this use of words? But "his opinion" does not mean he voices that opinion before the stroke, asked or not, but as a result of the stroke his unvoiced opinion determines to his judgement whether the player has tried to hit the ball on...

let me know if you find that written rule please

[Terry Davidson]

Terry - your scenario was not an impossible to hit the ball-on scenario - effing difficult but not impossible

where does it say in the rules that you can ask the referee whether a situation is impossible and he has to answer?
rule 14(a)(iii) a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee's opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls.

maybe you are thinking of this use of words? But "his opinion" does not mean he voices that opinion before the stroke, asked or not, but as a result of the stroke his unvoiced opinion determines to his judgement whether the player has tried to hit the ball on...

let me know if you find that written rule please

Are you saying it's up to the striker to decide if a hit is impossible? If that were the case how does he know he can play towards a colour but has to hit an intervening red and has to assume a MISS will be called. Somehow the striker has to know it's an impossible hit.

Mine was impossible to hit because of the dodgy cushions on the table which threw wide and with the placement of the other balls on the table it was in my opinion impossible to hit and I would have gone on forever until I needed snookers. This was after I had left my opponent an easy red (last red) and I had already lost over 40 points on the snooker and I had 20 points before we began.

There has to be a way whereby the striker knows it's an impossible hit. When this happened in another Canadian Champs, with red surrounded by colours with no cushion or gap available the referee was asked and declared it impossible and allowed the player to play directly at the red and unfortunately the black was in front of the red, but no MISS was called and it was Bob Hargrove who was head referee and also a pro referee at that time and had done TV matches in Britain.

I'll check the rules but I believe it's in there somewhere but I could be basing this on experience

[Londonlad147]

Are you saying it's up to the striker to decide if a hit is impossible?

Yes. Until he plays the stroke and the referee makes his ultimate decision.