Another Snooker Question

[Bazile]

1. Player attempts to pot a colour

That colour ball goes in after hitting another coloured ball or another red

Is that a foul ?

2. Snookers required .

The player requiring snookers pots a red but deliberately does not attempt to pot a colour ,because he wants to leave as
many balls on the table to try and get the snookers required .

Is he breaching any rule ?

[Hopkirk]

In question 1, no foul.
As long as the cue ball hits the intended colour ball first then that coloured ball can hit anything before going into a pocket.

[Hopkirk]

Question 2
As long as he nominates a colour, and hits it first then that's enough. He doesn't have to try to pot anything.
(I'm no expert though)

[THECORBYLOON]

A player need only hit a nominated colour after potting a red, he need not pot that colour.

It's common for players to hit a colour to the side of the table to make it awkward for the opponent to pot it.

[jim360]

In scenario (2), it's difficult to imagine any scenario in which the player needing snookers would benefit from refusing to pot a colour if one is available. Potting a red when already needing a snooker, but no colour after it, means giving away a further seven points, thus increasing the number of snookers required by 1 or 2. Since the colour would be returned to the table after potting, it's not like they would have reduced the number of balls on the table either.

It's not against the rules, though. Still, the only scenario in which they would refuse a pot is when such a pot is essentially impossible, or at least much harder than laying a snooker. More often than not, the scenario also arises when the red was potted accidentally (or, perhaps, when the player played a terrible positional shot). But you wouldn't pot a lone red when needing snookers, or if missing the next colour would leave you needing snookers, by choice.