snooker rules question

snooker rules question

Post by Bill Care » Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:55:25


this from the snooker usa web site: can someone explain it to me, I must be
dense tonight. The bit about hitting both sides of the target ball throws
me.

"To counter this situation, after any foul stroke committed the offending
player can be requested by their opponent to continue at the table. However,
if the non-offending player is snookered on the target-ball(s), that is the
player cannot be judged to be able to strike the cue-ball to hit both sides
of the object-ball (though you cannot be snookered on a red ball by a red
ball), the player is allowed to nominate any ball on the table as their
target-ball (known as a free-ball). If the free-ball is the pocketed, it
will score only in accordance as the original target-ball - in theory,
before any red balls have been pocketed, if a player is awarded a free-ball
there is a possible break of 155 on, though this is not recognized as the
maximum break total. "

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by Ron Shepar » Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:10:46



Quote:
> this from the snooker usa web site: can someone explain it to me, I must be
> dense tonight. The bit about hitting both sides of the target ball throws
> me.

There is a left side and there is a right side.  If you can't hit both
sides, then you get a free ball.  I presume that the reason you can't
hit both sides in this rule is because of blocking balls.  I remember
reading somewhere that a cushion in the way does't count.

$.02 -Ron Shepard <--not a snooker player

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by Jari Kokk » Thu, 22 Mar 2001 00:47:11

Ron Shepard:

Quote:
> There is a left side and there is a right side.  If you can't hit both
> sides, then you get a free ball.  I presume that the reason you can't
> hit both sides in this rule is because of blocking balls.  I remember
> reading somewhere that a cushion in the way does't count.

Ron is right. Go to http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/jarikokko and in the RSB/ASP
album there for a couple of drawings I have made on the subject.

Jari
--
Jari Kokko -- Finnished in Toronto

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by Bill Care » Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:30:35

after Ron's pithy discourse on handedness, and your drawings, I get it. But
wouldn't "judged to be able to strike the cue-ball to hit both sides of the
object-ball" more clearly be stated as "judged to be able to strike the
cue-ball to hit either side of the object-ball"

I was unaware of any shot in the game that would allow you to hit both sides
of the object ball at one cueing. I mean, I know snooker is hard and all,
but...........................


Quote:
> Ron Shepard:
> > There is a left side and there is a right side.  If you can't hit both
> > sides, then you get a free ball.  I presume that the reason you can't
> > hit both sides in this rule is because of blocking balls.  I remember
> > reading somewhere that a cushion in the way does't count.

> Ron is right. Go to http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/jarikokko and in the
RSB/ASP
> album there for a couple of drawings I have made on the subject.

> Jari
> --
> Jari Kokko -- Finnished in Toronto

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by John » Sat, 24 Mar 2001 03:44:06

Quote:
>> judged to be able to strike the cue-ball to hit either side of the

object-ball

This means that if you can hit one side then you don't need to be able to
hit the
other.

Quote:
>> judged to be able to strike the cue-ball to hit both sides of the

object-ball

This means that you need to be able to hit the left side and you also need
to be
able to hit the right side.  Not at the same time, just be able to do both
should
you choose.

Writing rules is a very funny thing.  Its kinda like writing law.  You need
to be
unambiguous.  I see yout point Bill, but I think the way its written is a
little
less ambiguous.

John.


Quote:
> after Ron's pithy discourse on handedness, and your drawings, I get it.
But
> wouldn't "judged to be able to strike the cue-ball to hit both sides of
the
> object-ball" more clearly be stated as "judged to be able to strike the
> cue-ball to hit either side of the object-ball"

> I was unaware of any shot in the game that would allow you to hit both
sides
> of the object ball at one cueing. I mean, I know snooker is hard and all,
> but...........................



> > Ron Shepard:
> > > There is a left side and there is a right side.  If you can't hit both
> > > sides, then you get a free ball.  I presume that the reason you can't
> > > hit both sides in this rule is because of blocking balls.  I remember
> > > reading somewhere that a cushion in the way does't count.

> > Ron is right. Go to http://ca.photos.yahoo.com/jarikokko and in the
> RSB/ASP
> > album there for a couple of drawings I have made on the subject.

> > Jari
> > --
> > Jari Kokko -- Finnished in Toronto

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by Patrick Johnso » Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:43:30

Quote:

> >> ... hit either side of the object-ball
> >> ... hit both sides of the object-ball
> > ...  I see yout point Bill, but I think the way its written is a
> little less ambiguous.

But it could be better.  The first part could say "...hit any part of
the object-ball" and then the second part would be clear either way
(both ways?).

Pat Johnson
Chicago

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by Bill Care » Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:36:56

I think I'll just take both sides of this discussion.

Quote:

> > >> ... hit either side of the object-ball
> > >> ... hit both sides of the object-ball

> > > ...  I see yout point Bill, but I think the way its written is a
> > little less ambiguous.

> But it could be better.  The first part could say "...hit any part of
> the object-ball" and then the second part would be clear either way
> (both ways?).

> Pat Johnson
> Chicago

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by John » Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:43:33

OK, I will take either side. ;-)


Quote:
> I think I'll just take both sides of this discussion.



> > > >> ... hit either side of the object-ball
> > > >> ... hit both sides of the object-ball

> > > > ...  I see yout point Bill, but I think the way its written is a
> > > little less ambiguous.

> > But it could be better.  The first part could say "...hit any part of
> > the object-ball" and then the second part would be clear either way
> > (both ways?).

> > Pat Johnson
> > Chicago

 
 
 

snooker rules question

Post by Rupert War » Sun, 01 Apr 2001 02:10:43

Quote:



> > this from the snooker usa web site: can someone explain it to me, I must be
> > dense tonight. The bit about hitting both sides of the target ball throws
> > me.

> There is a left side and there is a right side.  If you can't hit both
> sides, then you get a free ball.  I presume that the reason you can't
> hit both sides in this rule is because of blocking balls.  I remember
> reading somewhere that a cushion in the way does't count.

Neither does another ball "on". It has to be a ball "not on" that's
obstructing the path of the cue ball.

Rupe.