Free Ball Foul with Multiple Reds?

[Nibbles]

Hi everyone,

An interesting, i think, situation in a match last night that neither of us knew the answer to. In summary, there were 3 reds close to the cushion a foot or so south of the middle pocket. My opponent fouled but ended up leaving me a free ball. I chose the yellow (i cant at this point remember whether the yellow was the ball causing the snooker), which i attempted to pot into the middle. I missed (just) with the ball clipping both knuckles and winding up in the middle of the table. Unfortunately for me, this meant it blocked the path of the white to the gaggle of reds. This image might help;

https://ibb.co/ZYpnRgb

Effectively, my opponent couldnt see both sides of the northernmost of those reds, and couldnt see the left of the 3 at all (ish). He could however see all of the right side of the northernmost ball, and obviously could hit them via the cushion. But given that he couldnt see the whole of any red, this was called a foul and i got a 4 point penalty.

I wasnt particularly worried - the game commenced and i ultimately lost on the black - though my opponent has today offered to replay the frame having thought about this some more (very admirable!).

I think the rule is that you can only be stopped from being able to hit the whole ball by another ball that is not on, in other words the cushion (or a knuckle) cant be considered to stop you from being able to see the ball. I think therefore that being unable to see the full right hand side of the reds is not a problem. But im being blocked from seeing the southernmost red by the northernmost red, not the yellow.

Any ideas what the right decision is?

[DeanH]

Each Red is considered singularly, as if it was the only red on the table; in your case there was no snooker AND so no foul, AND so no penalty points should have been awarded
By your description, the cue ball could hit both extreme edges (not "full ball" or "whole ball" - this is only used when a Miss is called and the 3 and loss frame is in force, not defining snookers) of the "northern-most" ball; so no snooker on one Red, so no snooker on all Reds, no snooker no foul as you have not accidentally snookered by the nominated free ball, so no Free ball option anyway.
Cushions do not come in to defining a snooker as it is always by a "direct" stroke - i.e. in a straight line, not off a cushion or swerve.
See this article for a great explanation for this and other scenarios
https://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/bo...f-you-have-one


Welcome to TSF by the way

[DeanH]

In addition
you can download some late night reading from here
https://www.wpbsa.com/governance/rules-of-snooker/

Definition of a Snooker:
Rule 2.17 Snookered
The cue ball is snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If one or more balls on can be hit at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue ball is not snookered.

"extreme edges" not "full ball" or "whole ball"

[Nibbles]

Hi Dean, thank you!

Thanks for that, very helpful. I knew that re extreme edges, just easier to explain i though :P

One question though. My opponent couldnt see the left extreme edge of the northernmost ball (by this, i mean the one closest to the baulk cushion), though would have been able to hit the left extreme edge of the southernmost ball (that is the ball thats closed to the side cushion) had the northernmost red ball not been in the way. I think rule 2.17 confirms that, as the ball blocking the southernmost red is a ball that is on, i cant be snookered.

I suppose the logical conclusion of this is, following a mi**** break-off shot that misses the pack of reds and goes in off, you cant have a free ball because you could see all (the extreme edges) of at least a couple of reds on either side of the triangle, even though you cant actually hit that extreme edge because theres another red in the way.

I think...?

[DeanH]

If you CAN NOT hit BOTH extreme edges of ANY Red - a snooker exists and all the usual applies.
If you CAN hit BOTH extreme edges of ANY red - NO snooker, game continues.

I wrote my answer with the reading that the northern-most red COULD be ht on both edges (if you ignore the other reds), if you say he could not then there was a snooker, and a foul (snookering behind a nominated free ball, penalty points apply, free ball option.

[Nibbles]

So, i think im getting there (apologies!) - if the northernmost red was blocking the path to the left extreme edge of another red, and you could therefore hit the left extreme edge of the southernmost ball if the northernmost ball was removed, then it cant be a snooker and thus it wasnt a foul caused by playing a snooker with a free ball, thus no 4 point penalty to me?

[DeanH]

no, remember Reds are considered on their own, a red cannot snooker another Red, in your scenario the Yellow is the snookering ball.

Take each Red in turn, individually, in relation with the Yellow and the Cue Ball, to check if a snooker exists.

[Londonlad147]

From the image it looks like if you removed the middle red then the cue ball could pass the yellow to hit the extreme left (southern) edge of the northernmost red, so the player is not snookered on that red, hence not snookered, period. As Dean said, you need to look at whether each red could be hit on both extreme edges or not, on the basis that there are no other reds in the way.

[Nibbles]

Thats very helpful, thanks - much appreciated!

[Texas Snooker]

I hope this isn't too late to respond. But I wanted to ask a question with regard to the LEGALITY of the OP's original shot.

In a free ball situation it is illegal to snooker behind the ball that is "on"...in this case, the yellow. Since the shot resulted in the fact that the opponent is now snookered by the ball that was "on," does this mean that the shot itself is a foul? Or is that rule intended for INTENTIONALLY snookering behind a free ball, as opposed to one that happens to snooker the reds after a non-snookering attempt shot itself?

[itsnoteasy]

I hope this isn't too late to respond. But I wanted to ask a question with regard to the LEGALITY of the OP's original shot.

In a free ball situation it is illegal to snooker behind the ball that is "on"...in this case, the yellow. Since the shot resulted in the fact that the opponent is now snookered by the ball that was "on," does this mean that the shot itself is a foul? Or is that rule intended for INTENTIONALLY snookering behind a free ball, as opposed to one that happens to snooker the reds after a non-snookering attempt shot itself?

Yeah it's a foul, intentionally or not you can't snooker behind the nominated ball in a free ball situation. Except for one occasion and that's when there is only the pink and black left on the table, you can snooker behind the black when it's the nominated free ball.

[vmax]

I have an example that cropped up recently in a frame I played that I thought about but didn't query as I won the frame anyway. I was forty down with one red left and played a snooker on the red which resulted in it lying right in the jaws of the green side top corner pocket, partially obscured by the pocket jaw. He missed the red and left me a direct shot at it although I couldn't see both edges as one edge was obscured by the pocket jaw, I thought free ball, as I needed two snookers, but then remembered that the fittings of the table cannot be considered as an obstacle so I potted the red, black, yellow and then got another snooker on the green which he missed and I cleared up.

To my mind if the cue ball was lying in the jaws after a foul and no ball on could be hit directly due to only the pocket jaw being in the way then it's a free ball but an object ball on partially obscured by a pocket jaw isn't, am I right ?

Also, to my mind after an in off, if a ball on can be struck at both extreme edges from different positions within the D then it shouldn't be a free ball, although it is as the rules currently state.

[DeanH]

To my mind if the cue ball was lying in the jaws after a foul and no ball on could be hit directly due to only the pocket jaw being in the way then it's a free ball but an object ball on partially obscured by a pocket jaw isn't, am I right ?

Incorrect - the jaws of the pocket are not considered for any snooker, you can only be snookered by a ball.
Remember, you (non-offender) still have the option (because of the foul) to put your opponent (offender) back in to play from the "jawed" cue ball.
In your scenario you had a direct line so you took the shot, but if there had not been that direct line, you could have put your opponent in to play.

Also, to my mind after an in off, if a ball on can be struck at both extreme edges from different positions within the D then it shouldn't be a free ball, although it is as the rules currently state.

"Sec 2.17...(a) If in hand, the cue ball is snookered if it is obstructed as described above from all possible positions on or within the lines of the “D”. ..."
The rules say "all positions", it does not say from "different positions" - to me the rules do not state what you say.
If there is a SINGLE position within the D that the Cue Ball has a direct line to both edges, no snooker exists and so no Free Ball. Regardless of where the player wants to play from.
It is not (if I read your scenario as how you read the rules) as in one position you can see one edge and the other edge from another position, these do not constitute a no-snooker - the two positions do not "add up" to a non-snooker.
From any single position that BOTH edges can be hit, no snooker; if the cue ball can not hit both edges of the ball on (or any ball on if Reds) from anywhere in the D, then a snooker is called.

Does this make sense?
(I read and reread your question and my reply many times to ensure I read it right and worded it right

[vmax]

Incorrect - the jaws of the pocket are not considered for any snooker, you can only be snookered by a ball.
Remember, you (non-offender) still have the option (because of the foul) to put your opponent (offender) back in to play from the "jawed" cue ball.
In your scenario you had a direct line so you took the shot, but if there had not been that direct line, you could have put your opponent in to play.

OK, I understand this yes, but wasn't there a time when you could place the cue ball in the D after a foul left the cue ball angled in the jaws of a pocket ?




"Sec 2.17...(a) If in hand, the cue ball is snookered if it is obstructed as described above from all possible positions on or within the lines of the “D”. ..."
The rules say "all positions", it does not say from "different positions" - to me the rules do not state what you say.
If there is a SINGLE position within the D that the Cue Ball has a direct line to both edges, no snooker exists and so no Free Ball. Regardless of where the player wants to play from.
It is not (if I read your scenario as how you read the rules) as in one position you can see one edge and the other edge from another position, these do not constitute a no-snooker - the two positions do not "add up" to a non-snooker.
From any single position that BOTH edges can be hit, no snooker; if the cue ball can not hit both edges of the ball on (or any ball on if Reds) from anywhere in the D, then a snooker is called.

Does this make sense?
(I read and reread your question and my reply many times to ensure I read it right and worded it right

You read this part wrong Dean. I know what the rules state and what they mean but think they're wrong and should be changed to 'when playing from hand if a ball on can be struck on both edges from different positions in the D then it is not considered a snooker and no free ball can be awarded'
This happened to me once when the last red was just below the blue (on its spot) and was clearly pottable into either top corner pocket from both sides of the D yet the other edge couldn't be struck from either side so my opponent was awarded a free ball and rolled the yellow into the middle off its spot, potted a simple pink over the opposite middle to pot the last red and leave me needing snookers. Semi final of the league scratch singles so I was a bit miffed as it cost me the match, maybe the in off was the shot that cost me but I wouldn't have even thought about a free ball as the red could be potted into either corner pocket and could be struck on both edges from either side of the D. I queried the decision and the rule was pointed out to me and I accepted it 😖

Just my opinion and I'm sure there will be many who disagree and would maybe give their reasons why.

[itsnoteasy]

If you can see both edges from one position, you then are not snookered from all positions, so that one position is included in all the positions, if you know what I mean.