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

[blahblah01]

I'm 140-odd miles away from London, but I'm sure the banging can be heard there.

If you are North, then I'll be closer

[blahblah01]

I can't wait for the next one: "When is a door not a door?"

[Londonlad147]

I can't wait for the next one: "When is a door not a door?"

When it is ajar!!

[Londonlad147]

If you are North, then I'll be closer

I'm south west these days.

[blahblah01]

Even further for me to hear the THUD then

But how can a jar be made of wood?

[Londonlad147]

I've been thinking, do you reckon exit signs are on the way out?

[Londonlad147]

I'm south west these days.

There is even a conspiracy theory that I was once called Souwester!

[blahblah01]

I've been thinking, do you reckon exit signs are on the way out?

Nope, definitely the inside

[Ramon]

This topic has done wonders for my post-count!

The real wonder is in your common sense ( or in this case , the lack of it ) .



just Imagine that the JW of the pocket ( cushion ) , would'nt be there. ( CB would'nt be within the jaws of the pocket ? ) .
Would you still be able to hit the red from both sides???

So MR REF ( you're a ref right ? ) . Please enlight me.
Why would the ref add spirit (love, devotion, sacrifice or whatever you call it ..... ) to his decision here?

Looks like you re on sumthing new here .


MY friend , you look like sumone who's making this frothy milk by putting powder in a jar and shaking it up and imagining that it's foaming.

well, it's not .
it's just your imagination .


Oh and , carry on with your topic . please .

[blahblah01]

Not necessary, and you really shouldn't shoot messengers...

The Rule is quite clear, and quite clearly bad.

[itsnoteasy]

[ATTACH]18854[/ATTACH]

OK, excuse the crudeness of the illustration, but this is why TECHNICALLY there is no free ball. The drawing shows the path the cue ball would have to take to hit the finest right hand edge of the red. It would hit the curved part of the centre pocket before hitting the green.

What I will do is agree to this, the day you can hit the point you have lined up to, you can move that balls up or down the cushion as much as you like, then I will agree with you, you can remove the green completely if it makes it any easier for you, if you are struggling and finding yourself hitting cushion and ball at the same time and potting the red, you may find that this is the farthest edge it's posssible to hit , and it's pointless drawing lines to parts of a ball that's physically impossible to hit. If the green was to the side of the red with just enough gap to get the cue ball through where are the extreme edges of the red? Where you have drawn or is it where the the cue ball would hit cushion and ball at the same time? What I'm trying to explain is the extreme edge doesn't mean the extreme edge of the ball , it means the extreme edge of what's possible to hit as I said before put a ball an inch away from another ball, the extreme edges possible to physically hit aren't the very edges of the ball as you can't see them, so it's what's possible to hit is classed as the edges, same in this situation, the edges aren't physically possible to hit( even with the green removed) so the edges of this shot are the cushion and ball point and as far left as you can possibly hit, for me it certainly isnt some impossible hypothetical edge that can't be seen or hit from anywhere on the table and I don't think the rule reads that way.

[Ramon]

Not necessary, and you really shouldn't shoot messengers...

The Rule is quite clear, and quite clearly bad.

You mean THE RULE , OR , the made up rule ?

I guess this was the answer to my question i asked you in my pvs post , right ?
Right .

You know alot , kind of hard to catch up .

[Ramon]

What I will do is agree to this, the day you can hit the point you have lined up to, you can move that balls up or down the cushion as much as you like, then I will agree with you, you can remove the green completely if it makes it any easier for you, if you are struggling and finding yourself hitting cushion and ball at the same time and potting the red, you may find that this is the farthest edge it's posssible to hit , and it's pointless drawing lines to parts of a ball that's physically impossible to hit. If the green was to the side of the red with just enough gap to get the cue ball through where are the extreme edges of the red? Where you have drawn or is it where the the cue ball would hit cushion and ball at the same time? What I'm trying to explain is the extreme edge doesn't mean the extreme edge of the ball , it means the extreme edge of what's possible to hit as I said before put a ball an inch away from another ball, the extreme edges possible to physically hit aren't the very edges of the ball as you can't see them, so it's what's possible to hit is classed as the edges, same in this situation, the edges aren't physically possible to hit( even with the green removed) so the edges of this shot are the cushion and ball point and as far left as you can possibly hit, for me it certainly isnt some impossible hypothetical edge that can't be seen or hit from anywhere on the table and I don't think the rule reads that way.

+1

This !!

[blahblah01]

You mean THE RULE , OR , the made up rule ?

I guess this was the answer to my question i asked you in my pvs post , right ?
Right .

You know alot , kind of hard to catch up .

The Rule is designed\written for the Cue Ball in the Jaws of a pocket ie being angled.

This is NOT a Snooker, as balls are required for a Snooker; and the Jaw is the FIRST obstruction, so any balls in line are NOT relevant.

A Snooker is defined as not being able to hit the ball be the line of BOTH extremes.

A Free Ball requires a Snooker. ie The CB in the Jaws is not a Snooker and so NOT a Free Ball.

In the Photo: the right hand side of the Red is effectively "Jawed" with the Green the other side of the pocket to the CB. If the Green were CB side of the middle pocket, then it would be a Free Ball, as the Green would be the FIRST obstruction.

That is the Rule.

The Free Ball people are arguing that it is wrong etc, and the Not A Free Ball are just explaining the Rule, and that it needs re-writing. But the bottom line is that you can not be snookered by the table, and it is only the first obstruction that counts. In the photo it is the curve of the pocket, which is no different to being in the jaws of the corner pocket...

[Ramon]

The Rule is designed\written for the Cue Ball in the Jaws of a pocket ie being angled.

This is NOT a Snooker, as balls are required for a Snooker; and the Jaw is the FIRST obstruction, so any balls in line are NOT relevant.

A Snooker is defined as not being able to hit the ball be the line of BOTH extremes.

A Free Ball requires a Snooker. ie The CB in the Jaws is not a Snooker and so NOT a Free Ball.

In the Photo: the right hand side of the Red is effectively "Jawed" with the Green the other side of the pocket to the CB. If the Green were CB side of the middle pocket, then it would be a Free Ball, as the Green would be the FIRST obstruction.

That is the Rule.

The Free Ball people are arguing that it is wrong etc, and the Not A Free Ball are just explaining the Rule, and that it needs re-writing. But the bottom line is that you can not be snookered by the table, and it is only the first obstruction that counts. In the photo it is the curve of the pocket, which is no different to being in the jaws of the corner pocket...

May I have a answer to my question please ?

Is this a free ball , yes or NO ?

And Do'nt mess up with White gloves in combination with Spirit and love,

just looking for one simple answer here .