free ball?

[kevy62]

hi guys, last evening i watched a local club match, i have two questions.

my first question is : there are only 13 points on the table, & player "A" misses the pink to the top right corner pocket, it comes to rest directly over that pocket, the cueball comes to rest against the top cushion directly behind the black .

player "B" is snookered on the pink
(being directly behind the black against the top cushion)
so nominates the black as his free ball, then playing the black he plants the pink into the corner pocket using the black, both balls were potted!

the ref gave player "B" 12 points for potting 2 pinks & re-spotted the black which player "B" also potted + 7 points making 19 & won the frame, is that correct?

[The Statman]

Unfortunately the referee was wrong.

With a free ball, if you pot the free ball and the ball on, you score one each if it is a red, but you only score once if it is a colour.

So it was quite legal to pot both the black and the pink, but he should only have got 6 points for the shot, not 12.

It is then quite correct to re-spot the black but not the pink.

[kevy62]

thanks for the prompt reply! i was not totally sure on this , so thought it better to ask, thats what i said , you can only be given the points for the pink , ie:6 points, even though both pink & black were potted in the same shot.

then the black would be re-spotted in the normal way, thus still leaving only 7 points on.

[kevy62]

my second question is very simular in that it is based on pink & black:

player "A" missed the pink, leaving a freeball , as the pink finished up close to one side of the black.

player "B" nominated the black as a free ball , but directly played the pink, no contact was made with the black & the shot resulted in a snooker being layed on the pink!

i thought that you had to play the ball you made "on" as the nominated freeball?

[The Statman]

my second question is very simular in that it is based on pink & black:

player "A" missed the pink, leaving a freeball , as the pink finished up close to one side of the black.

player "B" nominated the black as a free ball , but directly played the pink, no contact was made with the black & the shot resulted in a snooker being layed on the pink!

i thought that you had to play the ball you made "on" as the nominated freeball?

You're absolutely right. Once you've nominated a free ball, you MUST hit that ball first (or simultaneously with the ball on) or it is a foul.

Player "B" could, or course, have declined the free ball and then played the shot you described and that would have been fine!


...and, of course, as the Player B shot was foul and resulted in a snooker, Player A would have then been awarded a free ball in your scenario.

[davidhawkes]

Remember also that when only pink and black are left on the table, it is permissable to nominate black and snooker your opponent on the pink.

If you are close behind the black, this would be a sensible option.

[dantuck_7]

Unfortunately the referee was wrong.

With a free ball, if you pot the free ball and the ball on, you score one each if it is a red, but you only score once if it is a colour.

So it was quite legal to pot both the black and the pink, but he should only have got 6 points for the shot, not 12.

It is then quite correct to re-spot the black but not the pink.

I always find these obscure rules quite amazing. I've played for a few years and have just learnt this rule today! I guess the thinking behind it is that there should only be 1 score per colour, even if it is unlikely to happen.

[The Statman]

I always find these obscure rules quite amazing. I've played for a few years and have just learnt this rule today! I guess the thinking behind it is that there should only be 1 score per colour, even if it is unlikely to happen.

Yes, I'm sure that is the reasoning behind it.

However, it is quite illogical in one fundamental way – namely, that it is the only situation in which you can pot a ball (i.e. the black in this example), quite legally, and score no points for it.

[kevy62]

many thanks for all your comments,
i still find it hard to understand that the ref would not see another point of view, having said that, i was not playing , i was just asked to offer an opinion by a player in one of the teams, no action was taken to rectify the bad call. (shame)

[The Statman]

many thanks for all your comments,
i still find it hard to understand that the ref would not see another point of view, having said that, i was not playing , i was just asked to offer an opinion by a player in one of the teams, no action was taken to rectify the bad call. (shame)

At the end of the day, the referee's decision is final even if it is wrong!

The rules are quite clear that the referee can ask the opinion of people suitably positioned to see something that he has not seen – but of course, that is not meant to be interpretation of the Rules where the actual facts of what happened are not doubted.

In an informal game (including league matches where the referee is not a qualified one), I would applaud a ref who seeks a further opinion. But, if he is sstill not sure and the correct decision cannot be reached unanimously, he is quite right to use his discretion.

[kevy62]

At the end of the day, the referee's decision is final even if it is wrong!

The rules are quite clear that the referee can ask the opinion of people suitably positioned to see something that he has not seen – but of course, that is not meant to be interpretation of the Rules where the actual facts of what happened are not doubted.

In an informal game (including league matches where the referee is not a qualified one), I would applaud a ref who seeks a further opinion. But, if he is sstill not sure and the correct decision cannot be reached unanimously, he is quite right to use his discretion.

I do understand what you have said & you are right ,the referee's decision is final!
but...surely the series of events that followed the foul,
(before the call by the ref was made) meant that the referee was no longer in control of the frame? & the wrong decision was reached as a direct result of the player in control dictating to the referee! (wrongly i might add)
& his influence over the referee had a direct bearing on the outcome of the frame in question ?

I was not consulted until after the frame had finished & although the referee's decision was wrong, he had already "lost control" of the frame !

so any decision made by him was invalid !

is this not the case?

A referee "must" at all times "be in control" of a frame from start to finish.

[DawRef]

I guess the thinking behind it is that there should only be 1 score per colour, even if it is unlikely to happen.

I have only just read this post. The way I was told about potting a free ball and the ball on in the same stroke was, that there is only one of each colour at the start of a frame. Therefore, it is impossible to pot, say, 2 pink balls, as there is only ever one pink ball on the table.

I think this 'argument' has cropped up a few times on this and other forums.

[Fist of Fury]

Remember also that when only pink and black are left on the table, it is permissable to nominate black and snooker your opponent on the pink.

If you are close behind the black, this would be a sensible option.

The chances are that they are already in a snooker on pink and so you can also elect to make them play from the position with no free ball.

[The Statman]

I have only just read this post. The way I was told about potting a free ball and the ball on in the same stroke was, that there is only one of each colour at the start of a frame. Therefore, it is impossible to pot, say, 2 pink balls, as there is only ever one pink ball on the table.

I think this 'argument' has cropped up a few times on this and other forums.

Yes, indeed. But to me, the logic is rather flawed.

Once a free ball has been awarded, it IS possible to pot two 'pinks', as long as you take the free ball first.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only scenario where you can legally pot a ball and not score any points for it! To me, that point of logic supersedes any other.