Free ball situation

[bluenose1940]

Some time ago there was a thread on here covering a 'free ball' situation whereby the player offered the 'free ball' rolled up behind the nominated free ball (I think) and from what I can recall, this was not deemed to be a foul as the 'red on' was snookered by another ball closer to it.

I'm not absolutely certain that I am remembering this correctly but hopefully someone may recall the thread I am referring to.

Many thanks for any input on this.

[snookerdad]

If there are more than one snookering balls, the one closest to the cue-ball is deemed to be the effective snookering ball.

[bluenose1940]

That's interesting snookerdad and contrary to what I had in mind. I've been hunting around to see if I can find the thread that I mentioned but no luck yet.

Thanks for your input.

[Londonlad147]

It's also the case that if different balls not on are snookering different reds, then there is no effective snooker balls, and it would be perfectly possible to snooker behind on of them it is taken as a free ball.

[vmax]

It's also the case that if different balls not on are snookering different reds, then there is no effective snooker balls, and it would be perfectly possible to snooker behind on of them it is taken as a free ball.

As long as there is a direct route to the other snookering balls that is. To play a roll up snooker behind a free ball so that there is no direct route to any ball on or other balls that are snookering balls on would be a foul unless only pink and black are left, I think.

[Londonlad147]

As long as there is a direct route to the other snookering balls that is. To play a roll up snooker behind a free ball so that there is no direct route to any ball on or other balls that are snookering balls on would be a foul unless only pink and black are left, I think.

NO. Imagine this scenario after a foul, with five balls tight against the cushion in this order (the last two reds on the table):

Red
Green
Cue Ball
Brown
Red

It would be perfectly in order to trickle up to either green or brown, because each of them would be only snookering the cue ball on one of the remaining reds, with the other colour snookering the other red. To be a foul the nominated free ball would have to be the effective snookering ball on *all* remaining reds.

[vmax]

As long as there is a direct route to the other snookering balls that is. To play a roll up snooker behind a free ball so that there is no direct route to any ball on or other balls that are snookering balls on would be a foul unless only pink and black are left, I think.

NO. Imagine this scenario after a foul, with five balls tight against the cushion in this order (the last two reds on the table):

Red
Green
Cue Ball
Brown
Red

It would be perfectly in order to trickle up to either green or brown, because each of them would be only snookering the cue ball on one of the remaining reds, with the other colour snookering the other red. To be a foul the nominated free ball would have to be the effective snookering ball on *all* remaining reds.

This is what I said, the same as your scenario is it not.

[Londonlad147]

This is what I said, the same as your scenario is it not.

TBH I struggled with your wording, but that's certainly not the way I read it.