Touching colour / nominate ball rule

[Billy]

I'm by no means an expert on the rules of snooker, but I've always been pretty confident in answering any questions I might be asked in terms of the rules.

However, just watching Jud now when he played a red and finished touching the black, the ref informed him of the fact and asked him to nominate. Jud nominated the brown and played a simple safety.

All of that I understand, but the situation got me thinking. I know that a player cannot snooker directly behind the nominated ball. But if Jud had nominated the black, and still played the same shot, i.e. into the brown, would that have been a foul? I suspect that it wouldn't, as he is deemed to have already played the ball he nominated, i.e. the black he was already touching.

But in that case, what was the point of nominating the brown if he could have played exactly the same shot by nominating the black?

What I'm trying to say is, a player is touching black. So if he nominates the brown and (for whatever reason) fails to hit the brown, the ref will call a foul. So why would a player just not simpy nominate the ball he's touching, so that even if he failed to hit any of the other colours, due to a miscue or whatever, it wouldn't be a foul, as he would be deemed to have already hit the nominated ball.

[DeanH]

you are right, why would the player not nominate the touching ball IF they were going to play safe anyway.
I think that JT just thought [go for safe of brown, say brown] "Brown"

and it would not be a foul to nominate the touching ball and then contact any other ball, as the touched ball is deemed to have already been play, just like if you are touching a red (with red ON) and the cue ball contacting any other ball after the stroke, not foul as the ball on had been played.

[jrc750]

..... I know that a player cannot snooker directly behind the nominated ball. ...

But in that case, what was the point of nominating the brown if he could have played exactly the same shot by nominating the black?

.....

You are getting confused with a free ball situation there after a foul, in Judd's case he can do anything at all, and yes i agree he didn't need to nominate brown, could of said black

[Billy]

You are getting confused with a free ball situation there after a foul [...]

Yes, of course.

I suppose in this particular case, it didn't matter which he nominated (black or brown) just so long as he intended to play off the brown for safety. It just seems to me that nominating the black would have been an insurance against a miscue.

[Londonlad147]

Yes, of course.

I suppose in this particular case, it didn't matter which he nominated (black or brown) just so long as he intended to play off the brown for safety. It just seems to me that nominating the black would have been an insurance against a miscue.

But it could also have been an insurance against the brown going in the pocket!

[Billy]

But it could also have been an insurance against the brown going in the pocket!

Yes, true.