is this a free ball, i got told no .....

[AmarZain]

Yes, a free ball was correctly called because it is a different scenario to the OP!

In this video there is only one obstruction - the black ball - preventing the cue ball from hitting both sides of the red. In the OP's scenario there were two: the curved part of the cushion near the centre pocket, and the green ball. That wasn't a free ball because the curved part was the nearer obstruction to the cue ball, and it is specifically stated in the rules that if the curved part of a cushion is nearer than any obstructing ball, then there is no free ball.

awesome

thanks for the clarification

[blahblah01]

Well I can't find it again but there was a post by London Lad that said when the balls are moved down the cushion it's a free ball as you have to just ignore the flat of the cushion! Now that twigged my daft brain and I remember years back this exact same thing was on the telly I can't remember the ref but I'm pretty sure it was Steve Davis and another top pro (maybe John Parrott ) and the ref was explaining you had to ignore the cushion, Davis was laughing his head off and saying how can you just pretend the cushion isn't there but the ref said those were the rules, so I think London Lad was right and you can line the ball up to the extreme edge as if the cushion isn't there which does indeed ,mean no free ball , it may have taken me a while but I agree with him sorry about that lads, I still think it's utter nonsense but it is the rules. Of course I could be remembering that all wrong .

I'm not sure ignoring the cushion is quite the point, as opposed to playing along the line of the extremity and hitting the ball off the cushion.

In the pic the CB is in effect jawed ie playing for the right extremity means hitting the curve\angle and the CB going into the middle of the table - as opposed to a flat cushion and hitting the OB.

While it being nonsense is not denied: if the CB was on the edge of the pocket then it would not be a Free Ball, whether the Green is there or not; and the photo has just pulled the CB away from the pocket\angle, but the "angling" is still relevant as the first obstruction, and the green is irrelevant.

[bartito]

If that's the case then the rule definitely needs re-written, you could be snookered and angled but no free ball called, that's not right. But as itsnoteasy said, in this situation he's not knuckled/angled he's just snookered.

How I approach the situation : cushions can never obstruck the cueball. therefor I image no cushions on the table. Can the cueball then still hit the ball on fully, its not a free ball. If there is an obstruction from a ball not on, then he is snookered

[jrc750]

How I approach the situation : cushions can never obstruck the cueball. therefor I image no cushions on the table. Can the cueball then still hit the ball on fully, its not a free ball. If there is an obstruction from a ball not on, then he is snookered

You are wrong (according to the rules )
NO FREE BALL

[bartito]

You are wrong (according to the rules )
NO FREE BALL

Yes I read that...was not so far in the thread yet :P. Some improvement to the rules should be nessary. If all the difficult situations can be simplified then it would be easier for referees and players (see the few situations where even pro's don't understand the rules). Maybe they dont need many level referees anymore then :P and less fuss around the table.