Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Main Forum
Reload this Page Three fouls and you lose -- at snooker!
Reply
Page 2 of 4 12 34
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old
  (#16)
acesinc1999
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
   
03-02-2016, 04:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphadog View Post
So does the ref have to issue a warning?
I saw a video where I believe opponent warned of loss?
Yes, the ref must issue warning for a loss of frame situation. And yes, it recently occurred that the ref was slow to issue warning (hey, they have a lot to keep an eye on) so the opponent reminded him. But ultimately, the ref must say it. If a third miss with full ball on is played but no warning was given, it is not loss of frame but as soon as the ref gets his head out his butt, he will say, "Be warned the NEXT miss will be loss of frame."
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#17)
acesinc1999
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
   
03-02-2016, 05:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
Fair enough; we definitely have too many rule variations. As for the number of games, I liken a pool table to a deck of cards. There are a lot of different games you can play and each offers interesting game play options.

I'm sure the snooker rules aren't really difficult. Unfortunately, I have only played snooker a handful of times in my life and I'm sure I didn't play correctly. The rules that come up and confuse me usually revolve around whether or not you can see all or any of the ball, when you can nominate a ball, and what to do when the cue ball is frozen to a ball. But the chances of me playing any snooker (especially on a 12' table) are so slim, please don't take the time to explain them.
I like the deck of cards analogy. Of course, there are also a lot of variations on a snooker table as well but they are all subserviant to THE GAME.

If you ever come through Chicago, I will be happy to spoon feed you more snooker than you could possibly care for.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
acesinc1999
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
   
03-02-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdcue View Post
So, you agree, we are more sophisticated... and complex.

Dale(a simple kind of man)
Complex? Pool players I have known do tend to make things complex. Sophisticated? I suppose the same way coffee is more sophisticated than tea, or bagels are more sophisticated than croissants. I prefer to say "different" and leave it at that but you can place levels of sophistication as you wish, that is your affair. If you are a "simple kind of man", you must love the Snooker!
  
Reply With Quote
Three fouls and you lose -- at snooker!
Old
  (#19)
asbani
AzB Silver Member
asbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond reputeasbani has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,472
vCash: 498
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2007
   
Three fouls and you lose -- at snooker! - 03-02-2016, 05:26 PM

It's not an odd rule, it's a perfectly designed rule in snooker and it's been for ages, and don't mistake this as a 3 foul rule because it isn't. It goes like this

If you are snookered and can't see a full red then you can foul/miss as much as you want and you wouldn't lose the game/frame, this must be understood.

Then if you can see a full red ball but you figure a different shot, maybe a kick or thinning another red for better safety and you go for it but miss it twice and fouled, then referee will give you a warning that you can see a full red and if you miss/foul again you will concede the frame.

Now in this situation most players shoot the red that they see full and stay in the frame, but the player in the video figured that if he shoot that red he will lose the frame anyway because Ronnie is a great player so he figured to give it another go with his intentional safety and it didn't work.

The rule is beautifully written.

Last edited by asbani; 03-02-2016 at 05:37 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Bella Don't Cry
AzB Silver Member
Bella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond repute
 
Bella Don't Cry's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 976
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2012
   
03-03-2016, 02:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by asbani View Post
It's not an odd rule, it's a perfectly designed rule in snooker and it's been for ages, and don't mistake this as a 3 foul rule because it isn't. It goes like this

If you are snookered and can't see a full red then you can foul/miss as much as you want and you wouldn't lose the game/frame, this must be understood.

Then if you can see a full red ball but you figure a different shot, maybe a kick or thinning another red for better safety and you go for it but miss it twice and fouled, then referee will give you a warning that you can see a full red and if you miss/foul again you will concede the frame.

Now in this situation most players shoot the red that they see full and stay in the frame, but the player in the video figured that if he shoot that red he will lose the frame anyway because Ronnie is a great player so he figured to give it another go with his intentional safety and it didn't work.

The rule is beautifully written.
Nicely described!
I just couldn't be bothered to do it myself


"Note to aspiring players: Nothing will energize your game more than getting a good ass whooping." JOHN - THE CHICKEN
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
Bella Don't Cry
AzB Silver Member
Bella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond reputeBella Don't Cry has a reputation beyond repute
 
Bella Don't Cry's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 976
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2012
   
03-03-2016, 02:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett View Post
It turns out that snooker also has a 3 foul rule. Here's an example https://youtu.be/w9sYcDFY3pg?t=4m20s

What I don't understand is why he didn't change his aim for the 2nd and 3rd attempts. He should have picked a spot on the wall for the first try and adjusted on subsequent tries.
What amazes me, is that the player still chose to play the same shot the obviously was the wrong shot. In cases like this the player needs to except their fate and just play the red, and see the frame out; win or lose.


"Note to aspiring players: Nothing will energize your game more than getting a good ass whooping." JOHN - THE CHICKEN
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
miha
AzB Silver Member
miha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond reputemiha has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 93
vCash: 25
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
   
03-03-2016, 04:11 AM

This is a standard counter-safety, and you can't play it much different than he tried to. The thing was, he had to lean against the pack close to the pink, if he hits the pack a bit lower, the cueball could glance (again, too difficult to just lean onto the pack dead weight) and leave the red above the black for an easy start.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
pdcue
AzB Silver Member
pdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,493
vCash: 500
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2006
   
03-03-2016, 05:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by acesinc1999 View Post
Complex? Pool players I have known do tend to make things complex. Sophisticated? I suppose the same way coffee is more sophisticated than tea, or bagels are more sophisticated than croissants. I prefer to say "different" and leave it at that but you can place levels of sophistication as you wish, that is your affair. If you are a "simple kind of man", you must love the Snooker!
Was I too subtle? It was a veiled reference to One Pocket...

In point of fact, back when we had a structure, there was one game, with one set of rules - 14.1.
That all fell apart when Brunswick withdrew support. The mishmash that is Tournament
Pool today is due to the lack of sponsorship dollars resulting from the lack of viewer/fan interest.

FWIW - I do happen to love Snooker already, and am aware that there are more games than
Snooker played on a "snooker" table. Perhaps you have heard of English Billiards?

Dale
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
acesinc1999
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
   
03-03-2016, 06:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdcue View Post
Was I too subtle? It was a veiled reference to One Pocket...

In point of fact, back when we had a structure, there was one game, with one set of rules - 14.1.
That all fell apart when Brunswick withdrew support. The mishmash that is Tournament
Pool today is due to the lack of sponsorship dollars resulting from the lack of viewer/fan interest.

FWIW - I do happen to love Snooker already, and am aware that there are more games than
Snooker played on a "snooker" table. Perhaps you have heard of English Billiards?

Dale
You were far too subtle for a simple man such as I. I freely admit my ignorance of nearly all things Pool. 14.1 is the only pool game that really makes any sense to me; I figure that it is the pool game most similar to Snooker in a number of ways. (Sorry, I know that American Snooker was a big thing decades ago, but to me, it is a bit too much of a bastardization of The Game so I have to play by the international (read, "proper") rules.

By your quotes, I assume you understand then that there is no such thing as a "snooker" table...English Billiards is the granddaddy of all the pocket games and as such Snooker is played on an English Billiards table, not the other way around. I generally omit that very salient point just for convenience in conversation. English Billiards is a fantastic game to play (especially to improve one's snooker skills), but I personally consider it quite boring to watch. Except for the few videos of Alex Higgins playing English Billiards. I think he could have made One Pocket exciting. (Veiled reference as well....while I just vaguely understand One Pocket, from the "One Pocket is so slow..." thread, I think I can safely assume that similar to English Billiards, it is fantastic to play but not exciting to watch.)

Back to 14.1...the one thing I hate about it (and I mean hate) is the allowance of intentional fouls which is really what this thread is all about. The Three Miss rule for snooker is essentially capital punishment for intentional fouls which is only proper. And lastly, also regarding the (what I consider proper) rule in 14.1, in my ignorant opinion, the best new standard rule that Pool should adopt for itself would be essentially forced safety breaks (like 14.1). Get rid of the open break, get rid of these Magic Rack gimmicks, get rid of silly "six packs", get rid of the "rack your own, or opponent racks" and the pattern racking controversies. I think it's comical the way the breaker inspects the rack like it is the prize heifer at the county fair. Safety break and alternate. Simple. Like Snooker.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
krupa
The Dream Operator
krupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond repute
 
krupa's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,793
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jun 2011
   
03-03-2016, 08:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by acesinc1999 View Post
Back to 14.1...the one thing I hate about it (and I mean hate) is the allowance of intentional fouls which is really what this thread is all about. The Three Miss rule for snooker is essentially capital punishment for intentional fouls which is only proper.
What's wrong with intentional fouls in 14.1? You can't stalemate because if you have three consecutive fouls (intentional or otherwise), you lose 15 points (in addition to the three for each foul, so 18 total) and have to re-rack the balls.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Black-Balled View Post
Sometimes running out is like drunk driving, sometimes it is like making toast.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#26)
acesinc1999
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
   
03-03-2016, 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by krupa View Post
What's wrong with intentional fouls in 14.1? You can't stalemate because if you have three consecutive fouls (intentional or otherwise), you lose 15 points (in addition to the three for each foul, so 18 total) and have to re-rack the balls.
Nothing....if you like that sort of thing. I don't. IMO, rules of any game/sport/pastime are to encourage/promote fairplay and sportsmanship. To knowingly and purposely breach a rule simply runs contrary to that concept. Foul - you did something wrong/against the rules. Intentional - you did it on purpose. Intentional Foul - you did something you knew was wrong but you did it anyway with malice to the rule. Why bother with rules at all? How about Ultimate Pool. Or maybe Cage Match Pool To The Extreme? Between shots, the players can just use their cues as clubs to beat each over the head like a Flintstones boxing match. The possibilities are endless. Rules? We don't need no stinking rules...

Edit: It's funny if you think about it...in pool, you have to have special rules to deal with people who repeatedly break the rules just because they feel like it. Snooker has one giant, all encompassing rule for that. Unsportsmanlike conduct is dealt with simply at the discretion of the all powerful referee-lose the frame, lose the match, out of the tournament. As with the Three Miss rule, each of these sentences can only be carried out with prior warning from the ref so it really is the player that determines his own fate, not the referee.

Last edited by acesinc1999; 03-03-2016 at 10:47 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#27)
krupa
The Dream Operator
krupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond reputekrupa has a reputation beyond repute
 
krupa's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,793
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jun 2011
   
03-03-2016, 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by acesinc1999 View Post
Nothing....if you like that sort of thing. I don't. IMO, rules of any game/sport/pastime are to encourage/promote fairplay and sportsmanship. To knowingly and purposely breach a rule simply runs contrary to that concept. Foul - you did something wrong/against the rules. Intentional - you did it on purpose. Intentional Foul - you did something you knew was wrong but you did it anyway with malice to the rule. Why bother with rules at all? How about Ultimate Pool. Or maybe Cage Match Pool To The Extreme? Between shots, the players can just use their cues as clubs to beat each over the head like a Flintstones boxing match. The possibilities are endless. Rules? We don't need no stinking rules...

Edit: It's funny if you think about it...in pool, you have to have special rules to deal with people who repeatedly break the rules just because they feel like it. Snooker has one giant, all encompassing rule for that. Unsportsmanlike conduct is dealt with simply at the discretion of the all powerful referee-lose the frame, lose the match, out of the tournament. As with the Three Miss rule, each of these sentences can only be carried out with prior warning from the ref so it really is the player that determines his own fate, not the referee.
I think your opinion is based on the assumption that intentionally fouling is breaking the rules just for shits and grins when in reality there can be interesting strategy in taking an intentional foul. Other people are better at explaining that part of the game.

Your argument also implies that there is no penalty for committing a foul. First, the player is punished for it. Second, they are extremely punished for it if they repeat it. Third, I would argue that the snooker guy in the original post is just as guilty of intentionally fouling as any straight pool player. Even worse: he had a full hit on a red but chose something different. And, of course, he was supremely punished for it.

Because of the game (hit any ball into any pocket) and the size of the table, safety play in straight pool is delicate to say the least. With a few notable exceptions, it's impossible to say whether a foul was intentional or not.

I would also argue that a foul in any pool game should not be categorized as "breaking the rules." By that logic, even scratching is "breaking the rules." It violates the definition of a legal shot but it's not in the same category of, to use your example, beating each other over the head with their cue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Black-Balled View Post
Sometimes running out is like drunk driving, sometimes it is like making toast.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#28)
Bob Jewett
Northern California

Bob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond reputeBob Jewett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 16,589
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
   
03-03-2016, 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by acesinc1999 View Post
Nothing....if you like that sort of thing. I don't. IMO, rules of any game/sport/pastime are to encourage/promote fairplay and sportsmanship. To knowingly and purposely breach a rule simply runs contrary to that concept. Foul - you did something wrong/against the rules. Intentional - you did it on purpose. Intentional Foul - you did something you knew was wrong but you did it anyway with malice to the rule. Why bother with rules at all? ...
But the whole premise of the "foul and a miss" rule in snooker is that the player did not, to the best of his ability, try to hit a ball on. The rule starts:
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. ...
You routinely see snooker players willfully violating this rule. They intentionally foul. And even when they hit the ball on from a snooker, they rarely make their best effort to hit it. They usually consider first and foremost the chance they will give a bad leave.

The rule is written badly.


Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#29)
alphadog
AzB Silver Member
alphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond reputealphadog has a reputation beyond repute
 
alphadog's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,522
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2007
   
Post 03-03-2016, 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett View Post
But the whole premise of the "foul and a miss" rule in snooker is that the player did not, to the best of his ability, try to hit a ball on. The rule starts:
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. ...
You routinely see snooker players willfully violating this rule. They intentionally foul. And even when they hit the ball on from a snooker, they rarely make their best effort to hit it. They usually consider first and foremost the chance they will give a bad leave.

The rule is written badly.
I believe the rule is well written. To the best of one's abillity, does not mean make a sincere effort to pocket a ball.


A bull without horns is still dangerous.

Law of logical arguement-Anything is possible when you dont know what you are talking about.

  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#30)
acesinc1999
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
   
03-03-2016, 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett View Post
But the whole premise of the "foul and a miss" rule in snooker is that the player did not, to the best of his ability, try to hit a ball on. The rule starts:
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. ...
You routinely see snooker players willfully violating this rule. They intentionally foul. And even when they hit the ball on from a snooker, they rarely make their best effort to hit it. They usually consider first and foremost the chance they will give a bad leave.

The rule is written badly.
BINGO! Except for the last line, you hit the nail on the head. Au contraire, the rule is well written. People believe this is a new rule but in fact, it is not. The ref has always had the power to declare a miss if he thought the player did not make best effort. For instance, on opening breakoff, if the striker smashes into the pink to spread the reds far and wide, the ref could ALWAYS say no effort was made to hit red. Foul and table could be reset. And if the striker does it again, the ref could ALWAYS warn him that if he did it again, it would be Unsportsmanlike Conduct and loss of frame. Now (since 1994), the way the rule is written, it takes the power of discretion away from the ref and says the player will lose frame for three consecutive full ball misses. The underlying cause is still unsportsmanlike conduct (or in the British, "ungentemanly conduct") except since it is not at the ref's discretion anymore, we can't call it unsportsmanlike conduct. But that is what it is.

And that is why I say the Three Miss rule is the capital punishment of this type of conduct. In Krupa's hypothetical, Player A commits an intentional foul, Player B commits an intentjonal foul to try to roll back Player A to the same position that he didn't like in the first place. Etc., until someone blinks, usually Player A. What is the point? The Foul and a Miss is the same thing but to perfection. It's as if Player B rolled every ball back to the same place they had been previously for Player A to try it again. And three full ball misses? No more benefit of doubt, he is clearly not endeavoring to the best of his ability, therefore, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, therefore, loss of frame.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 4 12 34

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.