Just a couple of things I thought of

[jedicho]

Hi everyone, I'm a fairly experienced snooker player and understand most rulings but a couple of things I have thought of that I was wondering if someone could answer:
1. When the cue ball is "in hand", how much of the cue ball has to be in the D? Is it at least half? If a player was being really picky about this would the ref use a ball marker to check this?
2. If the balls happen to finish so that the opponent can only play a push shot (ie. reds touching the cue ball so there is not a ball width gap at all to play away) what happens?

[snookerdad]

The rules say that to play from in-hand, the cue-ball must be struck from a position on or within the lines of the “D” and that the referee will state, if asked, whether the cue-ball is properly placed (that is, not outside the lines of the “D”).

In the ‘impossible position’, the rules say it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but the obstructing ball or balls.

Therefore if is in the middle of a cluster of reds and touching them all, then any contact with the cue would be a foul but not a miss and play would continue.

Tim Dunkley

[DawRef]

Just to enforce snookerdad's reply. the cue-ball can be placed on the 'yellow', 'brown' or 'green' spots and that will be deemed as legal.
As regards (2), snookerdad is again correct if the 'ball on' is a colour, and that if 'red' is the ball on, then a foul (for a push shot) will be called, but not a 'foul and miss'.
I would like to emphasize that, if after potting a red, the cue ball ended up surrounded by reds and there was no direct path to a colour, if the player just tapped the cue ball, he could, and should, be called 'foul and miss'. The rules state that a player must hit, or attempt to hit, the 'ball on'.

[Robert602]

...
In the ‘impossible position’, the rules say it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but the obstructing ball or balls.
...

If you aim indirectly at a ball on (off one or more cushions), then shouldn't a miss be called on the grounds that you're attempting a more difficult 'escape' than necessary? It seems to me that by attempting an indirect shot you're not making your best effort to hit the ball on, instead (presumably) favouring a safer shot.

I know I'm implying that one impossible shot is more difficult than another, and I'm aware that makes no sense. Still, I think it'd be the best way to enforce the spirit of the miss rule in this situation.

[DawRef]

The easiest way to explain this is by the following example:

Pink and black left on the table and scores are level. The cue ball is on the edge of a corner pocket and the black is directly in front, such that there is no direct path towards the pink.
Before the rules re-write, a player, if in this position, could just tap the cue-ball into the pocket and it would be deemed a fair stroke. Now, the player must attempt to hit the pink, with enough force so that the cue ball would have hit the pink had the black not been in the way. He will only be penalised for a foul (7 points) and not foul and miss.

[davis_greatest]

The easiest way to explain this is by the following example:

Pink and black left on the table and scores are level. The cue ball is on the edge of a corner pocket and the black is directly in front, such that there is no direct path towards the pink.
Before the rules re-write, a player, if in this position, could just tap the cue-ball into the pocket and it would be deemed a fair stroke. Now, the player must attempt to hit the pink, with enough force so that the cue ball would have hit the pink had the black not been in the way. He will only be penalised for a foul (7 points) and not foul and miss.

This of course is true - although the ironic thing in this case is that the player has more chance of pulling off a legal shot if he thumps the white into the bed of the table, towards the pocket's jaws. At least that way, he might have a chance, however slim, of the white jumping up onto the rail, rolling along, and then falling back onto the bed of the table and hitting the pink legally. There are very few truly impossible shots in snooker - just some very difficult ones!

[Robert602]

DawRef - I understand that, but in the case you describe the direct path would be the only way to hit the pink (if we imagine the black removed). The situation I was thinking about is where an indirect line to the object ball a preferable option.

In my attachment [click for a bigger picture], the first shot represents the player aiming directly towards the yellow (the ball on). The player realises that if he played that shot the green would inevitably cannon the yellow and probably push it towards the closest pocket, leaving it on. Instead he plays the second shot, aiming indirectly at the yellow off one cushion (with sufficient pace). Playing it this way the white could come off the brown and land near the yellow, without leaving a pot or a free ball.

In my view the second shot ought to be called a miss, because it's a more elaborate (in some sense more difficult) line than the first, and obviously would result in failure to hit the yellow.

[davis_greatest]

Nice pictures, Robert

If the guy has just potted the black after the 15th red, he needs to work on his positional play.

[DawRef]

Given the situation described by the pictures, and I was refereeing, NO MISS would be called, as long as the player attempted to hit the ball on (in this case the yellow) by whichever path he considered best.
The actual ruling is as follows (Section 3, Rule 14):
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referees opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls.
Given the situation shown, I would stand by my decision as a referee not to call Foul and a miss, and that would be final (Section 5, Rule 1(a)(i)).

[The Statman]

I concur fully with DawRef on this one, although I appreciate that it is a bit illogical.

I guess that bit of the wording was put in to alleviate the situation of the white in the jaws of the pocket with the black right alongside – if the pink was by a side cushion, it could suggest that you play directly at the pink, even though perhaps the cushion corner would prevent this shot if the black were not there.


Of course, the thread-head was talking about being surrounded by touching reds when red was the ball on – in this instance a foul is unavoidable, but a Miss is impossible since first contact is bound to be with a Red.

[davis_greatest]

Of course, the thread-head was talking about being surrounded by touching reds when red was the ball on – in this instance a foul is unavoidable...

If the player chose to put his cue in a vertical position, tip down, and then touched the tip lightly on the very top of the cue ball, so that the cue ball did not move - would you still call a foul?

[The Statman]

If the player chose to put his cue in a vertical position, tip down, and then touched the tip lightly on the very top of the cue ball, so that the cue ball did not move - would you still call a foul?

Yes.

It would be a fundamental push shot, as the bed of the table would prevent the ball from moving and the tip of the cue would therefore, by definition, have been in contact with the ball 'after it had commenced its forward motion', albeit that that motion was stymied by the sudden presence of the table.

[davis_greatest]

Yes.

It would be a fundamental push shot, as the bed of the table would prevent the ball from moving and the tip of the cue would therefore, by definition, have been in contact with the ball 'after it had commenced its forward motion', albeit that that motion was stymied by the sudden presence of the table.

OK, and thank you. I would have thought, however, that a player might query whether the tip was really in contact with the ball after the ball's forward motion if there had never been any forward motion.

I do wonder, in any case, whether the definition of a "push shot" could be improved. Although nearly everyone knows what is intended, and recognises a push shot when s/he sees one, nearly every shot (if not every shot) is really a push shot under the above definition. If you look at a recording of a shot replayed in slow motion, the tip will always be touching the cue ball immediately after the cue ball commences its motion - and this will be even more pronounced for any shot with substantial follow through (e.g. screw shots).

[The Statman]

OK, and thank you. I would have thought, however, that a player might query whether the tip was really in contact with the ball after the ball's forward motion if there had never been any forward motion.

I do wonder, in any case, whether the definition of a "push shot" could be improved. Although nearly everyone knows what is intended, and recognises a push shot when s/he sees one, nearly every shot (if not every shot) is really a push shot under the above definition. If you look at a recording of a shot replayed in slow motion, the tip will always be touching the cue ball immediately after the cue ball commences its motion - and this will be even more pronounced for any shot with substantial follow through (e.g. screw shots).

Yes, I know what you mean. I guess the rules can be interpreted as excluding the amount of continuing contact that is naturally unavoidable.

And thus, I would reiterate my above response (not that you challenged it) and say that, this response would bacak it up.

[davis_greatest]

Yes, I know what you mean. I guess the rules can be interpreted as excluding the amount of continuing contact that is naturally unavoidable.

Thank you, The Statman.

The reality is that every shot is a "push shot", but to a varying degree, and there is no workable definition that I can think of that would make the rule watertight. When we see the tip remain in contact with the cue ball for for 2 seconds, we all know it is a push shot; and when it remains only in contact for 0.05 seconds, we all know that that should not be called a push shot (otherwise snooker would be unplayable). However, there is no obvious cut-off point between 0.05 and 2 seconds where valid stroke becomes push shot.

I know what you mean, too, about "continuing contact being naturally unavoidable", but I don't think that that could work as a definition either. If the tip were to remain in contact for half a second (say), while playing a deep screw, one could say that it was naturally avoidable and the player simply should not have been able to apply so much screw.

The only theoretically possible rule I could think of would be to say that the tip must not remain in contact with the white for more than x seconds (x=0.5 or whatever) after the cue ball begins its forward motion. Unfortunately, that would require high-speed cameras and computers to be set up for every shot, and would thus make our game unplayable from a practical point of view!