Free ball on reds

Hi there.
Could you settle a dispute that we had in regards to a free ball being allowed.
There were two reds remaining. After a foul shot both reds were together but each one was partially snookered at the outside edge of each ball,
The reds could easily be hit but my opponent said that as he could not hit both sides of each red then he could designate any other ball to count as a red.
Is he right ?
Thanks,
Ken.

He was wrong if the reds were blocking eac other.
Is that the case?

Hi again.
The reds were not blocking each other but they were touching in the middle which meant that he could not hit each side of a red.
Ken.

It is only a free ball if another colour obstructs any part of the red.

You were correct

For clarification, a red cannot block another red, only a colour blocking the ball on (in this case reds) can be considered as a free ball.

Sorry to be a pain.
The reds were not blocking each other they were merely touching in the middle and each was partially blocked by a colour on each side leaving the middle of each red exposed. My opponent stated that as he could not hit both sides of any of the reds then he could take a free ball
Thanks.
Ken.
( Great site by the way )

vista2004 wrote:Sorry to be a pain.
The reds were not blocking each other they were merely touching in the middle and each was partially blocked by a colour on each side leaving the middle of each red exposed. My opponent stated that as he could not hit both sides of any of the reds then he could take a free ball
Thanks.
Ken.
( Great site by the way )

Pity the guy in charge doesn't agree.

vista2004 wrote:Hi there.
Could you settle a dispute that we had in regards to a free ball being allowed.
There were two reds remaining. After a foul shot both reds were together but each one was partially snookered at the outside edge of each ball,
The reds could easily be hit but my opponent said that as he could not hit both sides of each red then he could designate any other ball to count as a red.
Is he right ?
Thanks,
Ken.

Hi Ken,

Your initial post here is not entirely clear as to your situation. I will start by saying that being "partially snookered" is akin to being "partially pregnant"....that is, either you are snookered, or you are not. BadSnookerPlayer and Andre147 gave you good information, but after reading the entire thread, I believe the call for Free Ball may have been correct. None of us here on the Island can say for certain as the call would necessarily depend on the precise positions of all the balls involved.

So to try to be very specific in describing the hypothetical lie of your table, let's say there was a foul stroke, the White came to rest exactly on the Blue spot. There are two Reds left on the table and they happen to be touching each other equidistant from the White say, right over the Pink spot. Off to the left and to the right of those two Reds sits the Pink ball and the Black ball, all four of those object balls basically equidistant from the White in a straight line but a gap of some significance between Pink and Red and also a gap between Black and Red.

The important thing here is......exactly how large are those gaps between those Colours and their nearby Reds. If both Pink and Black are near enough that White could not pass the edge of the Red on that side, then yes, Free Ball should be properly called. If either one of the Colours is just far enough away from Red that White can pass, then No Free Ball. This is true despite the fact that White cannot pass the other side due to obstruction by the other Red (because as has been said, a Red cannot snooker another Red, therefore we consider each Red individually; we literally pretend it is the only Red on the table to test for Free Ball).

Of course, your situation is long passed by now so perhaps we cannot know for sure, but hopefully this helps you understand what the resolution should have been.

Explained elegantly Aces.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Explained elegantly Aces.

Thanks BSP. On first reading, I totally agreed with you and Andre. Then I broke out the magnifying glass and calabash pipe and saw the underlying clues. It would appear that the opponent has a fair to proper understanding of the Rules while the OP stumbles even with the definitions of terms, i.e., "partially snookered" and therefore had a difficult time explaining the situation in detail. Elementary, my dear Player.

To be fair to the OP Vista, I think many players may not even realize that there is a specific definition for the term "snooker" instead believing that the word simply means that there is a hindrance of some sort in the path from the cue ball to the Ball On. No, in fact, the Rules take pains to clearly define this word in Section 2., Rule 17. to mean that the White must be able to pass the finest edges of a Ball On without obstruction from a Ball Not On (though obstruction by another Ball On is no obstruction at all), otherwise, that ball is "snookered". That is why today, it is clear cut, either a ball is snookered or it is not, there is no in-between, no "partially snookered". My opinion as to how this precise definition evolved goes way back into the history of the Game and how it came to be known by the name of "Snooker". I think the use of the term "snooker" (as in a ball being snookered) was just a laissez-faire happenstance to describe the situation where one player leaves a difficult table situation for his opponent to strike the Ball On. Therefore, in that environment, the meaning of "partially snookered" would have been well understood. However, as time passed, and players learned to play the game better, and performance improved, loopholes were found to be in the Rules so that the Rules had to evolve to deal with those things as they cropped up. This evolution is ongoing to this day and anyone who has read my old posts going back a long way would know that I am a proponent still for some more evolution of the "Foul and a Miss" Rule as it works just fine in the Professional Game, but not well at all in the casual amateur game. So to finalize the point, in the modern day Game and Rules, with the advent of the Free Ball however many decades ago that had been introduced, it became necessary to define, "Well, what exactly IS 'snooker'?"

Casual players of course don't get into nearly so much detail and that is fine and no problem at all, but this sort of thinking is actually a bit of fun for a Rule Geek like me. As I recall, Andre is a bit of a Rule Geek as well and knows his stuff thoroughly.

Snookerfan raised a good question the other day. Why are you not allowed to roll up behind a free ball? I wonder why that rule evolved...

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Snookerfan raised a good question the other day. Why are you not allowed to roll up behind a free ball? I wonder why that rule evolved...

I genuinely don't know for sure really.

Logic suggests that given a nominated free-ball takes on the value of the ball on if potted when nominated, then by rolling up - you are essentially just rolling up to the ball on - which without a pot will remain the ball on for the opponents next visit.

You wouldn't role up to a red to snooker a player on the rest of the pack because obviously the opponent wouldn't be snookered.

That's just my opinion though

PLtheRef wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Snookerfan raised a good question the other day. Why are you not allowed to roll up behind a free ball? I wonder why that rule evolved...

I genuinely don't know for sure really.

Logic suggests that given a nominated free-ball takes on the value of the ball on if potted when nominated, then by rolling up - you are essentially just rolling up to the ball on - which without a pot will remain the ball on for the opponents next visit.

You wouldn't role up to a red to snooker a player on the rest of the pack because obviously the opponent wouldn't be snookered.

That's just my opinion though

I am exactly with PL on this one. I may use different words but I think the sentiment is the same. There are those (I would suggest they are one and the same with those who don't actually understand Snooker all that well) who would suggest that the roll up safety should be disallowed entirely, that Snooker should follow the lead of many Pool games to require a pot or contact with a cushion following initial contact with an object ball. But here is the thing.....a roll up safety can ONLY result from a previous GOOD action on the striker's part. What I mean for example is that the most common roll up safety of course is following a long, difficult shot of Red into a Black pocket as a shot to nothing and no good follow up pot was available in the end. So the striker elects to roll up safely to one of the Baulk colours. 99 percent of the time, the striker would have preferred to have a good pot available to continue a good break and he often does not expect to gain penalty points from this roll up safety. Instead, he is looking to gain an advantage. He is really looking for the incoming striker to be hindered to the point that his stroke results in a good opportunity for the snooker-layer to pot Red and begin a good break whether penalty points are gained or not. The fact remains that this sequence began with a good pot of a difficult Red by the original striker.

Now if we look at a Free Ball situation, a roll up to a Free Ball would have essentially nothing at all to do with the striker's good, successful efforts. Sure, maybe he laid a good snooker and the incoming striker failed to contact, but it is just as likely that the snooker was fluked or that the incoming striker simply played a poor stroke when the actual snooker was relatively easy and so failed to contact. If the roll up to Free Ball were allowed, the original striker would be reaping not a reward based on his own success but on his opponent's failure. Conceptually, I don't agree with that.

There is another way to look at it if you would like. Take the "usual options" following any foul. You have your Yin and your Yang, your offensive choice and your defensive choice. If your opponent commits a plain ol' foul stroke, then of course, you can either: 1) Elect to play your stroke at the Ball On exactly as normal. This would be the offensive choice...you see a good pot and see a path to a scoring break. or 2) Elect to have the opponent play again from the position left. This is the defensive choice. Balls are in a bad place to play a stroke, so why would you? Put the fouler back in to do something with the mess he has left.

But what if the foul resulted in a table position in which the incoming striker has no offensive choice, no Yin as it were, there is not even a "natural" Ball On to play at? So this is where the Free Ball option comes into to effect. Free Ball allows for an offensive shot choice to be made. If the incoming striker would prefer to play a defensive stroke, he certainly still has his usual options. He can put the fouler back in to play...after all, the path from White to the Ball On is obviously hindered or else he would not have the Free Ball option available. So electing the Free Ball should only be the offensive option, not defensive, not a roll up safety.

As PL said, this is my own opinion, no evidence except logic to back it up.

I keep thinking about this.

The explanations so far are not illogical, but - to me at least - they are not convincing.

I can't help thinking that the ban on rolling up to a free ball was introduced to avoid a specific situation. I am trying to think of a situation where rolling up to a free ball might provide effectively infinite snookers, or maybe drag the game out forever but I can't.

I will keep thinking.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I keep thinking about this.

The explanations so far are not illogical, but - to me at least - they are not convincing.

I can't help thinking that the ban on rolling up to a free ball was introduced to avoid a specific situation. I am trying to think of a situation where rolling up to a free ball might provide effectively infinite snookers, or maybe drag the game out forever but I can't.

I will keep thinking.

Hey, BSP. You can lay your weary head now and put your mind at ease. I thought of a situation for you in a matter of about three seconds. Whenever one may be hypothesizing a specific scenario such as this, one would do best to keep matters as simple and straightforward as possible. It makes it easy to consider and certainly easier to explain.

So for simplicity's sake, in a frame between you and I, we are down to the final Red on the table. The score is in your favour 38-0 (we have not potted well this frame) so we are at the "snookers required" stage. You have just played a foul stroke, now 38-4 to you and I will endeavour to describe the table situation....
All colours are on spot except the Yellow and Green. The final Red is touching Black on its spot and to the Black cushion side of it. The White has come to rest behind Brown on spot, say about four inches to the Baulk cushion side of it. The Yellow and Green have come to rest on either side of White, not touching it, and just a bit closer to Baulk cushion, say half a ball diameter so they are not hindering cueing at all.

Have the picture? Score is 38-4 to you, you have just committed a foul. No Miss because snookers were needed before the foul stroke, and a Free Ball is now available. My options: Play the shot to Red, Put you in to play the shot to Red, or Free Ball. Of course, me playing at Red would be silly. If I put you in as is, you can play off either side cushion to near middle pocket, come off Black cushion and touch Red. It may take a couple attempts to find the right line, spin, and power (FAAM would be in effect now) but it is not that difficult a stroke. Or I can play Free Ball. Not a good pot on anywhere in this situation.

But what if I had the option to roll up to Free Ball?

<cue the wavy lines across the screen like a flashback scene on telly>

Obviously, the "smart" play would be to nominate Brown and roll up to it the four inches with White landing perfectly and touching Brown. How devilish and despicable of me! And that was not even very difficult nor skillful at all! I am such a clever boy! Now White cannot be played off side cushion with Brown in the way, White cannot be reasonably played off Baulk cushion--hampered cueing with Brown and Yellow and Green blocking the lines anyway. So...eighteen feeble attempts later by you to contact Red playing off four, five, perhaps even six cushions, I am sitting pretty 38 points to the lead with the score at 76-38 without actually having potted a single ball the entire frame. I will cruise to an easy victory. Oh, and by the way, remember on your last attempt to contact Red in which you came reasonably close passing just a few inches away from it? (To be clear, the snooker in which you found yourself was not "impossible" by the standards of the Rules, just very, very difficult.) Well, the White rebounded off Black cushion and bounced out a ways so that while I cannot put you back to the original position (no FAAM anymore), I still do have a Free Ball available. Let's see now, where is that Brown?
_____________________________________

For me personally, good Snooker is about positive play, scoring heavily, punishing your opponent with potting. It is not about skulking about in the bushes nefariously, not about pinching a few points here and there with negative play, not about taking pride in an infinite series of FAAM through a fortunate roll of the balls. When I am at the game, I am not willing my opponent to play badly. Au contraire, I wish my opponent to play as well as he is able and that in turn will benefit my game by forcing me to play even better. This is a continuously upward spiral between playing partners, and I think a much more optimistic view of the Game than just trying to win this frame at hand by laying the most devious snooker possible. I don't think the situation above (or variations of it) is anything that Snooker fans are interested in watching either.

That makes perfect sense Aces - after a second read! The rule would avoid a situation like that described which would turn any frame into an effective dead game. I wonder if it was introduced after a specific incident where something similar happened.

I have no ideas on the rules of billiards but wonder if there is anything similar there?

Thanks as always for your comprehensive reply

Ace on top form as always!!

Badsnookerplayer wrote:That makes perfect sense Aces - after a second read! The rule would avoid a situation like that described which would turn any frame into an effective dead game. I wonder if it was introduced after a specific incident where something similar happened.

I have no ideas on the rules of billiards but wonder if there is anything similar there?

Thanks as always for your comprehensive reply

I did try to research the History of the Rules of Snooker a bit but the trail was very sparse. The oldest printed officially issued rule set I have in my possession is the B&SCC copyright 1988 version and the definition of "snooker" and the rule for Free Ball are identical to the current version for all practical purposes (minor terminology changes perhaps for clarity, but exactly the same in spirit).

In the Multiverse Theory, I believe it is pondered that anything that can possibly happen, already has so yes, it is my belief that is written the way it is because something must have happened similar at some time. Now, prior to the mid-90's, enforcement of the Foul and a Miss was not so stringent as today (many people wrongly believe the Foul and a Miss Rule did not exist before then), but I can envision a time, long ago, when perhaps a Red was trapped against a cushion, guarded well by a couple colours but maybe with a very narrow path to contact. The striker would have attempted that narrow path but missed leaving a Free Ball of course. Assuming the roll up to Free Ball was allowed at some point, the original snooker-layer would have made the snooker even more dire by hiding White behind his Free Ball making it difficult or even impossible for the snooker-bearer to even be able to disrupt the "guarding colours" let alone contact Ball On so that the Red (or whatever Ball On) simply remained trapped there and the Free Ball was constantly in play to lay yet another nearly impossible snooker. Points would gather quickly even without the FAAM advantage.And if the snooker-bearer finally in a rage just smashed into the balls to spread them far and wide, the Referee could have called a "Deliberate Miss" on him (the term at the time) and put the balls back into position. I can definitely imagine the scenario.

Oh, and by the way, in my research into this rule, I happened across another tidbit of interest...someone had questioned somewhere, sometime about why in the "olden days", matches were played out all frames even when the "Best of ..." winner was already determined. It makes perfect sense. Back in the day, the only prize money came from ticket sales. There was no corporate sponsors, no television rights. Money came from the bottoms sitting in seats watching the snooker. And they wanted to see snooker all the way through to the end because they had spent their money. After the winner of the match was determined, play continued but as the resulting scores did not matter to the outcome of the match, it was more exhibition style play then, probably more entertaining for the crowd in fact.

Yes - I think I can definitely see the reasons for the rule being in place. If it weren't then there would come a situation that would warrant it for sure.

Playing out dead frames also makes more sense if they were played in an exhibition style after the winner was determined.