Question re 'Free ball'

[DeanH]

What if he rolled up to the nominated free ball and left it short, snookering his opponent behind it. Would it then be a foul and a miss.

Yes F&M because he failed to hit the nominated ball, regardless of being snookered behind the nominated Free Ball, just the standard foul of not hit the ball on

The options for the non-offending player are as usual: Play it from where it lies, put the offending player back in to play from where it lies, or have the balls replaced and the offending player to play again - the "original" free ball option no longer applies so he must play the original ball on.

If the non-offending player want to play it where it lies, he does have the Free Ball option as well.

[Bigmeek]

Hi Dean ref the last sentence in your post. Can the non-offender change his mind and select a different free ball from the original? Hope that's clear.

[DeanH]

Yes, the non-offender can choose any ball he likes as his free ball, the previous free-ball choice is not enforced; he also has the choice to not use the free ball option and go for the ball on.

[Londonlad147]

Yes F&M because he failed to hit the nominated ball, regardless of being snookered behind the nominated Free Ball, just the standard foul of not hit the ball on

I understand that the pro refs won't actually call F&M in such circumstances,m because no player in his right mind would ask for the balls to be replaced. Unless your name is Alex Higgins, of course!

[Londonlad147]

The options for the non-offending player are as usual: Play it from where it lies, put the offending player back in to play from where it lies, or have the balls replaced and the offending player to play again - the "original" free ball option no longer applies so he must play the original ball on.

Incorrect. If the balls are replaced after a miss, then the striker has exactly the same choices as he had when he played the shot the first time. This has been discussed at at least two EBSA Tutors & Examiners seminars. The first time the feeling was about 50:50, but the second discussion more or less unanimously accepted that the striker would have the same choices open to him.

[DeanH]

The options for the non-offending player are as usual: Play it from where it lies, put the offending player back in to play from where it lies, or have the balls replaced and the offending player to play again - the "original" free ball option no longer applies so he must play the original ball on.

Incorrect. If the balls are replaced after a miss, then the striker has exactly the same choices as he had when he played the shot the first time. This has been discussed at at least two EBSA Tutors & Examiners seminars. The first time the feeling was about 50:50, but the second discussion more or less unanimously accepted that the striker would have the same choices open to him.

The offending player being put back in would still have the original free ball option and play any ball as such.
Thanks for the information
When were these seminars held?

[Londonlad147]

The offending player being put back in would still have the original free ball option and play any ball as such.
Thanks for the information
When were these seminars held?

The first one must have been at least seven years ago, the more recent one about three years ago (where this point was discussed: there are seminars held annually).

[acesinc]

Incorrect. If the balls are replaced after a miss, then the striker has exactly the same choices as he had when he played the shot the first time. This has been discussed at at least two EBSA Tutors & Examiners seminars. The first time the feeling was about 50:50, but the second discussion more or less unanimously accepted that the striker would have the same choices open to him.

HI Londonlad. I am new to the forum and have seen your name come up on a few posts. It sounds like you are a certified referee then? That is great news because I am a Rules buff, not certified, but have read the Book cover to cover a number of times like it is a Stephen King thriller. It's interesting you posted this because I was going to respond but actually I changed my mind and in the end I agreed with Dean's original premise that the Free Ball is taken away and that was based solely on re-reading the Rules (yet again) so I decided not to post. Here is the exact draft of that post:

Yes F&M because he failed to hit the nominated ball, regardless of being snookered behind the nominated Free Ball, just the standard foul of not hit the ball on

The options for the non-offending player are as usual: Play it from where it lies, put the offending player back in to play from where it lies, or have the balls replaced and the offending player to play again - the "original" free ball option no longer applies so he must play the original ball on.

If the non-offending player want to play it where it lies, he does have the Free Ball option as well.

Sorry to be nit-picky here Dean, but in the interest of accuracy, I don't think the bolded statement is quite right. To begin, I don't think this hypothetical would ever actually occur because if someone were to attempt a roll up and stop short, then surely, the resulting position would be more difficult than the original position so that the incoming striker would surely have the fouling player "play again" from this new position. In that event, I completely agree the Free Ball no longer applies and the fouling striker MUST play at the ball on.

However, if the incoming striker were to (foolishly) request that the ball be replaced and the stroke be replayed, that is different from "play again". All balls being replaced and stroke replayed is in essence stepping back in time and theoretically, the exact same table situation applies as had been previously so while the returning striker had the Free Ball option in the former, I believe that he ought still have the Free Ball option in the latter. The formerly fouling striker DOES have the option of changing his Free Ball nomination....hopefully, he has wised up by now and realized that he could not legally roll up to his Free Ball anyway so he ought select a different Free Ball. This is similar to when a striker pots a Red and snookers himself on all colours, then commits a Foul and a Miss. Balls put back, but the returning fouling striker can certainly nominate a different colour for his next stroke.

I do admit that I am just inferring this from the written Rules, I am not a qualified Referee. It all goes to how one interprets the phrase used in Section 3., Rule 12. (f): "If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void." Myself, I take "play again" to mean "you, Mr. Fouling Striker, can play the balls again from the position they are in and you must play at the current ball on" but I concede that a valid case can be argued that "play again" can simply mean that the fouling striker returns to play the stroke whether it be from the new or the original position. I make my inference from the "stepping back in time" theory that the table positions and situations are identical....the only thing changed when the balls are replaced is the scoreboard. With a sound argument and supporting reference, I could be swayed to change my position.

END OF DRAFT...

So then I stuck my nose in the Rule Book again and ultimately ended up at Section 2., 13. Definition of Free Ball: "A free ball is a ball, other than the ball on, which the striker nominates as the ball on when snookered after a foul (see Section 3 Rule 12)." So one can argue that when the striker failed the roll up, then with the balls replaced, the fouling striker is still indeed "snookered after a foul" but it is a foul from his own hand, not his opponent. And I believe it is accepted in the spirit of the Game (though not written anywhere in the Rules) that a player should not benefit by committing a foul and obviously for the re-playing striker to have a Free Ball in this situation would give him a benefit through his own foul. So I went back to Section 3., 12. (f) "If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void" and decided that "play again" must be universally applicable whether the balls had been reset or not.

I am certainly not trying to argue this point....of course, I accept the general consensus. I am just saying that, following all the signposts given me by the written word of the Rules, this is the conclusion to which I came.

[DeanH]

acesinc - nit-pick away

I am like you, purely a student of the rules, was close to studying to be a referee but did not as my game started improving so concentrated on that for now

Sec 3.12(f) "If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void"

I am happy with the "play again" phrase, my concern is the phrase "free ball call" and what is precisely meant by this:
1. Is "call" the statement by the referee that a Free Ball situation is an option to the non-offending player?
or
2. Is "call" the player's announcement of what ball will be the nominated ball, hence allowing the player to change his choice of nominated ball?

If #1, then my first version applies of the free ball not being an option after the offending player being ask to play again.

If #2 is the meant definition then would not 3.12(f) be written as "If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball nomination becomes void".

As LondonLad mentioned this scenario was discussed at the seminars twice, first time no decision, and then second time, clear majority to allow the free ball option to remain after player asked to play again.

To me "Call" means the referee's call, not the player's nomination. Where I think the seminar took it to be the player's nomination.

clear?

[acesinc]

acesinc - nit-pick away

I am like you, purely a student of the rules, was close to studying to be a referee but did not as my game started improving so concentrated on that for now

Sec 3.12(f) "If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void"

I am happy with the "play again" phrase, my concern is the phrase "free ball call" and what is precisely meant by this:
1. Is "call" the statement by the referee that a Free Ball situation is an option to the non-offending player?
or
2. Is "call" the player's announcement of what ball will be the nominated ball, hence allowing the player to change his choice of nominated ball?

If #1, then my first version applies of the free ball not being an option after the offending player being ask to play again.

If #2 is the meant definition then would not 3.12(f) be written as "If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball nomination becomes void".

As LondonLad mentioned this scenario was discussed at the seminars twice, first time no decision, and then second time, clear majority to allow the free ball option to remain after player asked to play again.

To me "Call" means the referee's call, not the player's nomination. Where I think the seminar took it to be the player's nomination.

clear?

I have always been fascinated withe the level of detail in the Rules so any seeming inconsistency is bothersome to me. I have to admit to a little confusion in your post, not quite clear...

I agree with your supposition #1 that "free ball call" is the referee's determination as to whether a state of "free ball" exists or not. There is always precedent in the Rules that anytime a player is put back in after a foul, whether F&M or not, he is not required to play the same stroke....could nominate a different colour, can play to a different Red, can play a different path or strength, there is no restriction on shot choice at all other than that it be an effort at a LEGAL stroke (cannot play the White directly into a pocket for instance....against the spirit of the game and should be punished with an "ungentlemanly conduct" warning). So with that, I have to immediately discount your supposition #2.

"...I think the seminar took it to be the player's nomination."

I don't agree with this. I believe instead that the seminar vote was based on the "stepping back in time" theory I referenced earlier.....if the balls are reset, the simple idea is that the table position and situation is EXACTLY what it had been previously (except the score of course because penalty points having been awarded).

I will be interested to hear a bit more detail in Londonlad's take on this.

[DeanH]

with LondonLad's explanation of the second seminar outcome, then my "...I think the seminar took it to be the player's nomination." stands as is allows the ruling as explained by LL; and allows for your "back in time"

I also await LondonLad's further discussion and hopefully his/seminar's definition as to who's "call" is voided in 3.12(f)

[Londonlad147]

The free ball call is the announcement by the referee, that the new striker (non-offender) can choose a colour of his choice instead of a red (assuming reds are still on the table). If the non-offender chooses not to play but puts the offender back in to play then the 'free ball' call is voided and the original offender has to play at a ball on.

If the call was 'foul and a miss, free ball' then if the non-offender asks for the balls to be replaced, then again the 'free ball' call becomes void, and again the original offender has to play at the ball on.

NOW, the unusual circumstance that was the subject of discussion is where the original non-offender has a free ball but then plays a miss. The call might be a simple 'foul and a miss' or 'foul and a miss, free ball' and I think the possibility of the latter is possibly clouding the discussion. Regardless of which call it is, if the (new) non-offender asks for the balls to be replaced, then the offender will still have the option of taking a free ball because he's put back to the original position with the original choices. He's put back into being the non-offender (from the original foul that created the first free ball). So to recap, A makes a foul and leaves free ball, B then plays a miss (whether taking advantage of the free ball or not). A (the original offender) asks for the balls to be replaced, and B (the original non-offender who has made the second foul and a miss) has the same options he had originally, and can take advantage of the free ball.

Whether or not the referee should reiterate 'free ball' is another matter!

Has this made it any clearer?

[DeanH]

Thanks LondonLad, it is the unusual circumstances
I understand but still not 100% in agreement with them, as per the wording in the rules; to me the wording reads, when a player is asked to play again, regardless of a F&M or not, no free ball should be available.

Maybe the rules need a rewrite to clearly describe this scenario, maybe something like the following bold text:

Sec 3.12(f) If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void, except sec3.14(b)(iv)).

Sec 3.14
(b) After a FOUL AND A MISS has been called, the next player may request
the offender to play again from the position left, or at his discretion, from the original position, with all balls being replaced, in which latter case the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table; or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.
(iv) also, if the returning offender previously had a Free Ball option before the Foul & Miss, it will again be an option for after the balls being replaced.

[acesinc]

Londonlad, I think it is perfectly clear what the proper rule is based on your explanation. It would seem to confirm my "stepping back in time" theory.

The only issue in my head is that when I followed what I call the "signposts" left for me in the wording used in the Rules, ultimately, it led me to the wrong destination. To rectify that, I think I just have to scratch my head and gaze at my navel a bit more.

[Londonlad147]

Londonlad, I think it is perfectly clear what the proper rule is based on your explanation. It would seem to confirm my "stepping back in time" theory.

The only issue in my head is that when I followed what I call the "signposts" left for me in the wording used in the Rules, ultimately, it led me to the wrong destination. To rectify that, I think I just have to scratch my head and gaze at my navel a bit more.

(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.
(iv) also, if the returning offender previously had a Free Ball option before the Foul & Miss, it will again be an option for after the balls being replaced.[/I]

The rules could certainly do with an addition to clarify the position. A simple extension to (iii) would suffice, something along the lines of:
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted, or when a 'free ball' had been declared.