Free ball rule question

[RocketRoy1983]

No offence taken whatsoever. I understand your answer perfectly. Personally however I can not see that as the nominated black (or whatever colour) becomes a red how missing it and hitting another red is now a foul. It is an extremely unusual situation did you ever find yourself in it as a referee?

[The Statman]

No offence taken whatsoever. I understand your answer perfectly. Personally however I can not see that as the nominated black (or whatever colour) becomes a red how missing it and hitting another red is now a foul. It is an extremely unusual situation did you ever find yourself in it as a referee?

Don't recall off hand.

But the fact is - you've been awarded a free ball [i]because you can't see the full scope of the red[/b], so to nominate a black and then hit the red anyway is a bit illogical. You could just play the red anyway!

(I know in your example it was unintentional, but the Rules cannot specify depending on whether actions are deliberate or not!)

If you were allowed to do as you suggested, you could nominate a colour which happens to be over the pocket, hit the red so that it pots the nominated colour and score for it! That is against the spirit of being offered a free ball because you can't see the red fully.

[RocketRoy1983]

Don't recall off hand.

But the fact is - you've been awarded a free ball [i]because you can't see the full scope of the red[/b], so to nominate a black and then hit the red anyway is a bit illogical. You could just play the red anyway!

(I know in your example it was unintentional, but the Rules cannot specify depending on whether actions are deliberate or not!)

If you were allowed to do as you suggested, you could nominate a colour which happens to be over the pocket, hit the red so that it pots the nominated colour and score for it! That is against the spirit of being offered a free ball because you can't see the red fully.

I see the point here. Thank you.

[Krypton]

And don't forget to blame that ref...