Clarification on this shot please

[deant1982]

This is the one I am thinking.
impossible snooker.bmp

The striker has just "fluked" a red. In my opinion he HAS to nominate and play the black, as the other balls are all obstructed in a way that they are not hitable. Would this be reasonable to expect the striker to play the black, as I know a few people in this that would simply nominate yellow/green/brown, then play directly for them in order to avoid giving 7 away. (I think in the image situation though, I would ask about a re-rack anyway...

[The Statman]

This is the one I am thinking.
[ATTACH]8485[/ATTACH]

The striker has just "fluked" a red. In my opinion he HAS to nominate and play the black, as the other balls are all obstructed in a way that they are not hitable. Would this be reasonable to expect the striker to play the black, as I know a few people in this that would simply nominate yellow/green/brown, then play directly for them in order to avoid giving 7 away. (I think in the image situation though, I would ask about a re-rack anyway...

Yes, I agree.

It is much the same as my example, in that, if you took the "impossible snooker" aspect out of the equation, you would still have a snooker on anything but the black. Having said that, the Rule does state that the referee should be satisfied that it would have hit the ball on (i.e. sufficient strength and correct direction) so if the referee is sure that it would have hit, even not being the easiest to theoretically go for, there is no reason for him to call Miss, I suppose.

It begins to sound silly that we might call a Miss for attempting one impossible shot on the grounds that there is an "easier" impossible shot to go for! But I think the logic has to hold and, in essence, the player still go for the most straightforward shot available. Playing as if off a cushion to hit the (in your drawing) pink, is different from calling pink and playing directly towards it, because the direct shot would hit the black and not the pink, whereas the indirect shot could hit the pink.

Certainly a call of any of the baulk colours would be a Miss because they would be impossible to hit even if the cue-ball's position was not impossibly surrounded.

[damienlch]

This is the one I am thinking.
[ATTACH]8485[/ATTACH]

The striker has just "fluked" a red. In my opinion he HAS to nominate and play the black, as the other balls are all obstructed in a way that they are not hitable. Would this be reasonable to expect the striker to play the black, as I know a few people in this that would simply nominate yellow/green/brown, then play directly for them in order to avoid giving 7 away. (I think in the image situation though, I would ask about a re-rack anyway...

Hi deant1982... the black is also obstructed and as unhittable too, so why does the striker have to play the black?

I suppose a recurring theme in the last few posts is whether one foul can be seen as fairer than another and hence ought to be played. Very interesting thread this.

[The Statman]

Here is another situation, slightly different because it is the ball on rather than the cue-ball which is surrounded.

Impossible snooker 3.bmp

If the blue wasn't there, a direct shot could be taken as long as it was sufficient strength. I might, as referee, allow an indirect shot off the (left-hand as we look) end cushion, to give only four away for the yellow instead of the 7 for the direct shot at the black - as long as I was certain that the red would have been hit but for the impossible situation.

Of course, with the object ball surrounded rather than the cue-ball, it is much easier to judge whether the hit would have been made.

But, with the blue in that position, I think you would have to insist on an indirect hit - it is surely against the spirit of the "impossible situation" rule to allow the player to aim directly into the blue, which is not a ball that is creating the impossibility.

Anyone agree or disagree?

[The Statman]

This is the one I am thinking.
[ATTACH]8485[/ATTACH]

The striker has just "fluked" a red. In my opinion he HAS to nominate and play the black, as the other balls are all obstructed in a way that they are not hitable. Would this be reasonable to expect the striker to play the black, as I know a few people in this that would simply nominate yellow/green/brown, then play directly for them in order to avoid giving 7 away. (I think in the image situation though, I would ask about a re-rack anyway...

Hi deant1982... the black is also obstructed and as unhittable too, so why does the striker have to play the black?

I suppose a recurring theme in the last few posts is whether one foul can be seen as fairer than another and hence ought to be played. Very interesting thread this.

Because the Rules state that the referee must be satisfied that the player played "directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee's opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls." (my bold)

If the player has called pink, then "but for the obstructing balls" (the reds in deant's drawing), it would still have been a foul because the black would have been struck.

The "impossible snooker" wording is allowing the player, essentially, to pretend that the impossibly-covering balls are not there. If we do that, it is clear that only the black is hittable direct.

[damienlch]

Because the Rules state that the referee must be satisfied that the player played "directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee's opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls." (my bold)

If the player has called pink, then "but for the obstructing balls" (the reds in deant's drawing), it would still have been a foul because the black would have been struck.

The "impossible snooker" wording is allowing the player, essentially, to pretend that the impossibly-covering balls are not there. If we do that, it is clear that only the black is hittable direct.

Ahhh, I think I got your line of reasoning... you mean the correct or legal way to play the shot should be the one played as though no obstructing balls are causing the impossibility of hitting the ball on.

It's just that I'm not sure whether it is fair to consider the legality of a shot played as though with obstructing balls removed, i.e. a hypothetical situation when the obstructing balls are already there in reality.

Lol, this is certainly more interesting than what's happening over in the Cues section where some sort of tussle is going on.

It's been a long day and now past midnight. I'm not sure if I'm typing any sense anymore. Going to have a sleep over this now. Maybe I'll think differently on the morrow...

[nrage]

Are there not times though, when making a deliberate foul might be considered legitimate? For example, you're at the table but 14 points behind, with just pink and black left on the table. The pink, though, is just balancing on the lip of a pocket, impossible to keep out if it is merely touched by the cue ball. The only way you can keep yourself in the game is to play the pink and follow through. Pink gets respotted and your opponent has a chance at the pink, but you're only 20 points down, possibly needing just one snooker, and still in with a shout. I know I've played that shot before.

I've never been in that situation.. I'd feel bad playing it straight on in and following intentionally, as you describe. I think I'd have to play into a knuckle, and hope to bounce the pink out. That may be impossible, but I would have to make the attempt..

[nrage]

On this I would be inclined to discuss the feasible option with the referee, and play either the deliberate foul into the green, or the in-off according to their recommendation of the best escape route. (The most interesting part is is you were playing at an opponents club, withone of their team mates as the referee, and the green was in fact the black. I wonder which one they would advise to be played in that case....

Your counter argument could be to play into the brown, saying you were going into the left knuckle with left hand side and top spin..

[nrage]

Here is another situation, slightly different because it is the ball on rather than the cue-ball which is surrounded.

[ATTACH]8486[/ATTACH]

If the blue wasn't there, a direct shot could be taken as long as it was sufficient strength. I might, as referee, allow an indirect shot off the (left-hand as we look) end cushion, to give only four away for the yellow instead of the 7 for the direct shot at the black - as long as I was certain that the red would have been hit but for the impossible situation.

Of course, with the object ball surrounded rather than the cue-ball, it is much easier to judge whether the hit would have been made.

But, with the blue in that position, I think you would have to insist on an indirect hit - it is surely against the spirit of the "impossible situation" rule to allow the player to aim directly into the blue, which is not a ball that is creating the impossibility.

Anyone agree or disagree?

I agree, that an indirect attempt should be made to miss the blue and then provided the white would have hit the red, foul for the colour it actually hits and no miss called.

[jrc750]

Seems ive opened up a can of worms
Just like to say i consider myself above average on knowledge of angles and would of attempted to get to the reds if it were at all possible, but i did play to an area of the table where he still had 3 pots on and a further 3 reds to play safe off, so i hardly played it as safe as i could of, and he always had the option of making me play the shot from there. Next time i'll just clatter straight thro the snookering ball and mess up the entire table

[The Statman]

Seems ive opened up a can of worms
Just like to say i consider myself above average on knowledge of angles and would of attempted to get to the reds if it were at all possible, but i did play to an area of the table where he still had 3 pots on and a further 3 reds to play safe off, so i hardly played it as safe as i could of, and he always had the option of making me play the shot from there. Next time i'll just clatter straight thro the snookering ball and mess up the entire table

Well that's yet another can of worms - if you play the shot at 100 miles an hour and scatter everything everywhere, the referee is far less likely to cann a Miss simply because it'll be such a job replacing the balls!

(Said halfheartedly, as I have called it before and been asked for replacement!)

And sorry for hijacking your thread and taking it down this different route!

[jrc750]

...... And sorry for ..... taking it down this different route!

Some of the best nights out happen when you take a different route
But that's a whole new thread topic i suppose .........

[Souwester]

if you play the shot at 100 miles an hour and scatter everything everywhere, the referee is far less likely to cann a Miss simply because it'll be such a job replacing the balls!

The call there is 'Foul and a Mess'.