White in middle of pack?

[DeanH]

Nope. If that is so then what does this mean 'As for your comment Tim, the Referee MUST tell the player in the situation you describe because the rule book tells him/her that he must.

Our rules expert stands by his original evaluation and has read this forum post.

the comment to Tim, was about something unrelated to the "impossible shot question", as LondonLad had already stated on an earlier post, as I had already asked him about the very same sentence.

which situation was this comment aimed at? Not the same we are discussing on this thread is it?

Sorry, no, that was aimed at something someone said on the FB topic.

[Terry Davidson]

You've got two scenarios where you're effectively asking the referee in advance what his call would be. The detail of my example is perhaps a little obscure, but the same principle applies if you've got say an uncertain path through a field of scattered reds to all the colours down the other end of the table.

In one scenario you;re saying you'd expect the referee to answer (is this an impossible shot?), but not in the other (have I got central full ball contact?). Both could result in a miss being called or simply a foul, depending on the referee's answer. The referee's response is likely to affect the shot that the striker plays, and that can't be right. The answer to both questions MUST be 'I can't tell you'.

Your second scenario (cueball, OB on cushion with intervening ball close to cushion) is nowhere near the impossible hit problem. With the second scenario the player would be able to judge if there is clearance between the intervening ball and cushion. If he feels there is he will likely play directly at the OB. If he feels there isn't then he will likely play to top cushion with a bit of LH side for a very easy hit.

Impossible means what it says. When I had a problem like this the referee was a snooker player however he didn't account for the dodgy cushions on the table. He insisted a hit was possible and knew on that table a hit was not possible. I believe I was the better judge than him but referees have the final say even though they are usually NEVER the most qualified to judge an impossible hit. I say this because a good amateur or pro play will have spent thousands and thousands of hours practicing and observing, much more than a referee spends refereeing. But we can't allow a player to referee and judge his own shot can we, because he would be biased but I believe we should in the impossible hit situation, especially since there is no advantage to playing directly at the ball on since the player in most cases cannot control the path of the cueball after contact with intervening balls.

[tetricky]

Correct. See my proposed solution (not a statement of current rules), that you dismissed out of hand many posts ago.

I see the way out as being to allow a player to be able to declare an impossible hit on his shot. The opponent then has the option to play the shot instead, with a bonus if he is able to make the shot (win the frame?). If not, and the opponent accepts the impossible hit, then no miss can be called.

[Londonlad147]

OH, and by the way...here you are attending European referee's training seminars and you're asking us members to decide on really unusual scenarios which a bunch of qualified referees have dreamed up (likely after a few sociable drinks too). Totally unfair as most of us are ONLY players and are basing our calls on experience of playing and not refereeing.

So if you're merely players why won't you bow to the knowledge of experienced qualified referees, some of whom work at the top level of the game, and, as Brendan confirmed, are on the rules committee.

[Londonlad147]

Terry, you're getting too hung up on the detail of my second scenario. I'm not saying that it is an 'impossible' scenario. I'm simply using it as another example of when a striker might ask for the referee's opinion in advance of making the stroke. You've already said "I would never ask a referee if I had full-ball contact" so what is so different about the 'impossible' scenario that you think allows him to answer? Fundamentally they're the same: you're asking for the referees opinion in advance of the shot and your shot selection will depend on his answer. If they're fundamentally the same question, then the referee's response to both has got to be the same: "I can't answer".

[Byrom]

Yeah if we where playing and I got you in one of those difficult situations and you asked the ref and the he gave his opinion and said you cant hit that full in face Terry or gave his opinion that it was an impossible shot to hit - it would or might change your shot selection - therefore the ref would or could be seen as aiding your opponent which he can't do - he has to be impartial.

[Terry Davidson]

Yeah if we where playing and I got you in one of those difficult situations and you asked the ref and the he gave his opinion and said you cant hit that full in face Terry or gave his opinion that it was an impossible shot to hit - it would or might change your shot selection - therefore the ref would or could be seen as aiding your opponent which he can't do - he has to be impartial.

It wasn't me that said I would ask the ref when we talked about the ball down the cushion and full-ball contact. I would never ask a ref for a decision on that because it's something relatively easy to see and also an easy hit. I'm only talking about the 'impossible hit' scenario. If I say before I shoot 'I think this is an impossible hit' and my opponent agrees with me so I take the shot and the ref thinks I could have hit it he will call a MISS and re-set the balls if asked to. Is the ref the best judge of an impossible hit? There are not a lot of refs around who have played to a high standard.

[Londonlad147]

It wasn't me that said I would ask the ref when we talked about the ball down the cushion and full-ball contact. I would never ask a ref for a decision on that because it's something relatively easy to see and also an easy hit. I'm only talking about the 'impossible hit' scenario. If I say before I shoot 'I think this is an impossible hit' and my opponent agrees with me so I take the shot and the ref thinks I could have hit it he will call a MISS and re-set the balls if asked to. Is the ref the best judge of an impossible hit? There are not a lot of refs around who have played to a high standard.

OK, another scenario for you to consider then. The cue ball is tight on the baulk cushion on the centre line of the table. The last red is on the black spot. The pink and black are just in front of the red, with about a ball's width between them. There are other colours close to the cue ball preventing any kind of angle off the side cushions. If there is a ball's width then the cue ball would be able to hit the red full ball. If the gap is less than a ball's width then the shot is impossible.

If you ask the referee if you can hit it full ball, you agree the referee can't answer, but if you ask him if it's an impossible snooker you're saying he can answer, even though he's effectively then telling him whether or not he has central full ball contact available. That is not right.

[DeanH]

OK, another scenario for you to consider then. The cue ball is tight on the baulk cushion on the centre line of the table. The last red is on the black spot. The pink and black are just in front of the red, with about a ball's width between them. There are other colours close to the cue ball preventing any kind of angle off the side cushions. If there is a ball's width then the cue ball would be able to hit the red full ball. If the gap is less than a ball's width then the shot is impossible.

If you ask the referee if you can hit it full ball, you agree the referee can't answer, but if you ask him if it's an impossible snooker you're saying he can answer, even though he's effectively then telling him whether or not he has central full ball contact available. That is not right.

to me this scenario is not an impossible snooker, just a very good snooker, and possibly difficult to get out of
an impossible snooker is where there is absolutely no path for the cue ball to travel that will NOT hit an intervening ball; i.e. the cue ball or the object ball are totally surrounded by balls not on, or a wall of balls not on with no gap large enough for the cue ball to pass through

As mentioned before, the referee should not in any manner give any advice of what to do or not do, to either player.

[Terry Davidson]

OK, another scenario for you to consider then. The cue ball is tight on the baulk cushion on the centre line of the table. The last red is on the black spot. The pink and black are just in front of the red, with about a ball's width between them. There are other colours close to the cue ball preventing any kind of angle off the side cushions. If there is a ball's width then the cue ball would be able to hit the red full ball. If the gap is less than a ball's width then the shot is impossible.

If you ask the referee if you can hit it full ball, you agree the referee can't answer, but if you ask him if it's an impossible snooker you're saying he can answer, even though he's effectively then telling him whether or not he has central full ball contact available. That is not right.

Your scenarios are nonsense and besides you haven't answered my question regarding the middle jaw sticking out in your balls on the cushion scenario,

On this one unless the intervening balls to the side cushion are very close there would be a hit on using side. If the player can see anywhere on the side cushion he has an escape and if he can't he has the option of jawing the ball in the top pocket and coming across the table.

At least come up with a scenario which actually happens every now and again. If there was very little clearance between pink and black the referee would have to measure it anyway and he will give away his evaluation of the gap. Even in the impossible hit scenario the referee will give away his evaluation if he checks the position of the balls and where he has to re-spot them.

[Byrom]

I understand what Terry is saying and understand why the ref cannot comment - but the miss rule does seem unfair if there is say there is one red left it is not in your advantage to miss it until you need snookers and there is no natural path to the red - jump shots not allowed and you need to banana it into a cushion check it off the next cushion and try and fabricate an angle to hit the ball - my heart sank when the ref called a miss on me recently when I was less than an inch off hitting it twice - cost me game n match - but Terry I never complained - rules are rules and credit to the guy for fluking me into that situation.

[Londonlad147]

and besides you haven't answered my question regarding the middle jaw sticking out in your balls on the cushion scenario,

If the jaw prevents the straight path to the cue ball then he obviously hasn't got central full ball contact.

Now, your turn to answer my question.

[Londonlad147]

Ok, let me make my last scenario a little clearer. Cue ball is on the baulk cushion with yellow and green to either side of it just a hair's breadth away. The last red is on the black spot with pink and black to either side about a ball's width in front )ie baulk side of it) and about a ball's width apart.

You're agreeing that the referee cannot answer if asked if there is central full ball contact, but can answer if asked if it is an impossible snooker (which it certainly is because all that can happen to the cue ball is to go straight forward on the centre line of the table. If it doesn't go between the gap between pink and black there is no other possible path to the red).

It doesn't matter how 'ridiculous' the scenario is, it's the principle that matters. It used to annoy me no end when John Street used to answer 'it would never happen' to a question about an obscure situation. If it can happen it will... somewhere, some time.

[Terry Davidson]

Ok, let me make my last scenario a little clearer. Cue ball is on the baulk cushion with yellow and green to either side of it just a hair's breadth away. The last red is on the black spot with pink and black to either side about a ball's width in front )ie baulk side of it) and about a ball's width apart.

You're agreeing that the referee cannot answer if asked if there is central full ball contact, but can answer if asked if it is an impossible snooker (which it certainly is because all that can happen to the cue ball is to go straight forward on the centre line of the table. If it doesn't go between the gap between pink and black there is no other possible path to the red).

It doesn't matter how 'ridiculous' the scenario is, it's the principle that matters. It used to annoy me no end when John Street used to answer 'it would never happen' to a question about an obscure situation. If it can happen it will... somewhere, some time.

In this case if I was the referee I would check the gap between pink and black and if I was striker I would carefully watch the referee when he was checking the gap. Since this is a very difficult shot to hit the ball EXACTLY centre-ball I would also have to take into account the skill level of the player since it would take the world's best cueist to make it between the pink and black. If there was only 1mm on each side of the cueball I would likely not call and miss if I was the referee and if I was the striker I would attempt to hit the red full ball and hope the referee takes into account the skill level and doesn't call a MISS.

If he does call a MISS then I would hope when he replaced the balls he would leave me a little more room, say 2mm on each side of the white which would still be a difficult shot, especially off the cushion.

I agree with John Street on this one, sorry. The chances of this coming up in a refereed match with pros is remote and probably even more remote in an amateur match. I agree that anything could happen but the call in this situation depends TOTALLY on the ability of the referee to make the correct (SUBJECTIVE) call on the shot taking into account the difficulty of the snooker and the skill level of the striker.

On the one I asked where the middle jaw is slightly sticking out no one would be likely to notice that flaw until a ball was played along the side cushion past the middle pocket. As a referee you would be looking at how far the intervening ball was from the cushion and wouldn't notice a 1mm misalignment of the jaw. You would however see the reaction of the cueball as it hit that protruding jaw.

So let's assume you are either a most observant referee or before the shot you wouldn't have had any idea that jaw was out. In your expert opinion if the player tried the shot directly down the cushion and the cueball took off to the right would you call a MISS? On the other hand would you even call a FOUL since it is an equipment fault not supplied by the player?

I've seen this one quite frequently although more when a player tries to make a pot down the side cushion past the middle pocket. As I said my own table has this flaw on the yellow side and I've just been too lazy to loosen off the rails and correct it. My table was used in Pot Black originally but I doubt that problem was there then since the rubber has been replaced.

[Londonlad147]

Terry, forget the detail of the scenarios. You're still evading the question.

Are you saying, in my last scenario that it is not ok for the referee to answer if asked if the striker has central full ball contact, but that it is ok to answer (in exactly the same position) whether it's an impossible shot?