Free ball issue

[samasnookerfan]

I have few questions to ask about free balls, I consider myself very knowledgeable on snooker and so I think its ridiculous that i'm not sure on some of the free ball rules.
Here are my questions, that I hope someone can answer:

1. If there is a situation where a player can't see both sides of one ball, but there are two protruding red balls, and he can see the left side of one and the right of another is this a free ball or not?

2. If there is free ball situation with just the colours remaining and a player plays a colour as an extra yellow, for example, misses and covers half the yellow with the ball he was attempting to pot, but one of the other remaining colours is covering the other half, is this a foul or not?

[dantuck_7]

The first situation is a free ball. The defnition is that you have to be able to hit both sides of one or more balls.

On the second one I think I remember reading that it's the ball closest to cue-ball if they are both in some-way covering the yellow.

So, assuming the two snookering bals are the same distance away from the white and are both blocking half the yellow. I'd be inclined to say that it is a free ball also.

[macbeth]

1. To make it crystal-clear: It's a free ball if you are snookered on every ball on. The definition of snookered is according to the rules the following:

The cue-ball is said to be snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If one or more balls on can be struck at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.

In other words you can't be snookered on a red if the extreme edge of that red is covered by another red (unless of course you are effectively snookered, i.e. by a ball not on).

2. If the (former) free ball is the effective snookering ball it's a foul. The rules say:

(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective snookering ball, and
(ii) should more than one obstructing ball be equidistant from the cue-ball, all such balls will be considered to be effective snookering balls.

Hope that answers your question

[samasnookerfan]

Thank you very much dantuck and macbeth. Yes between you my questions have been answered.

[DawRef]

you can't be snookered on a red if the extreme edge of that red is covered by another red

The reason for this is because at the start of a frame of snooker with all balls set, it is impossible to hit both edges of a single red (they are all covered by each other). If this part of the rule wasn't in place, you would start the frame with a 'free ball', which would be illogical.

[davis_greatest]

The reason for this is because at the start of a frame of snooker with all balls set, it is impossible to hit both edges of a single red (they are all covered by each other). If this part of the rule wasn't in place, you would start the frame with a 'free ball', which would be illogical.

I don't think you would start the frame with a free ball, since one's opponent has not just fouled when a frame commences. A free ball can only be awarded after a foul.

[dantuck_7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWCe...eature=related

Have a look at the start of this clip also. It shows how this miss rule is interpreted when a red cannot be hit full-ball.

As I understand it, if Ding had fouled and left Ronnie in the same postion at the very start it would NOT have been called a free-ball. Is that correct?

[The Statman]

I played a frame yesterday, with the pack more or less fully formed. Attempting a thin glance off the pack and back to safety, I missed the pack entirely and the cue-ball came to rest roughly behind the green.

The green prevented my opponent from hitting the left corner red on the thinnest left-hand side; the pink and blue prevented him from hitting most of the right-hand side of the bunch.

But there was one red, second one along on the back row, which no COLOUR was preventing him from hitting. Several reds were in the way, but he was not prevented by any COLOUR from hitting any part of it.

So it was not a free ball.

[davis_greatest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWCe...eature=related

Have a look at the start of this clip also. It shows how this miss rule is interpreted when a red cannot be hit full-ball.

As I understand it, if Ding had fouled and left Ronnie in the same postion at the very start it would NOT have been called a free-ball. Is that correct?

No - had Ding fouled and left O'Sullivan in that position, it would have been a free ball. (Well, it's not that easy to see in the video, but at least that's how it looks on my screen.) The reason is that O'Sullivan was obstructed from hitting both extreme edges of every red by one or more colour(s). (Of course, Ding hadn't fouled so it wasn't a free ball.)

One way to tell if it is a free ball after a foul, when reds remain, is this: look at each red in turn, and imagine removing all the other reds from the table. Ask yourself: "can the player now hit both extreme edges of that red (ignore any obstruction caused by the angles of a pocket)?" If you ask that question for every red in turn and the answer is "no" every time, it is a free ball.


The situation in that clip was different - Ding had not just fouled, and Jan Verhaas had to determine whether O'Sullivan should be warned that a 3rd successive miss would cause him to forfeit the frame. In this case, the frame would be forfeit if full ball contact is available with an object ball (in the case of a red, ignore any obstructing reds). O'Sullivan did not seem to appreciate the distinction between this and the test for a free ball and the referee explained it to him.

The test for the 3-misses-and-out rule when reds remain can be considered like this: look at each red in turn, and imagine removing all the other reds from the table. Ask yourself: "can the player now hit that red full ball?" (he doesn't have to hit the extreme edge). If you ask that question for every red in turn and the answer is "yes" at least once, then the player should be warned after the 2nd miss that a 3rd successive failure to hit a red will result in him losing the frame. O'Sullivan was therefore warned accordingly.