Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Rule Book for Billiards and Snooker

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    And if so then the 3 Misses will apply, if cue ball is put back to the original position.
    Sorry, you're wrong. Although there is no snooker there is no straight line path such that central full ball contact is available. So without central full ball contact you can't lose a frame for three misses.
    Duplicate of banned account deleted

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DeanH View Post
      The curved face of a pocket has not been considered for snookering for many years (since 1995 IIRC), so the only change is that the commentary about the curved face has been removed and a snooker is purely down to an intervening ball not on.
      This really came about as a result of an image that Steve Davis posted and which Jan Verhaas confirmed was indeed NOT a snooker because of the way the old rule was worded. The scenario was that the last red was say six inches away from the middle pocket and tight on the cushion. The green was immediately next to it nearer the centre pocket. the cue ball was about six inches in from the cushion and about six inches the other side of the baulk pocket. From there a straight line path to the extreme edge of the red would have meant hitting the knuckle of the pocket BEFORE hitting the green ball. Therefore, in the words of the old rule, the curved face of a pocket was nearer than any obstructing ball not on, then the cue ball is NOT snookered.

      This scenario was probably discussed on this forum at the time (and certainly was discussed at length on the Facebook Rules & Referees Group), because for many this was an obvious snooker, but the rules said no. I'd never even thought about the possibility of this not being a snooker, because, like most referees and players, we believed the rule to only apply when the cue ball was in the jaws of a pocket.

      The removal of the reference to the curved part of the cushion (ie jaw) and statement that the cue ball cannot be snookered by a cushion, now makes it crystal clear that only a ball not on can cause a snooker, and that in the scenario described above, there would now be a snooker.

      Duplicate of banned account deleted

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by wade View Post
        Sure, but if the curve is no obstacle following the new rule, you are not snookered and you can (in theory) hit the ball on directly. That's why it will always be a miss. If the cueball is not behind the curve and you can hit the object ball directly but miss, it will also always be a miss.
        The wording change is only relevant to determining whether a free ball exists, after a foul has been called. The considerations for whether a Miss should be called has not changed as a result of the wording change about the jaw. The fact that if you're in the jaw and have no straight line path to a ball on then usual considerations must be made, as they always have.

        Duplicate of banned account deleted

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DeanH View Post
          Hope other refs come on
          I aim to please :-)
          Duplicate of banned account deleted

          Comment

          Working...
          X