free ball

[Souwester]

I presume that there was a ball obstructing the yellow? The fact that a cushion is in the way cannot give a free ball.

[Souwester]

No, as mentioned, the nominated ball must be hit first, so in this instant you cannot nominate the black, well saying that he can but as he cannot hit it first he will give a foul away most probably.

If you noiminate a ball on that is impossible to hit and play at it have you played a deliberate foul? Is it ungentlemanly conduct? In virtually every case a deliberate foul (except when you have no *choice* but to play the impossible ball) would be ungentlemanly, but in this scenario I think the referee would have to assume it was pure ignorance of the rules. Unless of course the player could gain some advantage from playing the shot.

[DeanH]

I presume that there was a ball obstructing the yellow? The fact that a cushion is in the way cannot give a free ball.

That is what I assumed in this scenario.

If you noiminate a ball on that is impossible to hit and play at it have you played a deliberate foul? Is it ungentlemanly conduct? In virtually every case a deliberate foul (except when you have no *choice* but to play the impossible ball) would be ungentlemanly, but in this scenario I think the referee would have to assume it was pure ignorance of the rules. Unless of course the player could gain some advantage from playing the shot.

So the ref would still let the player have his strike, see the outcome and make a decision then.
With ungentlemanly conduct, what are the correct words to call that to the players?

[Souwester]

The referee can never warn a player that he is about to commit a foul, so yes he'd have to let the player strike the ball, and then assess the outcome.

The suggested call I've put forward in my draft document is 'I'm formally warning you that any such further conduct will result in the frame being awarded to your opponent' but it is certainly not cast in stone. Unless of course the frame/match is being awarded to the opponent.