Free Ball (rules&questions)

[RaNeN]

LOL I have a similar question. This isnt an example it happened to me 1 year ago. The cue ball was in the cushion and the black touching the cue ball in such a way that any shot i played it would hit the black. Whould this be given a foul and miss?

BTW.....this topic is about free balls....

[dantuck_7]

No - this shouldn't be called a miss - unless it was obvious you were leaving the white in an unfavourable postion. Even though you are certain to hit the black as long as you make a decent attempt to get to an object ball it should just be a foul.

I have seen a number of pool games ending up like this and they are re-racked.

Dan.

[bluetus04]

Then, how about these:

1. Need to pot the yellow but blocked; choose green as FB; hit green first, but both yellow and green go into pocket. 2 points and green back to it's spot?

2. Need to pot the yellow but blocked; choose green as FB; somehow missed green but potted yellow into the pocket. 2 points (since green was treated as yellow so it doesn't matter which "yellow" is touched) and then business as usual?

Thanks.

[RaNeN]

For the 1st question. Yes , you get the 2 points and the Green is respotted.

For the 2nd one. I am not sure though , but I think its a foul.

[davis_greatest]

For the 1st question. Yes , you get the 2 points and the Green is respotted.

For the 2nd one. I am not sure though , but I think its a foul.

Both correct. The 2nd one is a foul.

The pertinent rules are below. (e) answers question 1; and (b)(i) answers question 2:

10. Snookered After a Foul
After a foul, if the cue-ball is snookered, the referee shall state FREE BALL (see Section 2, Rule 16).
(a) If the player next in turn elects to play the next stroke,
(i) he may nominate any ball as the ball on, and
(ii) any nominated ball shall be regarded as, and acquire the value of, the ball on except that, if potted, is shall then be spotted.
(b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should
(i) fail to hit the nominated ball first, or first simultaneously with the ball on, or
(ii) be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball thus nominated, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.
(c) If the free ball is potted, it is spotted and the value of the ball on is scored.
(d) If a ball on is potted, after the cue-ball struck the nominated ball first, or simultaneously with a ball on, the ball on is scored and remains off the table.
(e) If both the nominated ball and a ball on are potted, only the ball on is scored unless it was a Red, when each ball potted is scored. The free ball is then spotted and the ball on remains off the table.
(f) If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void.

[dantuck_7]

So, if taking a free ball (and the ball nominated is hit first) what is the reason that 2 reds can be scored as 2 points, but 2 yellows wouldn't score 4 points??

Dan.

The pertinent rules are below. (e) answers question 1; and (b)(i) answers question 2:

(e) If both the nominated ball and a ball on are potted, only the ball on is scored unless it was a Red, when each ball potted is scored. The free ball is then spotted and the ball on remains off the table.
(f) If the offender is asked to play again, the free ball call becomes void.

[bluetus04]

In a regular game, you can pocket 2 reds and get 2 points but you could never pocket 2 colors. I guess the FB rule sort of follows this maybe?

From (b)(i), that means if I nominate the black as the FB of a red, miss it but somehow hit another red, it's still a foul? I always thought the FB is just treated as another red so it doesn't matter, but I guess I was wrong.

[JohnDDD]

I had exactly the same question as bluetus.

So if I get a free-ball with reds still on the table, miss the free ball and end up hitting a red, this is a foul? I'm really surprised.

Certainly very strange, although the rule does seem to imply this.

(b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should
(i) fail to hit the nominated ball first, or first simultaneously with the ball on

you can't even hit them at the same time!?



So what if a player can actually see the potting angle of a red, and is still awarded a free ball because he can't hit both extreme edges? Let's assume the colours are all totally unpottable; he still has to nominate a colour, and play that colour and he can't pot the red?

I thought this rule used to be different. Has it changed?

[davis_greatest]

So, if taking a free ball (and the ball nominated is hit first) what is the reason that 2 reds can be scored as 2 points, but 2 yellows wouldn't score 4 points??

Dan.

As bluetus says, it is because - in the absence of a free ball situation - one can pot 2 (or more) reds in a stroke and score 2 (or more) points; but the colours can each only be potted (and hence scored) once at the end of a frame.

[davis_greatest]

From (b)(i), that means if I nominate the black as the FB of a red, miss it but somehow hit another red, it's still a foul? I always thought the FB is just treated as another red so it doesn't matter, but I guess I was wrong.

Yes, it is a foul. The free ball must be struck first (or first, "simultaneously" with a red).

[davis_greatest]

I had exactly the same question as bluetus.

So if I get a free-ball with reds still on the table, miss the free ball and end up hitting a red, this is a foul? I'm really surprised.

Yes, it's a foul.

Certainly very strange, although the rule does seem to imply this.

(b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should
(i) fail to hit the nominated ball first, or first simultaneously with the ball on

you can't even hit them at the same time!?

The concept of simultaneity is a complex one - without bringing special relativity into this, the principle is that if the referee cannot tell which ball was hit first, they are judged to have been hit simultaneously!

So what if a player can actually see the potting angle of a red, and is still awarded a free ball because he can't hit both extreme edges? Let's assume the colours are all totally unpottable; he still has to nominate a colour, and play that colour and he can't pot the red?

Taking a free ball is optional. The player does not have to elect to take a free ball. Therefore, if he declines the option, he can pot the red.

[RaNeN]

So what if a player can actually see the potting angle of a red, and is still awarded a free ball because he can't hit both extreme edges? Let's assume the colours are all totally unpottable; he still has to nominate a colour, and play that colour and he can't pot the red?

I thought this rule used to be different. Has it changed?

Its not necessary you play the free ball. You can ask your opponent to play again. And also if all the colours are totally unpottable , you could try playing a safety shot by just nominating a colour and just touching it. You could snooker your opponent but not directly behind the nominated colour.

[JohnDDD]

Its not necessary you play the free ball. You can ask your opponent to play again. And also if all the colours are totally unpottable , you could try playing a safety shot by just nominating a colour and just touching it. You could snooker your opponent but not directly behind the nominated colour.

If it wasn't a miss, you couldn't let the opponent play the same shot again. You could put him back in, but in my example he would then be able to pot the red himself.

So ok, you can elect not to take the free-ball.

My problem is this:
-It's always been a foul to first hit a ball "on" and ball "not on" at the same time. Why is it not a foul to hit the free ball and the ball "on" at the same time if the same ball "on" can't be hit first (in the situation of a free ball)?
(Or do I have that rule mixed up? It says it's a foul if the striker fails to hit the nominated ball first, or first simultaneously with the ball "on" - what I make of that is that the striker must hit the nominated ball first or together with the ball "on")
-Why can you pot the ball "on" and the free ball in the same stroke but not hit the ball "on" first? So now we have a ball "on" that is still ball "on", can actually be potted for points but cannot be hit first?

RIDICULOUS!

[The Statman]

I am sure you people must have had a lots of problems regarding FREE-BALL rules.Well I do.
What happens is these cases:
Case 1)I got a FREE-BALL on the last RED and nominate the black as the FREE-BALL .Miss the BLACK and end up hitting the last RED left on the table.Is this a foul?Why? How many points?

Case 2)I got a FREE-BALL on the last two reds and nominate the black as the FREE-BALL .Miss the BLACK and end up hitting the one of the last two REDs left on the table.Is this a foul? Why? How many points?

In 1 and 2 they are both fouls. You MUST hit the nominated ball FIRST (or simultaneously first with the red). The foul is 4, value of ball on.

Case 3)I get a FREE-BALL on the last red on the table I nominate the BLACK as the FREE-BALL and end up potting the BLACK and the RED on the table.Is this a foul? Why? How many points?

As long as you hit black first, you score two points for potting two reds.

Case 4)I get a FREE-BALL on the YELLOW and nominate the GREEN as my FREE-BALL and pot the YELLOW but not the GREEN , but by hitting the GREEN 1st (fluked yellow).Is this a foul? Why? How many points?

No, not a foul. You score 2 for potting yellow and next shot is on green as next colour in sequence.

Case 5) I get a FREE-BALL on the last RED left on the table , I nominate the BLACK as my FREE-BALL but dont pot it.I try to but unable to pot , but comes in my opponents way on the last RED. i.e he is snookered by the BLACK . Foul? How many points?

Foul for ssnookerng you opponent behind free ball. Accidental or not - think about it this way, almost all in-offs are accidental but yo canno claim it is therefore not a foul!

[rambon]

The Statman's last reply leads me to a question I've wondered about for a while.

I am in baulk, with reds all over the far end of the table. I can see reds, but cannot pot one. However, there is no way back to baulk and I'm pretty certain to leave an easy chance if I try to get back to baulk and end up staying amongst the reds.

As a result, I decide to play off a red and deliberately go in-off.

My question? Could this ever be seen as a "Miss" or does a "Miss" only apply to when the object ball is not struck by the cue ball?