elnino wrote:a) Player B would be right if the cue ball lands on the far side of table first and then makes contact with the second red ball.
b) Player A would be correct if the cue ball strikes the second red ball directly without landing on the bed of the table first.
El Nino, I do not agree with your interpretation of this rule. This is a situation that is very difficult to explain with the written word (which is why the Rules of Snooker do not explain this very clearly); it is much, much easier to explain in real life speaking and using balls on the table for an example. That said (or more accurately, "That written
..."), I will start by quoting the appropriate Rule, then attempt to explain what it means.
"Section 2. Definitions...
Rule 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
(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."
So to break this down in parts:
The definition basically concerns the relationship between the cue ball and the very first object ball it encounters, whether that encounter means making contact, or jumping over, or possibly both. In the simplest scenario, say that Black is the only ball on the table and so (obviously,) Black is the ball on. If the cue ball leaves the bed of the table and ANY part of the cue ball passes over ANY part of the Black ball, it is a jump shot and a foul. Even though this seems simple, there are actually a surprising number of possibilities: a) the White can simply jump over the Black without touching it--foul (also a jump shot but it doesn't matter anyway if contact was not made with Black), b) the White can jump over the Black and touch Black on its way back down to the table--foul, contact was made with the Black, but a part of the White passed over a part of the Black in the process, c) White can jump over Black without touching it, bounce back off a cushion, and contact Black on the rebound--foul, exactly the same as b), d) total miscue.....the White jumps off the bed of the table and veers off at some angle away from the Black and just comes back down somewhere on the bed of the table--maybe a fair stroke (if White luckily rebounds off a cushion and strikes Black) or maybe a foul (if White never touches Black) but this is NOT a jump shot even if White left the bed of the table....it can only be a jump shot by definition if ANY part of White passes over ANY part of object ball in the process of the "jump" (in other words, if a whisker of the right edge of White passes over a whisker of the left edge of the object ball, it is a foul) and this is completely left to the judgement of the referee.
Now, moving on to other parts of the definition...
Sub-part a) says that if White strikes a ball on (for simplicity, let's say Red), then just deflects off of it like a normal stroke, but then makes contact with another ball (for instance, another Red) and in the process, somehow manages to jump over THAT ball, then this is NOT a jump shot, it is perfectly legal. Remember from above, the important thing is the White's FIRST encounter....it was legal so the stroke is legal.
Sub-part b) is another hypothetical. Snooker is a three dimensional game...balls can bounce up and down especially if playing a swerve, or Masse, or some such. So b) simply says if in the first contact White climbs or bounces up on the object ball, but rebounds either back or off to the side but does not pass OVER the object ball, this is NOT a jump shot and not a foul.
Sub-part c) is poorly written (for which I don't blame the Rule writers....it is a difficult concept to write about plainly and simply....witness, look how long it has taken me to write this post) and consequently, it is also where I believe you are misinterpreting. But in fact, it says very much the same thing that sub-part a) said...except sub-part c) refers back to the first ball that the White contacted rather than some other ball like in sub-part a). So it basically says, if the White makes a legal contact with a ball (say a Red), then goes on to bounce around and strike other things like some other ball or a cushion or both, THEN the White goes back and bounces over that FIRST ball that it originally made contact with, then there is no jump shot, no foul.
Now to sum all of this up, the Rule is essentially about what happened in the first ENCOUNTER of White with an object ball ("ENCOUNTER" meaning maybe it made contact, maybe it jumped over, maybe both). IF that first encounter was legal (no jump involved), then any other "jumps" that happen from bouncing around off other things are legal (bear in mind, other events may occur to make the stroke foul such as wrong ball falling in pocket, ball off the table, etc., etc.). On the other hand, IF that first encounter involved jumping over that first object ball, whether touching it or not, then a foul has occurred (bear in mind that the jump shot foul may be superceded by some other higher point value foul which may occur).
EDIT: Adding my personal opinion as to why a rule such as this is written such as the way it is...
The Rules of Snooker are not a "fun" read; very few players of the Game have ever actually read through the Rules cover to cover. I have. Dozens of times. It is really not that hard; the Rules is only 22 short pages of substance. By comparison, the Rules of Golf is well over 100 long pages, much of it technical drivel with diagrams about equipment explaining what is legal or not legal in the design of an implement. By comparison, the Rules of Snooker is like a Dr. Seuss classic in terms of entertainment. Occasionally, a concept (such as this "jump ball") is difficult to write about succinctly, so I believe instead it is written in such a way that a Referee Trainer can simply read the Rule to the Referee Student, then explain what it means with balls in hand and waving them around and saying, "So, if it does THIS, that's a jump shot. But if it does THAT, no jump shot." So as an aspiring player just reading the Rule and trying to figure it out without the guidance of a trainer is a much more difficult thing to do.
Now, as for an actual Referee on the floor actually officiating an actual frame of snooker between two professional players....that is another story. Snooker is not a "fast" game by any means....mostly, the things on the table just sit still and nothing happens. You would think that the Referee doesn't have a whole lot to do...easy job. But just occasionally, for literally just a couple of millisecond long burst, a whole lot happens at once. And suddenly, the Referee's job becomes incredibly difficult because he/she needs to determine what happened, in what order the events occurred, and whether anything that transpired in those few milliseconds was illegal. So......a rule such as this Jump Ball Rule provide the Ref with simple guidance and relief. This particular rule is written to tell the Referee that he/she only needs to focus on whether a "jump shot" has occurred in the initial fraction of a fraction of a second when the White leaves the tip of the cue. Clearly, a "jump shot" is only possible when an object ball is just a few inches from the cue ball and it only takes a fraction of a second for the cue ball to traverse that short distance. After that initial fraction of a second has passed and the Ref has determined a simple "yes" or "no" on whether a "jump shot" has occurred, his/her mind is now free to focus on all other aspects of the shot without consideration as the whether balls bouncing around MIGHT result in a "jump shot" somewhere else because, by the Rule, they won't. So the Rule is specifically written to NOT allow a player to jump over a ball purposely at the initial stroke; it is perfectly fine for other "accidental" jumps over other balls to occur.
I don't know the precise history of this particular Rule but it does seem very likely that the wording of it is a specific result of this famous incident with Big Bill Werbeniuk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgBfkjkpZcc
Clearly a fluke, Bill was playing a massive safety draw stroke and miscued. By the way the modern rule is written, this shot would be a foul today. And the precise way the Rule is written I believe is to simplify the job of the Referee so as to only be wary of the "jump shot" in that first fraction of a second of the stroke, then his focus can shift to all the other possibilities for the remainder of the stroke. Oh, and a P.S. about this YouTube video....pay no attention to anything said in the "Comments" section regarding legality of the stroke. You will get better guidance from the aforementioned Dr. Suess book about the Rules of Snooker than you will from a YouTube commenter.
And a final related thought...
If you have ever seen any live or video of a "trick shot" show, a fairly common trick shot is to line up a bunch of balls parallel to a cushion several inches away, then put an object ball in the jaws of a pocket on the opposite side, and place the White inside the line of balls (closer to the cushion and away from the ball in the jaws). Then, simply strike down on White toward the cushion, White will bounce up in the air off cushion (like bouncing a rubber ball off the ground then a brick wall), and White will hop over the line of balls and proceed to pot the ball perched in the corner.
A nice trick, but a completely foul stroke. Remember, the legality of the stroke will be determined by the White's initial encounter with an object ball (initial contact with the cushion is NOT an encounter) so for this trick shot, obviously White's first encounter was to jump over an object ball so this would be a foul stroke played in a frame.