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

[blahblah01]

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 .

According to the Rules: it is not a Free Ball.

[Ramon]

I bet Jan Verhaas would love this one . He is TECHNICALLY a top Ref . :snooker:

[Ramon]

According to the Rules: it is not a Free Ball.

Well, then why Ref should change his mind and call it a free ball my friend ?

[Londonlad147]

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 .

I really don't fully understand this post.

But to reiterate. Back in February it was reported on the Facebook Rules & Referees group that Steve Davis had tweeted that Jan Verhaas had confirmed that the situation shown in the OP was NOT a free ball after a foul. The reasons have been well and truly covered in this thread many times over.

As I say, technically, as the wording of the rules is at present, Jan Verhaas is totally correct: this is NOT a free ball. However, I'm sure most referees are in agreement that the rules are not intended to cover this situation, and until it was discussed on FB in February, I and most of my fellow referees would have awarded a free ball. I'm sure many would continue to do so in the interest of fair play, knowing that the wording is not intended to cover this situation.

Whether they are right or wrong is a grey area, and we can but hope that the Rules Committee (of which Verhaas is Chairman I believe, since Chamberlain's retirement) come up with a clarification soon.

This is NOT my interpretation of the rule but that of the most senior and influential referee in the world! And for the record, I've never said that a referee SHOULD call a free ball, rather that I expect many will (either through ignorance or in the spirit of fair play, knowing the true intention of the rule).

[Londonlad147]

Well, then why Ref should change his mind and call it a free ball my friend ?

He shouldn't but I'm sure many will, either because they are not aware of this discussion, or because they think it is in the interest of fair play knowing that the rule is not intended to cover this situation.

TBH it is a grey area and if I was assessing a referee who awarded a free ball in this scenario I wouldn't mark him down provided he could explain his decision.

[Londonlad147]

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 .

NO, IT IS NOT A FREE BALL. How many more times...

[Ramon]

I really don't fully understand this post.

But to reiterate. Back in February it was reported on the Facebook Rules & Referees group that Steve Davis had tweeted that Jan Verhaas had confirmed that the situation shown in the OP was NOT a free ball after a foul. The reasons have been well and truly covered in this thread many times over.

As I say, technically, as the wording of the rules is at present, Jan Verhaas is totally correct: this is NOT a free ball. However, I'm sure most referees are in agreement that the rules are not intended to cover this situation, and until it was discussed on FB in February, I and most of my fellow referees would have awarded a free ball. I'm sure many would continue to do so in the interest of fair play, knowing that the wording is not intended to cover this situation.

Whether they are right or wrong is a grey area, and we can but hope that the Rules Committee (of which Verhaas is Chairman I believe, since Chamberlain's retirement) come up with a clarification soon.

This is NOT my interpretation of the rule but that of the most senior and influential referee in the world!

Until they do'nt come up with a clarification , IT can'nt be considerd as an fact ( rule ).
Not TECHNICALLY , Not love or spirit or ....................

Well , thr is my answer then . This is a free ball .


Good post friend , and say hallo to Verhaas next time you meet him .

[Londonlad147]

Until they do'nt come up with a clarification , IT can'nt be considerd as an fact ( rule ).
Not TECHNICALLY , Not love or spirit or ....................

Well , thr is my answer then . This is a free ball .


Good post friend , and say hallo to Verhaas next time you meet him .

FACT
As the rules are written at the moment this is NOT a free ball.

CONSIDERED OPINION
That this rule is not intended to cover this situation.

ACTION
Until such time as the Rules Committee clarify that this rule doesn't apply in the OP scenario, and/or change the rule, then the FACT remains that this is NOT a free ball.

[Ramon]

FACT
As the rules are written at the moment this is NOT a free ball.

CONSIDERED OPINION
That this rule is not intended to cover this situation.

ACTION
Until such time as the Rules Committee clarify that this rule doesn't apply in the OP scenario, and/or change the rule, then the FACT remains that this is NOT a free ball.

Oh ,

So it's not a free ball then , after all !!!

Oh ,

Okeey , thanks !!:suspicion:

[Phantom_Pc]

rules2.jpg

so no free ball ...

and thanks for clearing that up londonlad (i think)

[Ramon]

yeah, lets just hope he does'nt change his mind again .

[Londonlad147]

yeah, lets just hope he does'nt change his mind again .

I've never changed my mind on this subject!

[itsnoteasy]

Well I can't find it again but there was a post by London Lad that said when the balls are moved down the cushion it's a free ball as you have to just ignore the flat of the cushion! Now that twigged my daft brain and I remember years back this exact same thing was on the telly I can't remember the ref but I'm pretty sure it was Steve Davis and another top pro (maybe John Parrott ) and the ref was explaining you had to ignore the cushion, Davis was laughing his head off and saying how can you just pretend the cushion isn't there but the ref said those were the rules, so I think London Lad was right and you can line the ball up to the extreme edge as if the cushion isn't there which does indeed ,mean no free ball , it may have taken me a while but I agree with him sorry about that lads, I still think it's utter nonsense but it is the rules. Of course I could be remembering that all wrong .

[AmarZain]

Watch from 15:50 onwards

Isnt what Phantom_Pc facing a similar scenario to that in the video yet the ref calls a free ball and commentator agrees as Ronnie couldn't hit both sides of the red?

[Londonlad147]

Watch from 15:50 onwards

Isnt what Phantom_Pc facing a similar scenario to that in the video yet the ref calls a free ball and commentator agrees as Ronnie couldn't hit both sides of the red?

Yes, a free ball was correctly called because it is a different scenario to the OP!

In this video there is only one obstruction - the black ball - preventing the cue ball from hitting both sides of the red. In the OP's scenario there were two: the curved part of the cushion near the centre pocket, and the green ball. That wasn't a free ball because the curved part was the nearer obstruction to the cue ball, and it is specifically stated in the rules that if the curved part of a cushion is nearer than any obstructing ball, then there is no free ball.