Boronut did a excellent job of explaining the logic poolplaya9 didn't process it logically
2022 World Snooker Championship (Apr 16th - May 2nd)
- Thread starter BeiberLvr
- Start date
The rule is the way it is because it's part of the skill required in breaking open the reds. There are matches where the commentator talks about how after sinking the blue, the cue ball has to hit that ball, and not that other ball, because that other ball is a plant that will cause a red to go in.
As far as the "logic" of rules go, sometimes there is no logic -- it is just the way it is. In my view the foul-and-a-miss rule can be extremely unfair. lt can cost a player dozens of points due to a fluked snooker by his opponent. And if I find a time machine I'll go back to 1875 or whenever and keep rolling up behind a ball on the author of the rules until he requires cushion contact on every shot (as they do in the shoot-out event). And there are lots of "illogical" rules at pool as well. A decision was made one way or the other a long time ago and the decision stands firmly. The best you can hope for in most rule sets is "somewhat consistent."
Snooker is not a game where you win by sinking a group of colors and then a "neutral" final ball, so 8 ball is a horrible analogy.
In one pocket every ball made (without fouling) counts as a point. That certainly sounds more reasonable for snooker than what they are doing now which is penalizing you for other balls made that you have no control over and that are having no effect on anything, meaning who cares if they fell.
But the closest game of all to snooker, both in the patterns and typical types of shots (always having to break up the clustered pack every rack), as well as how the scoring is done (by points per ball), is straight pool. Is it a foul in straight pool when you make your ball and go into the stack to break it up and something else goes in too? Nope, that would be dumb. It stays down and you get the point.
In snooker I can see an argument that it should instead be spotted up and no points awarded (or perhaps spotted and points awarded), but there is no logic to calling it a foul just as there wouldn't be in straight pool either, at least none that anybody has presented so far anyway. Sorry but "because it is an arbitrary rule that I'm used to and so I want it enforced for no good reason" is not logic, its just an arbitrary rule you want enforced for no good reason because that is what you are used to (and no it doesn't even increase the skill in the game, it actually does the opposite and introduces much more luck into the game as I already explained, and I am failing to see why having more of who wins decided by luck rather than skill is a good thing for snooker).
Last edited:
Except that it isn't just skill, it is a lot of luck too, and why would I want more luck involved in who wins? If there were no luck involved in these break outs then I could understand the rule, but the fact is there is tons of sheer luck and chance involved. And if for some reason it really mattered if more than one ball went in on a shot then I could understand that too, but that doesn't really matter either. The rule is awful arbitrary and just serves to introduce more luck into the game and that is the rub. They don't penalize that same thing in straight pool for those reasons.
firstly, red-color-red-etc is the most basic rule of snooker and inherently logical.
secondly, going into the pack from the blue is a risk if you haven't read the stack well. not all players read the rack diligently, many don't look at all, but others do. of course it's not bad luck, nor is it unfair. the prevalence of the blue ball break has increased with the attacking style of snooker (hendry, ronnie, etc) but players were making centuries before that, without utilizing that break. i doubt you will find many of these red fouls off the blue with davis, thorburn, reardon, parrot, griffiths, because they weren't taking that risk. there were and still are other ways to choose.
it's like saying it's unfair or unlucky that filler or hohmann scratches when they break a straight pool rack with the "hohmann smash and draw to short rail and back". it's an effective break out but it also carries an obvious risk of scratching. and it (almost) never happens to chinakhov, and it never happened to mosconi..
No, its like saying Hohmann and any other straight pool player should use their skill to make sure they don't make a second ball when going into the pack to break it up and if they do it is their fault for not looking at the rack good enough and therefore the rule should be that it should be a foul and they should lose their turn over it.
Perhaps there is a good reason why that should be a foul in snooker that just hasn't occurred to me (and if so that same reasoning would likely apply in straight pool and by the same reasoning it should be a foul there too), but if there is I've yet to hear it. There is however a good reason why it should not be a foul, and that is because it allows sheer luck and chance to become more of an unnecessary factor in the game.
It's like making pool players play bar rules where you have to call every ball and rail contact, even brushing the rail on the way into the pocket. Sounds good on the surface if you don't give it any actual real thought, "yeah it is definitely increasing the skill needed", when in reality is just a silly nonsensical arbitrary rule that is doing exactly the opposite and just increasing the luck factor.
Last edited:
yes, it's out of ball sequence. that reason is both good and perfectly logical. and again, it's not luck as it can be controlled and there are other, less risky options.
It's not sheer luck.
Any snooker pro can make the blue off it's spot. The real skill comes in knowing how to read the stack.
But I'm not really sure of the point in arguing over how much luck is involved in this particular shot when it happens so infrequently.
It really isn't out of sequence though, he made the blue that was in sequence. Its an extra ball that went in. It is no more out of sequence than when you call the seven ball in straight pool (so the seven ball is the ball in sequence) but you end up making the twelve ball as well (which you are trying to call "out of sequence").
Going into packs of balls very often involves some luck. Not always, but very often it does. It is simply not true to say that luck is never a part of it. Now you can say there are other options, but the same applies in straight pool as well, there were other options. You didn't have to go into those balls at that time. But why should it matter? As it is with straight pool, why should you care if another ball goes?
And in a sense there aren't really other options. Both games require that you break up clusters. It is a massive part of both games that has to occur very often, and since luck and chance is a big part of things a big part of the time you are going into clusters (which again you have to do), you really can't actually avoid having that luck and chance be a part of the game part of the time with the current rule in place. I still can't see why you would want to maximize the role that luck and chance are playing. If additional balls go you should continue shooting as you do in straight pool and not be penalized for the luck and sheer chance often involved in making a second ball when there isn't a good reason for it that I'm seeing.
Seems to me that this is a case of people just being used to something being a certain way and because of that bias they are unwilling or unable to look at it with a logical and critical eye.
Last edited:
The exact same argument can be made for straight pool. Why shouldn't straight pool (and one pocket) use the same rule that snooker does where it is a foul if you pocket a second ball then if it is a good thing?
I thought the same.
He needed to hit the reset button on both those shots. Especially the blue. Funny how after a fluke the next pot seems more difficult sometimes.
Both those were expensive misses,
Shame he didn’t make the most of those chances. The pressure is brutal on anyone out there.
Best
Fatboy
I think Ronnie wins over Trump.
Yes. exactly! I have done that many times. You can see his breathing is heavy from close up after miss black. Fluke probably hit him with adrealine spike. Hands start shaking and brain is not working properly. He should do poolplayer move and go to his place and clean shaft with rag and collect himself
I am at work, keep the updates coming please (and thank you)