Stange Rule of the day.

azzeretti

I was talking to a mate the other day, one I hadn't seen in a while. We got to talking about snooker and he reminded me of what happened to me in a game I played about 8 years ago. It was an pretty important game, first round of a well know tournament and I was playing against a player who was, at the time, ranked number 2 in the country. We were down to the yellow and he put me into a decent snooker. I tried to get out but missed the yellow and snookered him giving him a freeball. The position of the cue ball was such that he had a perfect "plant" from the brown ball onto the yellow. He called "brown" as his free ball and proceeded to plant the yellow. He then started to clear up from the green onwards i.e the yellow was not respotted, nor did he think there was a foul commited. I immediatley called this into question and we called for a ruling.

Turns out that this is (or was then) a perfectly legal shot to play.
In the immortal word of Michael Cain - "Not a lot of people know that"

More madness to follow tomorrow

Michael Collins

Well that's extremely weird. In my understanding that would definately be a foul since he potted a color when he should have been potting a "red" - when you nominate a free ball it basically becomes a red and has a value of 1 point. And the yellow should definately be respotted in either case (i.e. in the case of a foul or if the yellow was the nominated free ball, which it wasn't). That's the way it'd be nowadays anyway, seems unlikely to me that this would ever have been allowed...

hiscan

Michael Collins wrote:

Well that's extremely weird. In my understanding that would definately be a foul since he potted a color when he should have been potting a "red" - when you nominate a free ball it basically becomes a red and has a value of 1 point. And the yellow should definately be respotted in either case (i.e. in the case of a foul or if the yellow was the nominated free ball, which it wasn't). That's the way it'd be nowadays anyway, seems unlikely to me that this would ever have been allowed...

i agree with mc

celticfc

Nope, it's perfectly legal...

Remember guys there's no reds left on the table. They are down to the colours and the yellow is the ball that he is unable to see both edges of.

Because he nominated the brown it then becomes a yellow, (so effectively there are two yellows on the table) & all he done was play a plant with two yellows.

No probs with that..

gerire

Correct Celt, was just about to say that

celticfc

Yeah Ger sure... Of course you were....

phantom_lord

celticfc wrote:

Nope, it's perfectly legal...

Remember guys there's no reds left on the table. They are down to the colours and the yellow is the ball that he is unable to see both edges of.

Because he nominated the brown it then becomes a yellow, (so effectively there are two yellows on the table) & all he done was play a plant with two yellows.

No probs with that..

Hmm, that's interesting. Thanks for the info.

azzeretti

Ah, i knew this would stir a debat
Can't say I believed this guy when he did it, I really thought he was having me on - this scenario wouldn't arise too ofter so I was skecptical (sp?). Anyway, the ref soon sorted it out.
Now, let me think of somemore strange ones................

Michael Collins

Oh right yeh. Down to the colours, yeh that makes perfect sense. I stand corrected.

miju

azzeretti wrote:

I was talking to a mate the other day, one I hadn't seen in a while. We got to talking about snooker and he reminded me of what happened to me in a game I played about 8 years ago. It was an pretty important game, first round of a well know tournament and I was playing against a player who was, at the time, ranked number 2 in the country. We were down to the yellow and he put me into a decent snooker. I tried to get out but missed the yellow and snookered him giving him a freeball. The position of the cue ball was such that he had a perfect "plant" from the brown ball onto the yellow. He called "brown" as his free ball and proceeded to plant the yellow. He then started to clear up from the green onwards i.e the yellow was not respotted, nor did he think there was a foul commited. I immediatley called this into question and we called for a ruling.

Turns out that this is (or was then) a perfectly legal shot to play.
In the immortal word of Michael Cain - "Not a lot of people know that"

More madness to follow tomorrow

from my understanding of the rules this is correct, BUT the yellow should have been re-spotted

padser

azzeretti wrote:

Ah, i knew this would stir a debat
Can't say I believed this guy when he did it, I really thought he was having me on - this scenario wouldn't arise too ofter so I was skecptical (sp?). Anyway, the ref soon sorted it out.
Now, let me think of somemore strange ones................

Sure think of it another way, if there had been reds left, and he had nominated say 'blue' and smashed into the reds potting one of them you probably wouldnt have had a problem. Its just a bit more complicated to get ur head around the way it happened.

Michael Collins

miju wrote:

from my understanding of the rules this is correct, BUT the yellow should have been re-spotted

I'd say the yellow would stay in the pocket. The objective is to pot the yellow - (Keeping this in mind) we have a situation where the player can't see both sides of the yellow so brown is nominated free ball. Now if, due to some crazy circumstances, the player pots the "real" yellow, the objective has suceeded and there's no need to take the yellow out again. Whereas if the brown was potted it would obviously have to be taken out since it wasn't the ball that was on.