A Player does a correct shot (no foul!) and has lost the frame in that moment.

[Monique]

Well just pink and black on the table less than 13 points behind. Pots the pink. But ends up in such a way that he/she can't play the black without commiting a foul ... for example "trapped" in pocket jaws with the black touching and obstructing way out ... It's far streched. I know.

[Krypton]

The conclusion itself CANNOT be wrong :P

In snooker, where there is no tie in a frame, not being able to win it means necessarily 'lose it'.

If you think of 'cannot win' as 'it's not definitely lost yet because you can win with snookers', then the question is easy. There are many situations that bring you out of score (needing snookers) by scoring a legal shot but removing more points from the table than necessary.

The one already given was by potting more reds in one shot - just as an excemple - so leaving you with less points on than needed to win.

I'll stay with it: "Not being able to win" means "losing" in snooker, immediately, full stop. Needing snookers doesn't mean 'not being able to win'.

[sArnie]

Congratulations, Monique! That is the right answer.

The player comes to the table with pink and black on the table and needs 8-12 points. He pots black and the cue-ball and black run into the jaws of one pocket. White is at the edge of the pocket an the black ball is TOUCHING BALL. This leads to the very unprobable and no less frustration situation, that the striker will play foul either way: playing a push stroke on black or away from black into the pocket.

@Krypton: This explains the important difference between "cannot win" and "has lost". If a player has lost a frame, as stated in the original question, black may be on the table with more that seven points gap, or black is gone and you'd still need points.

In the solution neither is the case, but the striker is in a situation where he must play foul - sticking to the rules he wouldn't even be allowed to concede, because there are still enough points on the table to win.

[Krypton]

Well just pink and black on the table less than 13 points behind. Pots the pink. But ends up in such a way that he/she can't play the black without commiting a foul ... for example "trapped" in pocket jaws with the black touching and obstructing way out ... It's far streched. I know.

That is a situation 'theoretically impossible', as you can always play a correct stroke with only the black less. 'theoretically', of course - even if it's moving the touching cueball just one micron away from the black, not to fall into the pocket.

if you happen to snooker yourself in a way that no solution is physically possible, that means that tehre are more balls than just the black involved.
of course it can happen that you pot the blue (being in score) and happen to end up in an impossible snooker (lets say white near the edge of a pocket, black touching, pink somewhere away). That means you'll have to play in a way the white would touch pink if black weren't where it is, of course commiting a six point foul. that might bring you out of score. but still you can win laying snookers.

i think there is no situation with just black left wehre, by the rules, you HAVE to play foul

[Krypton]

hehe, 2 posts in the same time...


i was thinking of that "solution" before - and a bunch of kinda simular situations - but came to the conclusion already mentioned:

there is no situation, in which you necessarily absolutely inevitably have to play foul with just the black left.

[sArnie]

You might say it's theoretically impossible, but I say it's just as impossible as Achilles reaching the turtle in Zeno's paradoxon. It may be theoretically possible, to play away from that black ball without potting the cue-ball, but then again not. There must be a point at the edge of the pocket, that is too close to strike, meaning moving the white in the direction of the cue, without potting the cue-ball. I did not and still do not claim, that this is a realistic situation.

[Krypton]

Practical answer:
Lean over the table to aim away from black, straight into the pocket. Hit table accidentally, white falls before touching it with the cue (if that won't happen, it's still "far away" from the pocket and can be played correctly).
Then ask the referee to reset it (ball not moved by player, and ball not falling due to previous stroke).
When he's finished resetting the white, there will be room to play.

Theoretical answer:

Hit white from slightly downwards, aim into pocket, to execute some sort of jump shot. White will hit the leather in the pocket, come back somewhere onto the black, both balls roll into the open green. this is NOT a foul stroke. (no jump shot, from a rules point of view).


So you see: you might think the situation mentioned (as "solution") is very very very unlikely to be reached. but then i tell you there's always an very very very unlikely shot that could be played, not fouling.

While the first quiz was a good one (tricky, but very logical and final solution), the second one is not. you're pretending the player has to play foul because a legal shot is very (too) difficult.

[The Statman]

Just thinking of that answer, where the cue-ball is right in the jaws of the pocket and virtually touching the black which is towards the open table, I wonder if that would end in a re-rack?

If touching, the only shot available to you is a very delicate play-away to avoid the pocket; if it is not touching, you would probably be unwilling to try to nurse the black away from the pocket because of the likelihood of a push shot if played with any pace!

I don't suppose there's ever been a re-rack on the final black!

[tallguy]

....

So you see: you might think the situation mentioned (as "solution") is very very very unlikely to be reached. but then i tell you there's always an very very very unlikely shot that could be played, not fouling.

While the first quiz was a good one (tricky, but very logical and final solution), the second one is not. you're pretending the player has to play foul because a legal shot is very (too) difficult.

Totally agree with Krypton here. Too difficult is not the same as impossible.

If it possible for the cue ball to stop near the mouth such that moving even a micron further would cause it fall into the pocket AND then the black ball rolls up to it and ends up touching it WITHOUT the cue ball falling in then it certainly is possible for someone to bang it into the pocket with such force that it comes out. I reckon semih could do it without breaking a sweat

[tallguy]

Just had another thought. Maybe Statman can give the answer .

If you had to play away from a touching ball and you choose to hit the shot very fine in such a way that the cue ball doesn't actually move. It sort of "rocks" remaining at the same spot. It first rocks away from the touching ball losing contact and then rocks back and ends up touching ball again.

Is this a legal shot ?

[Krypton]

yes

whenever a touching ball is moved by a cueball coming back into the lil' hole where it's been laying before, that is no foul.

[tallguy]

If its not a foul shot you can play that to get out of the situation described by monique. It just needs a fine touch.

[The Statman]

Just had another thought. Maybe Statman can give the answer .

If you had to play away from a touching ball and you choose to hit the shot very fine in such a way that the cue ball doesn't actually move. It sort of "rocks" remaining at the same spot. It first rocks away from the touching ball losing contact and then rocks back and ends up touching ball again.

Is this a legal shot ?

Yes that's quite legal. As long as the referee considers that you have 'played away' – so, not into the path of the touching ball, then he will not call foul even if an indentation in the cloth causes one of the balls to move slightly.

One of the most common ways this happens is with a spotted colour, where the table has a small indentation. The cue-ball comes to rest touching it and had enough pace that the colour rose up the indentation and then did not fall back because the cue-ball was there. When the cue-ball is played away, the colour will probably fall back into the little hole. That will not be a foul.

[sArnie]

I do accept the theoretical possibility to come out of that situation I described with some kind of trick shot. Nevertheless I doubt very much that any kind of jump shot using the leather would be possible, if white has to be played away from black and lies on the edge. That kind of stroke requires table to push the cue-ball into, which is not there when white is placed at the edge. On top of that one would have to strike from the other side of the table to avoid moving the black during that shot.

But all of that is just theoretical anyway. We all may assume, that the perfect player on a perfect table with perfect balls might just find a way - so I'm the moron

Just thinking of that answer, where the cue-ball is right in the jaws of the pocket and virtually touching the black which is towards the open table, I wonder if that would end in a re-rack?

If touching, the only shot available to you is a very delicate play-away to avoid the pocket; if it is not touching, you would probably be unwilling to try to nurse the black away from the pocket because of the likelihood of a push shot if played with any pace!

I don't suppose there's ever been a re-rack on the final black!

That's an interesting point I didn't think of. I guess if both players managed to move the cue-ball without causing it to fall into the pocket, like with that imaginary indentation that makes the cue-ball roll back onto the black every time causing TOUCHING BALL, a re-rack would be inevitable.

That certainly would be a first-timer!

[The Statman]

... We all may assume, that the perfect player on a perfect table with perfect balls might just find a way ...

That's rather sexist – women play snooker too, you know...