A Legal Jump Shot In Snooker?
- Thread starter Scaramouche
- Start date
Well, I don't understand why the ref didn't call a foul as the cue ball clearly jumped a ball even if it wasn't intentional. I can't find the on-line rules right now, as the idiot#####powers-that-be seem to want to keep them hidden.Scaramouche said:
i think it was because it wasn't intentional it wasn't called.
btw this reminds me, there is a legal loophole in the snooker rules that allows a jump shot in a certain situation. i remmeber reading this, but i've forgot where. does anybody else know?
btw this reminds me, there is a legal loophole in the snooker rules that allows a jump shot in a certain situation. i remmeber reading this, but i've forgot where. does anybody else know?
Bob Jewett said:
He didn't hit a ball with the jump (if it was a jump). He sank a ball with the second bounce
Maybe the rules have changed over the years, and I have not played snooker in a long time, even though it is BY FAR my preferred game of choice, but for the many years that I played, it was ALWAYS a foul for the cue ball to leave the surface of the table...that is why we learned the screw shots and how to kick. Has something changed in the rules, or were we simply playing under incorrect rules back in the day?
Joe
Joe
Yes they have.Bamacues said:
No, that was never the case. It was only a foul to pass over any part of an obstructing ball which was not 'on' to get at the ball on, intentionally or otherwise. Ie you gained an advantage by avoiding a foul hit on a ball that was not on by reason of the cue ball leaving the bed of the table. It makes sense to make it a foul in all instances to avoid any arguments over whether you intentionall slightly jumped over a fine edge of a snookering ball. It was also a foul to intentionally jump any ball. By this definition at that time you could presumably unintentionaly pass over the ball on, as long as you subsequently struck it (or another ball on in the case of a red) without fouling.
There have been many subtle variations in the definition of a jump such as if you actually touch the ball as you pass over it or not, which side the cue ball lands, etc. I'm not 100% sure what the current definition is. So in that particular instance at that time Werbeniuk unintentionally passes over a ball on (red) but hits a ball on (red) - no foul, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be today.
Boro Nut
Last edited:
Once the cue ball has legally struck the ball 'on', the balls can bounce over any other balls and off the lampshade if you like. As long as they eventually come to rest legally on the bed of the table or in a pocket, there is no foul. Is that what you mean?worriedbeef said:
Boro Nut
Today this would've been a foulshot. However this footage is from the 80s and as Boro said I think you could jump over a ball if it was the ball on.(you could jump over a red and hit another red if a red was 'the ball on')
Today a "Jump shot" as defined in the rule below is a foul.
Jump Shot
A jump shot is made when the cue-ball passes over any part of an object ball, whether touching it in the process or not, except:
(a) when the cue-ball first strikes one object ball and then jumps over another ball,
(b) when the cue-ball jumps and strikes an object ball, but does not land on the far side of that ball,
(c) when, after striking an object ball lawfully, the cue-ball jumps over that ball after hitting a cushion or another ball.
Today a "Jump shot" as defined in the rule below is a foul.
Jump Shot
A jump shot is made when the cue-ball passes over any part of an object ball, whether touching it in the process or not, except:
(a) when the cue-ball first strikes one object ball and then jumps over another ball,
(b) when the cue-ball jumps and strikes an object ball, but does not land on the far side of that ball,
(c) when, after striking an object ball lawfully, the cue-ball jumps over that ball after hitting a cushion or another ball.
Boro Nut said:
Boro,
Thanks much for the info. The era that I was referring to, when I played only snooker, was the 1960s-early 70s. I suppose it was a local rule put into effect at the room in which I played, but the rule was simply that if the cue jumped from the table surface, whether you passed a ball or not, it was a foul. I suppose that stopped all the argument about interpretation of rules, intent, etc.
Joe