lost with the free ball

[Phil]

I'm completely lost with that free ball rule... when can someone call a free ball and why?

[steedee]

after your opponent fouls, if you cannot see both sides of your intended target ball a free ball is called, meaning you can nominate any ball to be that colour and use that in its place.
ie if your opponent fouls with one red left on the table and the cue ball ends up behind a colour you can nominate any colour to be a red, pott the nominated ball, which is respotted awarding 1 point, choose colour and get on the red from there.

im certain someone else will explain this better but that was my go!

[The Statman]

after your opponent fouls, if you cannot see both sides of your intended target ball a free ball is called, meaning you can nominate any ball to be that colour and use that in its place.
ie if your opponent fouls with one red left on the table and the cue ball ends up behind a colour you can nominate any colour to be a red, pott the nominated ball, which is respotted awarding 1 point, choose colour and get on the red from there.

im certain someone else will explain this better but that was my go!

Pretty good description.

So, by way of example, if you foul and there are, say, three reds left, and you leave the white in a position where I cannot hit any one of those reds at both extreme edges because a colour is in the path, then I can have a free ball - essentially, an extra red.

There were some threads with some illustrations to the free ball, but I can't find them right now. I'll look again later.

[The Statman]

Here are some examples.

All these are where the balls have landed after you have fouled.

1 (one red left) Free Ball. You have left me snookered behind the yellow.

2 (one red left) Free Ball. Although I can partially see the red, I do not have a direct shot at it on both extreme edges. You can see from my imaginary cue-ball and path, that the blue obstructs my shot at the extreme left-hand edge of the red.

3 (two reds left) No Free Ball. Although the black is blocking my path to the right-hand edge of the first red, you can see from my imaginary white and path, that the black is not blocking my path to the second red. You cannot claim to be snookered on one red by another so this is not a free ball.

4 (one red left) Free Ball. Although the pink is appreciably behind the red, it is still stopping me from playing the extreme left-hand edge of the red, as the imaginary white shows. The pink would have to be outside my white lines for the free ball to be avoided.

[Phil]

this are pretty good explanations, thanks a lot! it always puzzled me when my opponent played a foul and I was kind of snookered because of that. but now I know how to proceed.

so if I choose pink, as example, as my free ball (as a red) and pot it (as a red) it is then placed again on it's pink spot (as if potted as a pink), right?

[APK]

Yes, the pink is spotted (scoring 1 point) and is once again worth 6 points.
Just a couple of notes-

You are not allowed to snooker your opponent behind your nominated free ball. So dont just nominate the snookering ball and nudge the cue ball up behind it. You will have committed a foul and your opponent will be awarded a free ball.

You cannot be snookered by a cushion. If the first object between the cue-ball and the ball on is the cushion (the cue-ball is in the jaws of the pocket for example) then you are not snookered.

[DawRef]

You are not allowed to snooker your opponent behind your nominated free ball

If only the pink and black remain, then you can snooker behind the free ball (in this case the black).

[noel]

Great explanations all... thanks especially to Statman for the illustration.
One question...

Given my recent misadventures on the table... http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=14307

"You cannot be snookered by a cushion. If the first object between the cue-ball and the ball on is the cushion (the cue-ball is in the jaws of the pocket for example) then you are not snookered."

APK, are you sure this is correct?

=o)


Noel

[poolqjunkie]

Great explanations all... thanks especially to Statman for the illustration.
One question...

Given my recent misadventures on the table... http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=14307

"You cannot be snookered by a cushion. If the first object between the cue-ball and the ball on is the cushion (the cue-ball is in the jaws of the pocket for example) then you are not snookered."

APK, are you sure this is correct?

=o)


Noel

I believe they have changed the rule on "angled" so it is not considered a free ball if you are "angled" and you cannot shot from the D.

[APK]

To be snookered, the cueball must be impeded on all balls on by a ball or balls not on. In the 1987 handbook this situation was covered by the 'Angled Ball' Rule which as Pooljunkie says meant that the striker could elect to oplay from in hand.
This Rule was removed in the 1995 Rule book. As no other Rule was put in place, you are not snookered.
However, the Miss Rule does state that you must have a direct path to any part of any ball on. At least this means you will not forfeit the frame for 3 misses.
The most annoying thing with this 'new' Rule is that if the cueball is in the jaws of the centre pocket and there is a ball not on on the cushion which is between the cue ball and a ball on, then you are not snookered.
Best to put your opponent back in I think.

[noel]

This Rule was removed in the 1995 Rule book. As no other Rule was put in place, you are not snookered.

Thanks for your explanation APK.
It sounds like one of those rule oversights, a loophole that ought to be addressed?
It reminds me of a series of harrassing credit collection agency calls I received a few years back demanding payment on unpaid parking tickets.
They would call at 6am... noon... dinnertime... midnight... I asked them politely to stop. They didn't. I asked to talk to a Supervisor and yelled. That didn't fix it. I finally called Ombudsman for the Province of Ontario who explained that he had received thousands of calls exactly like mine.
Apparantly, some bright bureaucrat stumbled upon the fact that there was no statute of limitations on parking tickets, so as a quick top-up-the-coffers scheme the Ministry of Transportation hired a private collection agency to see what they could harrass out of the drivers.
It turns out that the calls were about a $28.oo parking infraction from 1985!!!. Turns out long-dead drivers and their families were getting this treatment as well.
Within a week the calls stopped and some kind of class action suit is now being prepared.

... maybe one day a lip-hook will be a snooker!

=o)

Noel