free ball

Please help me with a decision on following situation which occurred during our club competition. It got down to the colours . Player A was snookered on the brown and in attempting to get out of the snooker missed the brown and left Player B snookered with the pink in the way . It was a free ball so Player B elected to play the black .Result after hitting the black was that the cue ball was snookered by the blue which completely blocked hitting either side of the brown. However the black was close to the blue ( between the blue and the brown ball) and prevented Player A from being able to screw the cue ball around the blue in order to hit the brown. If the blue had not been there it would have been a foul as the black obscured about half of the brown.

Your question, if there is one, is a little confusing. It would appear you are looking to verify that the situation was handled correctly and it would also appear that it was. There is no foul following the stroke playing Black as the free ball.

From the Rules, Section 2., 17.:

"(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball
not on:
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective
snookering ball..."

so yes, if the Blue weren't there, then the Black would have been snookering the Brown but as the Blue is nearest the cue ball, it (the Blue) is considered to be the only effective snookering ball, therefore, no foul.

acesinc wrote:Your question, if there is one, is a little confusing. It would appear you are looking to verify that the situation was handled correctly and it would also appear that it was. There is no foul following the stroke playing Black as the free ball.

From the Rules, Section 2., 17.:

"(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball
not on:
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective
snookering ball..."

so yes, if the Blue weren't there, then the Black would have been snookering the Brown but as the Blue is nearest the cue ball, it (the Blue) is considered to be the only effective snookering ball, therefore, no foul.

But what if Player C burst in without warning, roundhouse kicked Player A to death & impaled Player B's neck with a cue? Would the match then be considered null and void?

Thank you acesinc
Some of us thought that a foul had been committed but you have cleared it for us.

Pink Ball wrote:

acesinc wrote:Your question, if there is one, is a little confusing. It would appear you are looking to verify that the situation was handled correctly and it would also appear that it was. There is no foul following the stroke playing Black as the free ball.

From the Rules, Section 2., 17.:

"(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball
not on:
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective
snookering ball..."

so yes, if the Blue weren't there, then the Black would have been snookering the Brown but as the Blue is nearest the cue ball, it (the Blue) is considered to be the only effective snookering ball, therefore, no foul.

But what if Player C burst in without warning, roundhouse kicked Player A to death & impaled Player B's neck with a cue? Would the match then be considered null and void?

Alex Higgins is not with us anymore so the chances of that scenario happening are close to zero.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

acesinc wrote:Your question, if there is one, is a little confusing. It would appear you are looking to verify that the situation was handled correctly and it would also appear that it was. There is no foul following the stroke playing Black as the free ball.

From the Rules, Section 2., 17.:

"(b) If the cue-ball is so obstructed from hitting a ball on by more than one ball
not on:
(i) the ball nearest to the cue-ball is considered to be the effective
snookering ball..."

so yes, if the Blue weren't there, then the Black would have been snookering the Brown but as the Blue is nearest the cue ball, it (the Blue) is considered to be the only effective snookering ball, therefore, no foul.

But what if Player C burst in without warning, roundhouse kicked Player A to death & impaled Player B's neck with a cue? Would the match then be considered null and void?

Alex Higgins is not with us anymore so the chances of that scenario happening are close to zero.

Well you don't want to be accused of an oversight.

aggustini wrote:Thank you acesinc
Some of us thought that a foul had been committed but you have cleared it for us.

Out of interest, what part of the situation did you think was a foul? I am struggling to deduce that from what you had written