Rule question... Masse

Autist

Autist

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hi.

While playing with a friend a while back, we had this situation.

I snookered him, only colours remaining. He was not frozen, about an inch between the cue ball and obstructing ball. He raised the back end of the cue, going for a masse shot to hit the object ball. As soon as he hit the cue ball with his cue, you could clearly hear the white ball leaving the table surface (he was NOT aiming completely away from the ball that snookered him). After the bouncing noises, the cue ball curved a little and hit the object ball.

It was a foul shot in my opinion, as he jumped the edge of the ball that was snookering him.

After a little argument, he showed me this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXFUp8h1l5Y

2:00 mark.

It was not exactly the same as in this video, but basically very similar.
Am I wrong to think Neil actually fouled there. Seems to me he jumped a thin edge of the pink and then the masse took.


Thank you.
 
Never mind, that video does not illustrate my point as the pink is not the ball that was snookering Neil. :p
 
Autist said:
Hi.

While playing with a friend a while back, we had this situation.

I snookered him, only colours remaining. He was not frozen, about an inch between the cue ball and obstructing ball. He raised the back end of the cue, going for a masse shot to hit the object ball. As soon as he hit the cue ball with his cue, you could clearly hear the white ball leaving the table surface (he was NOT aiming completely away from the ball that snookered him). After the bouncing noises, the cue ball curved a little and hit the object ball.

It was a foul shot in my opinion, as he jumped the edge of the ball that was snookering him.

After a little argument, he showed me this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXFUp8h1l5Y

2:00 mark.

It was not exactly the same as in this video, but basically very similar.
Am I wrong to think Neil actually fouled there. Seems to me he jumped a thin edge of the pink and then the masse took.


Thank you.
Click to expand...

Did the cue ball touch any ball before the object ball?

Yes = foul
No = No foul

Leaving the surface of the table isn't a foul (unless you have a rule that says otherwise)
 
Inferno said:
Did the cue ball touch any ball before the object ball?

Yes = foul
No = No foul

Leaving the surface of the table isn't a foul (unless you have a rule that says otherwise)
Click to expand...

No, it did not.

But how can it not be a foul?

Even tho his intention was not to jump, he did jump over the edge of the snookering ball. He had he aimed AWAY from that ball and then successfully massed to his object ball - okay... But he did not aim away.
 
In my opinion, what you have here is not a rules question, it is a question of personal integrity. The actual rule is very simple: Section 3. Rule 10. (a) (ix) states clearly that playing a jump shot incurs a penalty so the real question is "What is a jump shot?". And that is clearly defined in Section 2. Definitions:

"20. 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."

Whether a true jump shot occurred here is a speculative matter of opinion. So in your specific case, IF ANY part of the cue ball actually passed in a direct vertical line over ANY part of the pink ball (whether touching it or not), then it is a penalty. IF the cue ball passed AROUND the edge of the pink without going over it, there is no foul. That is what a referee is for-to give his decision in the matter. In a (hopefully) friendly game, all you can do is compromise....flip a coin, arm wrestle, whatever you want to do to settle the matter, but the fact is without laser measuring devices and ten different video camera angles, you will never know for certain whether the cue ball passed over the pink or not. So you just have to settle the matter and get on with the frame.

On the other hand, if there is something in this beyond a "friendly" game, then neither player or team is likely willing to compromise their position. In that case, there is no real alternative but to refer to Section 3. Rule 16. Stalemate, and the frame is then replayed from the start. And if the players STILL cannot settle the matter after this, they never should have been on the table together in the first place.

Good luck.
 
Autist said:
Hi.

...
Am I wrong to think Neil actually fouled there. Seems to me he jumped a thin edge of the pink and then the masse took.


...
Click to expand...

About the video, at 2:02, you can see the ref in the background eyeing the situation from the player's perspective. Undoubtedly, he also looked at it VERY closely before Neil even stepped to the shot to assist placement of the balls in the event of a foul and a miss. (You will even on occasion see a ref request a player to back away for a moment so that the ref can take a closer look.) What this means is that the referee surely decided BEFORE the shot occurred whether he might be needing to call a foul for the jump shot, and obviously, if properly executed, there would be no foul. As for what he was looking at when the shot occurred at 2:09, he would have been looking to see if the pink moved from the cue ball or the player's cue touching it or any other foul, but obviously, from his perspective at that time, he could not ascertain whether a jump shot had occurred (which supports my view that he had already decided that a legal "non-jump" shot was possible).
 
Inferno said:
... Leaving the surface of the table isn't a foul (unless you have a rule that says otherwise)
Click to expand...
The rule quoted above -- which is not particularly well written -- says that it may be a foul to leave the surface of the table if the cue ball passes over part of an object ball.

There are lots of jump shots at snooker which are legal and there are probably some jumps shots which are fouls according to a strict reading of the rules but are not called.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The rule quoted above -- which is not particularly well written -- says that it may be a foul to leave the surface of the table if the cue ball passes over part of an object ball.

There are lots of jump shots at snooker which are legal and there are probably some jumps shots which are fouls according to a strict reading of the rules but are not called.
Click to expand...

The street lingo for this rule....
'You may NOT jump over an 'intervening' or 'snookering' ball'
Once you have made a legal hit, the cue-ball can jump over a ball.
 
pt109 said:
The street lingo for this rule....
'You may NOT jump over an 'intervening' or 'snookering' ball'
Once you have made a legal hit, the cue-ball can jump over a ball.
Click to expand...

Among other exceptions, it is legal to jump over the corner of a pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top