is this a free ball, i got told no .....

[DeanH]

I usually bow to Londonlad's superior knowledge of the rules, but I think he's wrong on this one. What about the snooker ball obstructing the left hand side of the red?

see the replies on the other thread, where LondonLad agrees that there is a that by the letter of the rule it is no Free Ball but that he hopes the rules committee has a look at this point
http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...706#post935706

[jonny66]

see the replies on the other thread, where LondonLad agrees that there is a that by the letter of the rule it is no Free Ball but that he hopes the rules committee has a look at this point
http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...706#post935706

He's not angled though, there is a ball in front of any part of the cushion that might be stopping him from hitting the side of the red.

[DeanH]

He's not angled though, there is a ball in front of any part of the cushion that might be stopping him from hitting the side of the red.

That is what we are saying, the rule does not state "jawed" or Angled (terms removed from the rules some years ago) but it does say that if the curve of the jaw is closer to the cue-ball than any obscuring ball, then no snooker (hence no free ball if after a foul), as per the OP scenario.
AND we are saying (either this thread or the other) that the rule may need rewriting to define the difference of when "jawed" and not "jawed" :biggrin:

[jonny66]

So as usual, Londonlad was right it's just that the rules are wrong. So basically as long as there is a pocket closer to the cue ball than the snookering ball you could say that there is no free ball, I would say it's ungentlemanly conduct to try and abuse this rule though, and you should lose the frame and be forced to hop around the club on one leg singing "I'm a little teapot" if you try it

[itsnoteasy]

That is what we are saying, the rule does not state "jawed" or Angled (terms removed from the rules some years ago) but it doessay that if the curve of the jaw is closer to the cue-ball than any obscuring ball, then no snooker (hence no free ball if after a foul), as per the OP scenario.
AND we are saying (either this thread or the other) that the rule may need rewriting to define the difference of when "jawed" and not "jawed" :biggrin:

That's not what it says at all. It says if the curved face of a cushion obstructs the cue ball. The curved face of the cushion is not obstructing the cue balls lines to the red.
See post #4 on this thread for the rule.

[blahblah01]

So as usual, Londonlad was right it's just that the rules are wrong. So basically as long as there is a pocket closer to the cue ball than the snookering ball you could say that there is no free ball, I would say it's ungentlemanly conduct to try and abuse this rule though, and you should lose the frame and be forced to hop around the club on one leg singing "I'm a little teapot" if you try it

Why hop? There are actions to the song?

[jonny66]

Why hop? There are actions to the song?

You'd have to do them too.

[blahblah01]

So basically because the curve of the pocket stops the right edge being hit (as opposed to a flat cushion which would still hit the red from the line of clipping the right edge), it isn't a Free Ball....

[itsnoteasy]

So basically because the curve of the pocket stops the right edge being hit (as opposed to a flat cushion which would still hit the red from the line of clipping the right edge), it isn't a Free Ball....

That's not how the rules work, you can only hit the part of the ball you can hit, you can't say if the cushion wasn't there I could hit the right hand side of the ball, just like if you are close to a ball and you can't hit either edge but it's still not a free ball as you can hit as much of the ball as is humanly possible.In the picture take the green away and you can hit as much of the red as is humanly possible, the angle of the middle pocket is not stopping you from doing that so it has nothing to do with the shot. if the knuckle stopped you hitting cushion and ball at the same time, if the green wasn't there, that would be no free ball as it is then obstructing the cueballs line to the red,but that is not the situation here.

[qc2]

I'd more than likely call a free ball in my opponents favour just to save the hassle of having to explain in great detail how I'm right and at the end still not be convincing enough for them to accept it.

[Londonlad147]

I usually bow to Londonlad's superior knowledge of the rules, but I think he's wrong on this one. What about the snooker ball obstructing the left hand side of the red?

This all came about because Jan Verhaas said that this is not a free ball. And if you actually read the precise wording of the rules, then no it isn't, although as I've said before, this scenario isn't intended to be covered, I'm sure.

[Londonlad147]

It's not obstructing it, if it were I would agree with you,to pot that red I must be able to hit cushion and ball at the same time , which means I am hitting as much of the ball as possible, take the green away and I can pot that red, meaning I can hit as much of the red as is possible, so the middle pocket( knuckle) cushion isn't obstructing the cueballs line.

Sorry, no you can't!

Try drawing a straight line from the left side of the cue ball to the right side of the red. That is where the cue ball would have to be deemed to hit the red, and it is prevented from doing so, initially, by the curved part of the cushion. It's nothing to do with hitting as much as is visible.

[Londonlad147]

That's not what it says at all. It says if the curved face of a cushion obstructs the cue ball. The curved face of the cushion is not obstructing the cue balls lines to the red.
See post #4 on this thread for the rule.

Sorry, but yes it IS obstructing it from hitting the far right edge of the red. The flat part of the cushion is also in the way, but the cue ball would hit the curved part of the jaw before getting there.

[Londonlad147]

So basically because the curve of the pocket stops the right edge being hit (as opposed to a flat cushion which would still hit the red from the line of clipping the right edge), it isn't a Free Ball....

Yes, that's the way the rules are worded at present.

[Londonlad147]

That's not how the rules work, you can only hit the part of the ball you can hit, you can't say if the cushion wasn't there I could hit the right hand side of the ball, just like if you are close to a ball and you can't hit either edge but it's still not a free ball as you can hit as much of the ball as is humanly possible.

Sorry, but that is NOT how the free ball rule is worded. It is nothing to do with hitting as much as is humanly possible! It's all about extreme edges, and you need to think tangents!


17. Snookered
The cue-ball is said to be 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 struck at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.
(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”.
(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball not on:
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective
snookering ball; and
(ii) should more than one obstructing ball be equidistant from the cue-ball, all such balls will be considered to be effective snookering balls.
(c) When Red is the ball on, if the cue-ball is obstructed from hitting different Reds by different balls not on, there is no effective snookering ball.
(d) The striker is said to be snookered when the cue-ball is snookered as above.
(e) The cue-ball cannot be snookered by a cushion. If the curved face of a cushion obstructs the cue-ball and is closer to the cue-ball than any obstructing ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.