Snooker Query

[chilliman]

If a player is snookered behind say, brown ball whilst on a red but there are some reds in a line all partially blocking the one behind but visible to the cue ball. I understand that both sides of the object ball should be seen by the cue ball. Now if the front reds were not there, there would be no snooker. As such is a free ball awarded?

[chilliman]

Sorry, I should have said "after a foul shot"

[Old_Geezer]

No expert, but I'm having difficulty visualizing the situation.
One is on a red, but claiming to be snookered because some visible reds are in the way of one going for a different red, and one wouldn't be snookered if those other reds weren't there ?

[davegosling]

No.

[Gizmonster]

I'm glad it's not only me that's having problems visualising this.
You're either snookered, or you're not; so if you add other reds so that " there are some reds in a line all partially blocking the one behind but visible to the cue ball."

.... then you're not snookered anymore, as you've already said that these additional reds are visible to the cue ball.

Sorry, but I don't understand.

[bhg481]

I think chilliman is saying that there is not a single red ball that the cue ball can "see" both sides of, due to other reds being in the way. If the first few reds nearest to the cue ball were removed (leaving the brown) then the cue ball could see both sides of the remaining red.

[Gizmonster]

It doesn't matter if you can't see both sides of the red. If you're on a red and can partially see a red; you're not snookered.
The issue of not seeing both sides of a ball comes into play when you're playing immediately after someone has fouled - then the "free ball" situation comes into play, as now you have to be able to see both sides of the object ball. If you can't see both sides of the object ball, then a free ball is awarded.

[bhg481]

Giz - he's talking about "after a foul". It's about 50 years since I last played snooker, so my opinion may be worthless, but the fact that it is overlapping reds that are preventing the cue ball seeing both sides of the last red in the line, is irrelevant. A free ball should be awarded.

[Khandro]

... for those of you who are watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green.

Ted Lowe

[aelmpvw]

that would have been helpful if the green had happened to be on its spot :-)

[Spoffy]

The rules state "The cue-ball is said to be snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on [here each red] is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on [here the colours, including the brown]." So in this situation it is not a free ball if the player could directly strike both edges of any single red, or could have done so if the path were not blocked by other reds [but not by the brown or any other colour].

[bhg481]

Spoffy - that is definitive. If the rules say that "on" balls don't count as an obstruction then I agee with you - no free ball.

[chilliman]

Thank you everyone for your answers. The rule posted by Spoffy clears up my question. Basically "on" balls do not count as an obstruction therefore no free ball.

[ToraToraTora]

I assume you mean following a foul? No it's not a free ball if you are unable to hit both sides only obscured by other reds. eg if a player breaks off and misses altogether the incomming player cannot claim a free ball unless he's behind a colour despite not being able to hit both sides of a red.

[chilliman]

Thanks Tora. Seems so obvious when you put it like that.

[Gizmonster]

I must be going blind, 'cos I never saw your 2nd comment which said,

//////// Sorry, I should have said "after a foul shot" /////

If I'd seen that, I wouldn't have posted that completely irrelevant dribble lol.
Anyway ..... yea .... I agree with what the others said :)