|
|
Post by The Iceman on May 8, 2015 8:02:52 GMT
 Red has just fouled giving yellow two shots. Yellow asked for the foul snooker and i said no as you cannot be snookered by your own ball. was this the correct call? i think it was but some players playing thought i was wrong. any comments?? |
|
|
|
Post by The Iceman on May 8, 2015 8:07:00 GMT
if the picture is not showing then let me know as i have posted it onto twitter
|
|
|
|
Post by James Griffiths on May 8, 2015 8:07:17 GMT
Right call as long as it was just the other yellow blocking it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Iceman on May 8, 2015 8:09:01 GMT
 if you can see the picture |
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on May 8, 2015 19:33:37 GMT
Red has just fouled giving yellow two shots. Yellow asked for the foul snooker and i said no as you cannot be snookered by your own ball. was this the correct call? i think it was but some players playing thought i was wrong. any comments?? 100% correct call, and for the right reason  |
|
|
|
Post by RAZOR on Jul 24, 2017 11:27:47 GMT
I played in a cup game against The Isaac last night and we had a similar situation to this.
I understand the rules being that after the foul, if you can't see both sides of any one of the colour that is on then it is a foul snooker.
So the middle yellow in the picture shouldn't come into the equation and it is if you can see both sides of the furthest yellow away from the cue ball.
I feel very angry and cheated by the decision that the Isaac ref made last night as it was a blatant foul snooker and it cost us the match.
I have a question too. If there is a stalemate and the ref says it isn't a foul snooker and the timer says it is.
How do you resolve the situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Jul 24, 2017 11:59:43 GMT
Hi Razor (Ruddock? You still playing for West Ham?)
The relevant rule is Rule O (2): A player cannot be Snookered by a ball of the player's own Colour. That is, if one of the player's own coloured group is an obstructing ball, it will be ignored for the purposes of determining a Snooker.
So if it was the same situation as the picture, the right call was made.
In relation to the ref/timer question, the rules say the player has to ask the ref to decide if it is a foul snooker, so once a decision is made, the timer could not over rule the ref.
Hope that helps
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by RAZOR on Jul 24, 2017 12:44:33 GMT
Thanks for replying so quick.
I read that ruling and understand it as, and in revelence with the photo, that the closest yellow to the cue ball is ignored and the foul snooker is determined by being able to see both sides of the furthest yellow with only the reds counting as the obstructive balls.
Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by RossMac on Jul 24, 2017 14:43:11 GMT
Thanks for replying so quick. I read that ruling and understand it as, and in revelence with the photo, that the closest yellow to the cue ball is ignored and the foul snooker is determined by being able to see both sides of the furthest yellow with only the reds counting as the obstructive balls. Is that correct? Yeah you can't be foul snookered by your own ball. So in that picture if you ignore the yellow closest to cueball you can clearly see both sides of the yellow near the pocket. I.e not a foul snooker |
|
|
|
Post by RAZOR on Jul 24, 2017 15:23:55 GMT
If nobody can agree with the decision and the ref has clearly got it wrong, the constitution says you can contact the Divisional Secretary.
Would he/she come out to the venue to make a decision?
We definitely needed a neutral third party to make the decision last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by stelmagic on Jul 24, 2017 18:06:55 GMT
lol thats hilarious that is not even close to a foul snooker
|
|
|
|
Post by fbi on Jul 24, 2017 18:09:19 GMT
RAZOR isn't saying, that photo was from last night Paul. Check the post dates mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Onespin on Jul 24, 2017 21:42:29 GMT
Can someone from your team call me to discuss this pls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Jul 24, 2017 22:08:17 GMT
So you are now saying that the situation in the match was different to the one in the picture that you said was similar to your situation?
What is clear is that the example in the picture (that you said was similar to your situation) is NOT a foul snooker.
On the other hand, if it was not possible for a finest possible cut on both sides of at least one of your balls due only to your opponents balls preventing that, (unlike in the picture) then there WAS a foul snooker.
If your match situation was not similar to the example quoted in the picture, then I do not understand the relevance of using that thread to ask the question.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by RAZOR on Jul 24, 2017 22:53:27 GMT
I used this photo as an example because the balls were in a similar (not the same) position and I wanted to clarify the rule of ignoring tbe obstructing 'on' balls, taking them out of tbe equation.
I also used this photo as it made it easier for me to explain the situation and where the balls were.
The only difference from the photo and last nights game was the fact that you could not see both sides of the furthest yellow in last nights game.
It won't be happening again as I now know the procedure and what I can do.
Thank you for your responses, and also thank you Dave for your advice and sharing your knowledge 😊
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Jul 25, 2017 11:41:10 GMT
I used this photo as an example because the balls were in a similar (not the same) position and I wanted to clarify the rule of ignoring tbe obstructing 'on' balls, taking them out of tbe equation. I also used this photo as it made it easier for me to explain the situation and where the balls were. The only difference from the photo and last nights game was the fact that you could not see both sides of the furthest yellow in last nights game. It won't be happening again as I now know the procedure and what I can do. Thank you for your responses, and also thank you Dave for your advice and sharing your knowledge 😊 Understood. |
|
|
|
Post by themightymere on Jul 25, 2017 12:21:23 GMT
So if you couldn't see both sides of any of your balls, with or without interfering balls - what was the ref's reason for not giving a foul snooker?
|
|
|
|
Post by fbi on Jul 25, 2017 22:00:05 GMT
If you ask around, you will find they have a track record for this kind of thing mate. And karma is a bitch!
|
|
smackmyballs
County Player
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Posts: 428
|
Post by smackmyballs on Aug 1, 2017 15:09:06 GMT
So if you couldn't see both sides of any of your balls, with or without interfering balls - what was the ref's reason for not giving a foul snooker? Good question! |
|
|
|
Post by RAZOR on Aug 1, 2017 21:35:51 GMT
I did answer this but my post got deleted by 'the commitee' for supposedly calling someone a name.
I don't remember calling anyone a name and have not had a reply back from them when questioning this.
I will answer this again though.
The Isaac ref basically cheated us and denied that it was a foul snooker when it clearly was.
I was hitting the opponents ball first all day long.
He couldn't even look me in the eye when he said it wasn't a foul snooker.
He knew very well it was a foul snooker he just wasn't giving it as it was an easy clearance if I was able to pick the ball up.
|
|
