Freeball & Foul and Miss

[catania]

I did not hit first the ball on.
After this the opponent is snookered.
Does it mean that 'a freeball' and 'a foul and a miss' will be called at the same time and the opponent can choose what part of the rules will be applied?

[snookerdad]

Yes, you are spot on.

Tim Dunkley (World Snooker coach)

[Steve748]

Catania You asked this question 6 months ago, was this not sufficiently answered then for you?

http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...oul-and-a-Miss

[jrc750]

Catania You asked this question 6 months ago, was this not sufficiently answered then for you?

http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...oul-and-a-Miss

That wasn't the same question as being asked now tho

[DeanH]

Freeball & Foul and Miss

I did not hit first the ball on.
After this the opponent is snookered.
Does it mean that 'a freeball' and 'a foul and a miss' will be called at the same time and the opponent can choose what part of the rules will be applied?

to expand
the non-offending player has the choice to play a free ball (or play the ball on if they wish) or put the offending player in to play from where the balls lie or have the balls replaced (as a miss was called) and the offending player continue as before.
simples

[cpserrao]

Question regarding the Foul and miss rule:-
You have potted a red and landed up in the baulk area. With no easy color on, you choose a lay a nice tight snooker by rolling up nicely to the back of the brown.
Opponent comes to the table and has to play off the cushions to hit a red that is up the table(say near the black area). Opponent hits the cue ball off the baulk and side cushions but while striking the cue ball his cue touches the brown ball, the cue ball in the meanwhile goes on to hit the red that is near the black area.

Is the above scenario :-
a) a Foul only Or
b) Foul and Miss with opponent having the option to replace the cue ball back behind the brown?

[DeanH]

Foul only.

Not a Miss as the ball on was contacted by the cue-ball.

A Miss is only called if the ball on was not the first contact of the cue-ball.

The non-offending player has two choices only, (1) play themselves from where the balls come to rest or (2) ask the offending player to go again from where the balls come to rest.

[cpserrao]

Thanks.
Scenario above happened to me in a club tournament. I was the one laying the snooker and the referee awarded me a foul and miss - Good thing it didn't influence the end result of the game. Ended up loosing miserably anyways...

[DeanH]

Can you then deliberately avoid the miss? Play the shot too short and make contact with the cue /snookering ball.

Now below, a Foul will be called but we are asking if a Miss is called or not in addition

To "deliberately avoid" the Miss is to contact the ball on with the first contact of the cue-ball.
If the first contact of the cue-ball is not the ball on, or no contact happens, then a Miss can be called (other criteria then come into the ruling).
If the shot is too short - no contact - Miss.
If touch by the cue after the strike - the "first contact" is on a ball not other objects Did the cue-ball then hit the ball on or not?
Foul for the touch of the cue, Miss- dependant on what happens after.
Also was the contact with the cue deliberate or accidental? If deliberate then maybe Conduct of the player may come into affect

Contact with snookering ball - first contact of the cue-ball - Miss.

Sorry if I miss understand your question but really you can only "deliberately avoid" a Miss is by ensuring the first contact of the cue-ball is with the ball on.

As you may know the Rules Committee has been reviewing the wording of the rules as a whole and I am sure the wording of the Foul and a Miss was reviewed particularly closely
It is not yet known when a new set of rules will be published.

[magicman]

I think the referee was correct in his decision. I think the ruling was altered after ROS fouled in similar circumstances as described above.

[DeanH]

I think the referee was correct in his decision. I think the ruling was altered after ROS fouled in similar circumstances as described above.

sorry I don't see any reference to a referee decision or Ronnie O'Sullivan mentioned in this thread?
Can you indicate which post(s) you are referring to please

[magicman]

Thanks.
Scenario above happened to me in a club tournament. I was the one laying the snooker and the referee awarded me a foul and miss - Good thing it didn't influence the end result of the game. Ended up loosing miserably anyways...

This refereeing decision.

Some years ago now, ROS fouled a baulk colour against John Higgins I believe, and escaped a miss call because of it. The rule was tweeked to avoid a repeat.

[Londonlad147]

This refereeing decision.

Some years ago now, ROS fouled a baulk colour against John Higgins I believe, and escaped a miss call because of it. The rule was tweeked to avoid a repeat.

No, that's not correct. ROS was on a sequence of miss calls (Colour being on). He then touched a red before a stroke was played. Since a stroke was not made a miss could not be called, only a foul. The rules were then changed by inserting the current rule 3.10(i) which gives the non-offender (in the situation described) the option to decide (if he puts the offender back in) whether the offender is now on a red(as after any foul) or have the balls replaced and be on a colour (effectively the same as if a miss had been called).

[magicman]

You seem to know or remember the scenario far better than me Londonlad147, and I've no doubt you're right, but wouldn't this same clause apply to the situation with the brown above? As DeanH described, correctly I think, if the cueball hits the ball on, despite a foul, it's only a foul and not a miss. This surely allows for a similar loophole, where a player could foul and that foul allows the cueball a clear path to contact the ball on, thus negating any further loss of points with repeat miss calls?

[Londonlad147]

You seem to know or remember the scenario far better than me Londonlad147, and I've no doubt you're right, but wouldn't this same clause apply to the situation with the brown above? As DeanH described, correctly I think, if the cueball hits the ball on, despite a foul, it's only a foul and not a miss. This surely allows for a similar loophole, where a player could foul and that foul allows the cueball a clear path to contact the ball on, thus negating any further loss of points with repeat miss calls?

Are you saying the striker fouls a ball by touching it and moves it out of the way to allow a clear path to a ball on? If so then 3.11(i) may apply if the striker was hampered or snookered... the non-offender can ask for the balls to be put back to where they were and ball on shall be the same.

(i) If a striker, when snookered or hampered in any way, fouls any ball including the cueball while preparing to play a stroke, if requested by his opponent to play again, the opponent shall have the choice as to whether the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the infringement, namely:
(i) Any Red, where Red was the ball on;
(ii) The colour on where all the Reds were off the table; or either
(iii) A colour of the striker‟s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted; or
(iv) The option of playing the next Red or Yellow when there are no Reds remaining.
Any ball(s) moved shall be replaced to their original position(s) by the referee if requested by the non-offender.