Free ball rule question

[stan-mullin]

Please can you answer this question about the free ball rule.
During a game yesterday, I fouled trying to get out of a snooker, leaving my opponent snookered on the last red. He nominated the black to be his next shot as a red. It was a fine cut, and he missed it completely. However the cue ball travelled around the table hitting the final red. We both looked at each other as we were not sure if this was a foul, but decided it wasn't, were we right? Or have we just created a new rule?

I have played and watch snooker since I was about 10 (30 years) and have never seen anything like this, help please............

[RocketRoy1983]

Yes you were right. The "On" ball ie the black became a red. Therefore if the black was a red and he done that before hitting another red it would be a perfectly legal shot. Its like missing a fine cut ona red but the cue ball travelling and hitting another red its fine. Bit long winded but hope it helps.

[stan-mullin]

Yes you were right. The "On" ball ie the black became a red. Therefore if the black was a red and he done that before hitting another red it would be a perfectly legal shot. Its like missing a fine cut ona red but the cue ball travelling and hitting another red its fine. Bit long winded but hope it helps.

We suspected as much, just thought it was unusal situation, it stopped play for about 5 mins coz we couldn't stop laughing

[steveflanuk]

Please can you answer this question about the free ball rule.
During a game yesterday, I fouled trying to get out of a snooker, leaving my opponent snookered on the last red. He nominated the black to be his next shot as a red. It was a fine cut, and he missed it completely. However the cue ball travelled around the table hitting the final red. We both looked at each other as we were not sure if this was a foul, but decided it wasn't, were we right? Or have we just created a new rule?

I have played and watch snooker since I was about 10 (30 years) and have never seen anything like this, help please............

It was actually a foul.

Section 3 Rule 10.b.i of the rules clearly shows this:

It is a foul if the cue-ball should fail to hit the nominated ball first, or first simultaneously with the ball on

In this case, the nominated ball [the black] was not hit first, and the red was hit but not simultaneously with the nominated ball.

It's one of those rules that the majority of people would probably get wrong.

[RocketRoy1983]

It is an unusual situation and ive never come across it before but there you go.

[Odrl]

Er.. no. You have to hit the ball you nominate first, or simultaneously with a red (if the free ball is nominated as a red).

[The Statman]

Yes that is definitely a foul.

On a free ball, you must hit the free ball first (or at same time as ball on). Remeber it is only a foul 4 (the black was acting as a red) not foul 7 for the normal value of the black.

[Krypton]

The Statman is right


Whenever you are given a free ball the following things are important:

- if you chose to nominate a colour as a free ball (either for red or for a lower color at a frame's end), you must hit that ball FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY with the ball originally on.
The shot should be played onto the nominated ball, a simultaneos hit with ball originally on is accepted, but the ball originally on is not allowed to be hit first.

- if either the ball on, the nominated free ball or both balls are potted, the points for the shot count just once (except if red is on -> one point per red and free ball)

[stan-mullin]

Thanks for that, it was only a knock about game among friends, it was just a bit bizare!
I won anyway!
As it was last red and a full ball snooker, the chances of him hitting it after missing were very slim, I very much appreciate everybodies comments.

[dantuck_7]

I would have thought it would have been a legal shot. But apparently not. Any ideas for the reason on this?

[Krypton]

Maybe some sort of "Billard Tradition". Like push out and rules that grew over time.

The idea behind this one could be:

You should not be in a bad position after an opponent's foul. So if you end up in a snooker after a foul, you MAY chose to play a free ball if you like, but then you'll have to clearly announce ONE ball that is, in this very special situation, your "escape route", and play THAT ball.

Also, if there are only colours left on the table, there must be only ONE ball to go for - either the ball or, or a free ball replacing it for that shot. It doesn't make sense to have two balls on when playing to the brown as an example.
Also the referee must know what ball (the only ball) you can go for.

One last point:

Think of the ball on being tight in the pocket, but snookered. You may go for that ball (off a cushion for potting), but then you are fully responsible to HIT it to avoid fouling yourself. You may even nominate a free ball and shoot it into that ball for the pot. Two fair possibilities, plus the choice of letting the opponent play. That must be enough. If you are scared of letting him play, because he might get the rail-first shot - play it yourself or go for a better snooker.

To check which ball would possibly be hit if you miss your rail-first attempt and nominate that ball as a free ball (insurance) would be too much an advantage (go for a rail-first shot on the hanger, an ad an insurance by nominating a ball next to it as free ball "just in case of missing")

[The Statman]

I would have thought it would have been a legal shot. But apparently not. Any ideas for the reason on this?

Yes as with Krypton's response above, once you have nominated a ball that you intend to hit, you must hit it.

It also stops you from nominating a ball which you want to pot but not necessarily hit first.

Look at Krypton's example. Red over pocket, colour in the way, free ball. You nominate the intervening colour and plant the red – no problem.

But imagine the other side of the coin. Pink over the pocket, red in the way, and you can see the red partially (a free ball situation but not a full snooker).

If you could have choice of hitting either the free ball or the 'real' ball, you would be able to nominate the pink, play the red onto the pink and score for it.

That would be a foul, and sensibly so. You have been given the opportunity to play for an alternative ball because your opponent has left you without a full shot at the red. To be able to play the red anyway when you have stated your intention to take advantage of the free ball, would be a misuse of the benefit.

[Krypton]

That's a far better example even of what would happen if you hadn't to strike the nominated free ball first.

well done Statman

[RocketRoy1983]

I have waited for clarification before replying here. I replied it was a legal shot but several replied that in actual fact it was a foul.

I have since spoken with a grade 3 professional referee who has in fact agreed with me that this is a legal shot. As the black counted as a red so long as a red is hit it is in fact perfectly fine.

My initial reply was an educated guess which may or may not be 100% correct but this guy ref's pro-ams and junior level and I have to go with his answer.

[The Statman]

I have waited for clarification before replying here. I replied it was a legal shot but several replied that in actual fact it was a foul.

I have since spoken with a grade 3 professional referee who has in fact agreed with me that this is a legal shot. As the black counted as a red so long as a red is hit it is in fact perfectly fine.

My initial reply was an educated guess which may or may not be 100% correct but this guy ref's pro-ams and junior level and I have to go with his answer.

Your referee friend may wish to ask the opinion of several referees on this forum, myself included, who might question him on this one!

Having been a Grade 1 referee, I hope you won't be insulted if I say I feel qualified to contest the answer!

The Rules clearly state that it is a foul, value of the ball on or ball first struck (whichever is the higher) for not hitting the ball on, or the nominated ball, or the nominated ball simultaneously with the ball on, with the first impact of the cue-ball.