Blindingly Obvious Snookered Query(but not to me)

[wlorcb]

This has been bothering me for some time. I feel I don't understand exactly what being snookered actually means. The rules(even the latest edition) state that if you can hit both extreme edges free of obstruction by a ball not on, then there is no snooker. I understand that. But, if an object ball is half covered by a ball not on, you can hit the object ball, just not straight on. You have half the ball to shoot at. How is that a snooker? Or do we take the rule at face value when it says a direct stroke in a straight line, meaning center of cue to center of object? That would mean way more snookers at my level of play!

English Eigthball rules have this: A player is Snookered when it is impossible to play the finest cut possible on both sides of any of that player's own Colour by way of a "straight - line" shot. Diagrams I have seen for this rule have a snooker being declared because you cannot hit both extreme edges of the object ball, even though you have a direct center to center shot possible, unobstructed by anything. I know it is not the same, but should it be?

thanks in advance. I have not been here for a while, I like the new look

[DeanH]

"Direct" means in a straight line NOT off a cushion first before contact with the ball on (indirect = off 1 or more cushion first) - nothing to do with centre of ball to centre of ball (full ball).

The use of "straight line" is to confirm that a swerve shot is not considered when checking for a snooker.

If a ball not on covers half the ball on, you are snookered because you can not hit BOTH extreme edges.

To me the pool rule you wrote reads the same, you wrote it yourself - BOTH extreme edges

[Londonlad147]

Think of it this way: in your OP you say the rules say that "if you can hit both extreme edges free of obstruction by a ball not on, then there is no snooker." Therefore, if you CANNOT see BOTH extreme edges then there IS a snooker.

And remember that the extreme edges of the object ball are relative to where the cue-ball is. From a large distance away those extreme edges will be the far left and far right edges. However, as the cue-ball moves closer to the object ball then those finest edges will come towards the front of the ball such that they are the same point on the nose, when the cue-ball is actually touching the object ball. You simply need to be able to play to the left and to the right just grazing the edge of the object ball. It stands to reason from what I've just said, that you cannot be snookered if the cue-ball is touching the object ball (as long as it's a ball on!).

[wlorcb]

Thanks guys. I guess my problem is that I have always thought that being snookered meant you had no direct way to hit any part of the on ball, when in fact it means you have to be able to hit all of the on ball or you are snookered.

[Londonlad147]

I've long thought that the rules might benefit from defining a 'total snooker' as in pool, which is what you had in mind. However, with the latest rule book has reduced some of the instances where the use of 'snookered' might have been confusing.

• you need to be able to see both finest edges or else you are snookered (as defined)
• seeing any part of a ball on is relevant for the F&M rule
• having central full ball contact is relevant for the F&M rule (a frame can be lost for three consecutive F&Ms here)
• not being able to see any part of a ball on (used to be relevant for having to declare what ball you're on and for the 'snookered of hampered' rule)

[itsnoteasy]

This has been bothering me for some time. I feel I don't understand exactly what being snookered actually means. The rules(even the latest edition) state that if you can hit both extreme edges free of obstruction by a ball not on, then there is no snooker. I understand that. But, if an object ball is half covered by a ball not on, you can hit the object ball, just not straight on. You have half the ball to shoot at. How is that a snooker? Or do we take the rule at face value when it says a direct stroke in a straight line, meaning center of cue to center of object? That would mean way more snookers at my level of play!

English Eigthball rules have this: A player is Snookered when it is impossible to play the finest cut possible on both sides of any of that player's own Colour by way of a "straight - line" shot. Diagrams I have seen for this rule have a snooker being declared because you cannot hit both extreme edges of the object ball, even though you have a direct center to center shot possible, unobstructed by anything. I know it is not the same, but should it be?

thanks in advance. I have not been here for a while, I like the new look

I didn't know that, I thought a snooker was when you couldn't see any part of the object ball directly, every day is a school day as they say.

[wlorcb]

What is really depressing about this thread is that while I was looking at the thread about multiple reds being snookered after a free ball, someone posted a link to an old thread that I asked the exact same question in, back in 2012. I guess my epiphany from that thread only lasted while I was actively playing.