ball in hand

[sArnie]

In-hand rules.

You must hit a cushion or ball out of baulk before making contact with a ball in baulk.

I can't find anything in the rules that states this requirement. Section 3.5 only states that the cue-ball has to be within the "D" (including the lines) and can be played in all directions. I know you are a referee, so I have to assume I'm missing something.

Please give me a hint where to look. Thanks in advance!

[The Statman]

I can't find anything in the rules that states this requirement. Section 3.5 only states that the cue-ball has to be within the "D" (including the lines) and can be played in all directions. I know you are a referee, so I have to assume I'm missing something.

Please give me a hint where to look. Thanks in advance!

Firstly, you realise that we are talking billiards, not snooker? (please take no offence if you know this!)

I am not a billiards referee and am not conversant with how the rules are written.

It is true (contrary to popular belief) that the cue-ball can be played in any direction, [b]but[/i] it must strike a ball or cushion out of baulk before hitting a ball in baulk.

I'll check the rulebook when I get home and work out exactly where it says it. (It may be under 'fouls' for allowing the opposite to happen.)

[sArnie]

Billiard vs. Snooker: Nearly all posts in this thread refer to yellow and green spots, the "D" and or red and colour balls. Furthermore this is after all the "Snooker Questions" part of "The Snooker Forum" - I therefore assumed this question was concerning Snooker.
It is correct then, that there is no such rule in snooker?

As far as Pool Billiard is concerned Official Tournament Rules dealing with ball-in-hand are depending on the specific discipline. In general the rules for Billiard (excluding Snooker) allow both: ball-in-hand from baulk or unrestricted ball-in-hand. In that latter case, rules do not restrict at all, where on the table a ball-in-hand may be placed.

To my knowledge there is no rule that requires the cue-ball to touch a cushion outside the baulk before hitting a ball inside the baulk. In some disciplines, however, with ball-in-hand from baulk the cue-ball must leave the baulk before hitting an object ball or hit an object ball that itself lies outside the baulk.

[The Statman]

Billiard vs. Snooker: Nearly all posts in this thread refer to yellow and green spots, the "D" and or red and colour balls. Furthermore this is after all the "Snooker Questions" part of "The Snooker Forum" - I therefore assumed this question was concerning Snooker.
It is correct then, that there is no such rule in snooker? ...

Yes this thread did start by talking about snooker but it then went off-topic and started talking billiards (i.e, English billiards, on whose table snooker is played).

In SNOOKER, the cue-ball may be played in ANY direction!

[sArnie]

I completely missed that part, that we are talking about English Billiard now. Sorry for any problems in understanding this might have caused. To set my record straight, I looked up the rules for English Billiard, which are indeed unlike any rules applying to those of other international billiard disciplines or Snooker.

The IBSF Rules for English Billiard state in Section 3.:

6. Playing from In-hand
To play from in-hand, the cue-ball must be struck from a position on or within the lines of the "D", and
(a) the referee will state, if asked, whether the cue-ball is properly placed (that is, not outside the lines of the "D").
(b) if the tip of the cue should touch the cue-ball while positioning it, and the referee is satisfied that the striker was not attempting to play a stroke, then the cue-ball is not in play.
(c) The cue-ball must be played out of Baulk. If it contacts an object ball then it is out of Baulk, the cue-ball is held to have been played out of Baulk even though it may not physically cross the Baulk-line.
(d) The cue-ball must contact a cushion or ball out of Baulk before re-entering and coming to rest in Baulk, or before hitting a ball in Baulk.
(e) The cue-ball may be played against a cushion in Baulk before hitting a ball out of Baulk.
(f) If an object ball is in Baulk, no part of its surface may be played on directly from in-hand, even if that part of its surface is above the Baulk-line.

Note that (e) implies, that the direction of that stroke is not relevant as long as the cue-ball leaves the Baulk during the stroke.

I still do have a problem to imagine what (f) is there for. Obviously an object ball may lie close enough to the Baulk-line so that a part of it is beyond that line. It would of course be possible - to hit that ball on just that "part of its surface" that is beyond the Baulk-line.

I can't imagine any way to hit that ball in such a way, that does not infringe any of the other rules. According to (d) the cue-ball must hit a cushion or an object ball out of the Baulk before it may hit a ball in Baulk. (f) specifically defines a ball that is in Baulk so how can it possibly happen, that a stroke infringes (f) without infringing (d) as well?

[The Statman]

I still do have a problem to imagine what (f) is there for. Obviously an object ball may lie close enough to the Baulk-line so that a part of it is beyond that line. It would of course be possible - to hit that ball on just that "part of its surface" that is beyond the Baulk-line.

I can't imagine any way to hit that ball in such a way, that does not infringe any of the other rules. According to (d) the cue-ball must hit a cushion or an object ball out of the Baulk before it may hit a ball in Baulk. (f) specifically defines a ball that is in Baulk so how can it possibly happen, that a stroke infringes (f) without infringing (d) as well?

(f) means that if the ball is 'in baulk', even if part of its surface is overhanging the 'out-of-baulk' area, you may not hit it directly.

Look at it this way: The object ball is by the brown spot, partly overhanging the line, and is in baulk.

You put the cue-ball on the green spot and play out of baulk, and strike that part of the object ball which is outside of baulk. Part (f) makes clear that that is a foul.

If you play the cue-ball up the table, hitting the back cushion (behind snooker's black spot) and come back down the table to strike that object ball, that is a fair stroke because (see part d) you will have struck a cushion out of baulk before striking the object ball which is in baulk.

Essentially, it is describing the 'baulk area' as everything bottom side of the line, including the line itself and the whole surface of any ball which is standing on or behind the line.

[sArnie]

A semantic problem

(f) means that if the ball is 'in baulk', even if part of its surface is overhanging the 'out-of-baulk' area, you may not hit it directly.

That is explicitly defined by Section 2.14: "A ball is in Baulk when it rests on the Baulk-line or between that line and the bottom cushion". (f) pretends to bring a new case to (d), as it implies that hitting that part of a ball that is beyond the Baulk-line, could make any difference. The essential part of (f) is its beginning: "If an object ball is in Baulk ..." which is exactly the same as in (d): "hitting a ball in Baulk".

As (d) does not mention where that ball might be hit, it includes the "special case" described in (f). So (f) is in my opinion just a redundant combination of Section 2.14 and Section 3.6 (d). I could accept (f) if there was any way to fail complying to (f) without infringing (d) as well. As there is no way to do that, I reckon (f) an unnecessary rule.

But I have to admit, that's more of a semantic problem than a problem with incorrect rules - and I'm obviously just nit-picking, anyway.

[The Statman]

Yes I have re-read your earlier post and I see what you mean.

I think (f) is just there to clarify that it is a foul, although covered under (d), expressly states it in those terms.

I suppose one could argue that (d) 'hitting a ball in baulk' could be interpreted as "hitting a ball [when] in baulk" rather than "hitting a ball [which is] in baulk" – i.e. the "in baulk" referring to the "hitting" rather than the "ball" – in which case part (f) does clarify things!