Questions on foul ending the frame when only the black is left
- Thread starter RubixOne
- Start date
So that the game will end even for very incompetent players. It keeps them from soldiering on when they need three snookers with just the black left.
Have you ever played snooker?
RubixOne
Member
I've played it. I just never understood why a foul ends the frame when black is the only ball left.
Because more points are needed than there are points available. It's not complicated.
I have seen this question asked in several snooker forums. It is a good question. The actual answer is probably buried in history; never to be known with certainty again. So most answers to this are pretty wishy-washy and usually just end with "because that is the way it has always been". But that is not what you are asking. Most answers to this fall into one of two categories: 1) responder turns out to be ignorant as to what the actual rule is, or 2) responder's answer is accurate, but incomplete.
Bob's answer falls into 2) above, accurate, but there is more to be said. Sorry, Renegade, at worst you may fall into category 1), but with the benefit of the doubt, I think you are probably also in category 2). You seem to be answering the question, "Why can't I play on for snookers required when only the Black ball remains?" and that is not the question being asked. I think in both cases, the above answers are accurate but not actually answering what the OP is asking.
I have answered this in another forum or two and my (long-winded) answers have been met with a resounding, "Meh.....", and after that, "Cuz that is the way it has always been" turns out to be the general consensus. As my answer to follow is sure to be extensive, you may wish to skip it and just accept "because" as the final answer. If that is the case, you can go straight to my last sentence down below.
But I have just watched my Phillies secure their spot in the World Series, I enjoyed a few beers during the game, and tomorrow is an easy day at work so I can stay up late. Therefore, I will take a few minutes to attempt to answer the original question in totality. (I don't have a response for the second question, and I don't think one is actually needed.) I will start with a personal anecdote:
In a tournament once, best of three, I was even with the opponent at 1 frame each. Decider came to the final Black ball and he was up by precisely three points on the scoreboard (not that that matters in the least as the next pot or foul ends the frame). I must say, he was quite good at potting balls, but throughout the match, I thought to myself that he usually makes the wrong decision for what shot to play at. And his final Black ball stroke was no different. I had tried to play safe by putting Black near Baulk cushion and White back near Black spot. White ended up more near Pink spot and the Black came out quite a bit, say, somewhere around Brown spot. He lined up on his shot, and I thought quietly to myself, "Don't do it! Wrong shot!" You probably know what is next; he attempted pot Black into Green pocket, was reasonably close but missed, and the White slammed directly into the Yellow pocket, foul stroke. I actually did feel bad; it's not the most honorable way to win a frame, let alone a match, but the poor decision was his to make. I extended my hand and said, "I'm sorry, that was unfortunate." He ignored my hand and retrieved White out of the pocket and placed it on the table. I said, "Sorry, that foul ends the match."
About the next three minutes, I prefer to forget, but I will try to wrap up quickly.....when he argued he has been playing snooker for thirty years and that has NEVER been the rule!, I simply said ask anyone in the room. And he did. He asked EVERYONE. And everyone, without exception said, "Sorry, buddy, you lost." He never did shake my hand. He just stormed out cursing loudly, saying we were all a bunch of idiots. It wasn't pleasant.
And that, RubixOne, is the crux of your question. Why, since the seven point foul would simply reverse our score positions putting me up by four points rather than down by three, do the Rules say instead that the frame is ended? It's true that THAT is the way it always has been, at least as far as anyone who is alive knows. And I don't have an absolute answer why it came to be that way. I have no evidence, just an opinion. So you can accept my opinion as true or simply toss it to the side as suits your fancy. Consider the following:
Snooker, relatively speaking, is a rather young game, originally invented in the year 1875 by the accepted history. Baseball is older than Snooker. In fact, I prefer to say there is no such thing as a "snooker table". Instead, snooker is a game which can be played on an English Billiard table. English Billiards preceded the invention of snooker by hundreds of years, and in fact is still played to this day though most snooker players know little to nothing about Billiards. (Note: in my context, "Billiards" will always refer to English Billiards unless stated otherwise.) So Billiards was THE GAME, the professional game, for a very long time until Snooker began to gain in popularity through the late 1800's and up into 1920's when the first professional snooker championship was held. From that point forward, Snooker began to overtake Billiards in terms of popularity among both players and especially, among SPECTATORS. If you have never seen any English Billiards before, here is a good video clip to start out with:
There are many ways to score points in Billiards, but back in the day, these "nursery cannons" were the most effective and the most efficient. The professional Billiard players of the time (who then converted into being professional Snooker players) could pretty much do this type of thing all day long without making a mistake. Back then, Billiards was a game of thousands of points being scored over many hours. Another thing about nursery cannons that you probably now know if you watched the YouTube clip above......they are pretty boring to watch. This style of play I refer to as "close quarters". Billiards did not make such a great spectator sport; it would really only be interesting to those who understood it well. Snooker, on the other hand, is far more exciting to just watch balls being potted, and balls traveling over long distances, and seeming to stop just exactly where the striker wants them to stop. Snooker can be exciting (relatively speaking) even if you don't understand perfectly what is really going on.
It isn't important for you to understand much about Billiards at all, just understand this: if your goal within the game is to pot a ball into a pocket (such as the last Black ball on the table), then the most easily attainable "safe" position for your opponent to place the White is.....................just within a fraction of an inch of the object ball. In a close quarters style of play, it is very difficult to do anything at all with the object ball, let alone pot it into a pocket. If White is, say, just a quarter inch away from the final Black, about the only thing the striker can do is skim the edge of the Black and try to get White far away from it. The Black will barely move. And the next striker will simply roll the White gently to just barely contact the Black again. And it goes around and around. It is akin to having just the two Kings left on the chessboard simply chasing each other around one square at a time, but neither is ever going to make any progress.
Therefore, (in my opinion,) Snooker became the more popular sport over time because it is far more exciting for the spectators to watch. So hypothetically, if a frame would come down to the final Black ball before the "first pot or foul ends the frame" rule came into being, with one player being ahead by just a few points (as in my anecdote above), the glaringly obvious strategy for the LOSING player would be to simply never, ever allow the winning player any opportunity to pot and just patiently wait for him to make a mistake, maybe he will miss the Black completely by failing to skim the edge, or put the White in off, or something stupid like that. And the best way to play safe would be to just keep rolling up and nudging Black, over and over and over again. AND......if the losing player was very patient and the winning player made a stupid foul to give seven points, then......exactly the same thing, just with the roles reversed, a new winning and losing player. It would never end. Remember how good these professional players are at the close quarters play. If you don't remember, watch the video again.
Snooker was a game specifically designed with the spectators as the primary focus. The game had to be interesting so as to get people to pony up good money to set their rear end in a seat and watch. This is the concept that has allowed a number of professional snooker players to be millionaires today. If you find a millionaire Billiards player somewhere in the world, chances are, he made his money somewhere else, NOT on the Billiards table. So I expect that very early on in development of the Game of Snooker, prior to the "first pot or foul ends the frame" rule, exactly the scenario I described above probably occurred at least once, maybe more, and the Rule Makers decided, "Nope, can't allow THAT to happen anymore......"
And so, that is the way it has always been.
Last edited: