How to rid foul & miss & speed up snooker

[Colin Colenso]

One option that has been raised in the past is Ball In Hand for any foul. However, this would too often hand the game to the opponent at the top level. It would also increase snookering, due to the high rewards of fouls.

I believe there is a better solution, that would get rid of all this replacing balls nonsense and 7 attempts to play safe out of a snooker.

This rule has a long history in the original 9 ball format. It's called 2 foul push out. It means a player gets ball in hand only if two fouls are committed consecutively, so what it allows, is for a player to push out if they are snookered (one foul), or whenever they are in a position they do not like.

After this pushout (foul), the opponent has the option to send that player back in, or take the shot himself (as is one of the current rules after fouls). It means games will not be decided by snookering, but by shot making. Players will push out to shots that they think they are better at than their opponents. The influence of safety play becomes far less in this format, so players will take on shots that they currently refuse.

If they think a pot is going to be easier than where the opponent is likely to push out to, they'll take on the shot, rather than play a safety.

It also encourages kissing out balls which can lead to self snookering. The punishment for unluckily snookering oneself is hence diminished.

Safeties would still be used. An example would be pushing a red over a pocket and snookering, such that it will be hard for the opponent to push out without leaving the red on. There's a chance his push out would snooker himself or leave himself a very hard shot.

Note, ball in hand is awarded after 2 consecutive fouls by any player. Hence, if I push out and my opponent chooses the take the shot and he fouls, then I'd get ball in hand. This will happen rarely with players once they work out the strategy.

Also, pushing out won't happen nearly as much as you might imagine as it usually puts the pusher at a disadvantage. When it does occur, it will be in order to take the game from a defensive to an offensive situation. So we go from a game that looks like it will have a dragged out defensive battle, to one where a player is shooting a challenging 50/50 chance shot.

Against weaker players, a good player can push out to shots that the opponent is weak at playing, for example, a shot that requires significant potting accuracy and draw for position.

It helps a lot if you actually try these rules to see how it influences game play. It is a simple rule that would get rid of all the mucky rules related to fouls that occur in snooker.

This kind of game would bring in a new breed of super potters, who wouldn't have to endure years of safety and snookering practice to be competitive with the best in the game.

Would appreciate thoughts, suggestions and questions.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Snooker has a long-standing tradition that a player must not benefit from his own foul. Your proposal would have to overcome that tradition.

I like the rule but I've played by it. When I was learning nine ball most players just tried to hit the lowest numbered ball. The rule was called "shoot to hit" or "honest attempt" or some such. The better players had figured out the pitfalls in trusting an opponent to really try to hit an awkward ball, so they played "two shot roll-out" as you have described above. There were some minor variations, such as all illegally pocketed ball stayed down (usually they were spotted).

 

[Colin Colenso]

Under the old nine ball rules, if you take the shot your opponent has pushed to and you happen to go in-off, your opponent gets ball in hand since you committed the second consecutive foul stroke. Is that what you intended?

Yes, I think that version of 2 foul works best. The version where same player has to make 2 consecutive fouls (which I understand was played by some, but not popular among better players) brings us pretty much back to the same problem, whereby after the push out, the incoming player can play a snooker, putting the first pusher at a huge disadvantage.

 

[Colin Colenso]

There is always the option that all scratches are taken in the D, even if they were the 2nd foul.

I'd also suggest that all fouls receive the traditional point penalty... if only to avoid changing the tradition too much. That's further disincentive to pushing out, which would prevent weaker players from overusing the option under the misunderstanding that it offers them some strategic advantage.

Basically, the essence of the rule change would be that 'have to attempt to hit the ball' is removed and 2nd consecutive foul awards BIH. Pushouts are just a result of the strategic methods players will come up with due to the low penalty given for a foul shot.

 

[acesinc1999]

Would appreciate thoughts, suggestions and questions.

How fast would you like this game to be? There are frames that a player runs a century after the opening breakoff and the opponent concedes in less than five minutes of play. Then again, a long safety bout can run well over an hour. I never took physical statistics but I would estimate 15 to 20 minutes is average. If correct, that is at a clip of potting a ball once every 30 seconds or so....a fairly brisk pace I would say.

I always felt funny about the ball in hand in the six red tournament. And "Power Snooker" is just silly. Even the great Joe Davis tried to tinker with tradition too much by introducing "Snooker Plus". (Thankfully, it never caught on either.) All these things are just too gimmicky.

There is a glaring contradiction in what you are proposing. While you obviously do not like the "foul and a miss" rule, it was implemented for a very good reason. There has been a long standing traditional rule which had formerly been left to gentlemanly etiquette. This quoted version of a portion of the Rules of Snooker is from a book on billiards going all the way back to 1896:

"If the striker is by law obliged to play on a red ball or on a coloured ball, but from the position of his own ball is unable to do so directly, he is said to be snookered; he must then make a bona-fide shot at the proper ball off the cushion, the penalty if he misses being the minimum penalty....."

A rule from 1896 (or perhaps even further back) I think carries some weight of tradition. As stated, this rule relied on gentlemanly etiquette, but of course, everyone knew without it being said that there were times when a snookered player was better off to NOT make contact with the object ball for whatever reason. When a player decided to play such a "professional miss", he would completely miss the object ball by three inches or more and you could practically see him staring up into the rafters and whistling trying to pretend that nothing was afoot. It could almost be comical. So the "foul and a miss" rule was implemented to actually enforce the longstanding rule. No longer was "gentlemanly etiquette" required; now the situation was left to "referee discretion". As written now, the rule states:

"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS..."

By suggesting push out shots and such, I feel that is throwing cold water on what I consider to be one of the unique characteristics of snooker and attempting to relegate it to being just another version of a pool game. (FYI, I have exactly the same argument for those who would suggest that snooker needs to implement the "ball to the rail" rule for all shots thereby eliminating the roll up safety.) The fact that a frame might take anywhere from five minutes to an hour and half is just another one of the charms of snooker in my opinion.

Now, with all that said, I agree that some of the slow players are ridiculous. I don't care how deep a player's thought may go, there is no reason to be sitting around for five minutes waiting for a decision out of him. I am not against incorporating a shot clock, but something along the lines of one minute, and be done with it. What game has more stringent rules than chess? And they managed to incorporate the clock with success.

 

[pt109]

American snooker rules is the best set of rules I've ever played with.

The reason for the 'miss' rule doesn't even exist then.

I've never played with a more honest set.

 

[Colin Colenso]

American snooker rules is the best set of rules I've ever played with.

The reason for the 'miss' rule doesn't even exist then.

I've never played with a more honest set.

What are those rules?

 

[pt109]

What are those rules?

You are the first one to ask...I've mentioned it once in a while since 2009.
:clapping:

In brief....with normal rules and conduct understood.

You must hit a rail after contact....just like pool.
Shoot again is in effect after any foul.
You lose 7 points on ANY foul.
You do not have to attempt to hit any ball on.....
....but you lose 7 points and 'shoot again' puts you in peril.

It becomes a more aggressive game because a snooker doesn't get you
enough....instead of rolling up, the 'D' colors tend to potted in the side
to continue a break.

The main reason I like them is what created the 'miss' rule......
....players being dishonest in snooker attempts.

..oh, and no free ball....shoot again option is good enough.

thanx for asking

regards
pt

 

[Colin Colenso]

How fast would you like this game to be? There are frames that a player runs a century after the opening breakoff and the opponent concedes in less than five minutes of play. Then again, a long safety bout can run well over an hour. I never took physical statistics but I would estimate 15 to 20 minutes is average. If correct, that is at a clip of potting a ball once every 30 seconds or so....a fairly brisk pace I would say.

I always felt funny about the ball in hand in the six red tournament. And "Power Snooker" is just silly. Even the great Joe Davis tried to tinker with tradition too much by introducing "Snooker Plus". (Thankfully, it never caught on either.) All these things are just too gimmicky.

There is a glaring contradiction in what you are proposing. While you obviously do not like the "foul and a miss" rule, it was implemented for a very good reason. There has been a long standing traditional rule which had formerly been left to gentlemanly etiquette. This quoted version of a portion of the Rules of Snooker is from a book on billiards going all the way back to 1896:

"If the striker is by law obliged to play on a red ball or on a coloured ball, but from the position of his own ball is unable to do so directly, he is said to be snookered; he must then make a bona-fide shot at the proper ball off the cushion, the penalty if he misses being the minimum penalty....."

A rule from 1896 (or perhaps even further back) I think carries some weight of tradition. As stated, this rule relied on gentlemanly etiquette, but of course, everyone knew without it being said that there were times when a snookered player was better off to NOT make contact with the object ball for whatever reason. When a player decided to play such a "professional miss", he would completely miss the object ball by three inches or more and you could practically see him staring up into the rafters and whistling trying to pretend that nothing was afoot. It could almost be comical. So the "foul and a miss" rule was implemented to actually enforce the longstanding rule. No longer was "gentlemanly etiquette" required; now the situation was left to "referee discretion". As written now, the rule states:

"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS..."

By suggesting push out shots and such, I feel that is throwing cold water on what I consider to be one of the unique characteristics of snooker and attempting to relegate it to being just another version of a pool game. (FYI, I have exactly the same argument for those who would suggest that snooker needs to implement the "ball to the rail" rule for all shots thereby eliminating the roll up safety.) The fact that a frame might take anywhere from five minutes to an hour and half is just another one of the charms of snooker in my opinion.

Now, with all that said, I agree that some of the slow players are ridiculous. I don't care how deep a player's thought may go, there is no reason to sitting around for five minutes waiting for a decision out of him. I am not against incorporating a shot clock, but something along the lines of one minute, and be done with it. What game has more stringent rules than chess? And they managed to incorporate the clock with success.

I'm not trying to rush the game, I think 15-20 mins is fine.

I understand the history of the foul & a miss, and that it was inevitable that a strange solution needed to be devised to deal with this rule of having to attempt a legal shot. But the enforcement is a blight on the game imho.

Firstly, it's very subjective, which leads to many arguments. Secondly, it is impractical, especially when a poor ref has to try to put all the balls back in the exact same place. Thirdly, it often leads to large chunks of time being added to matches. Fourthly, it encourages the playing of snookers by making them potentially worth 12, 16 etc points in addition to potentially being set up for a big break.

If you try the rules I'm advocating, you'll soon see that safety will still be played, but the emphasis won't be on snookering as much and that players will attempt more and harder pots than they currently do.

Most snookers are gained by luck in the same way kicks are. By making kick shots almost obsolete, and making snookers far less powerful, the game is freed up for a aggressive style where the game will turn almost always on a great pot or a missed pot, rather than on a great or lucky safety.

With good players playing this rule, I think you'd rarely see more than a couple of push outs a game, those being almost exclusively when someone is left snookered.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You are the first one to ask...I've mentioned it once in a while since 2009.
:clapping:

In brief....with normal rules and conduct understood.

You must hit a rail after contact....just like pool.
Shoot again is in effect after any foul.
You lose 7 points on ANY foul.
You do not have to attempt to hit any ball on.....
....but you lose 7 points and 'shoot again' puts you in peril.

It becomes a more aggressive game because a snooker doesn't get you
enough....instead of rolling up, the 'D' colors tend to potted in the side
to continue a break.

The main reason I like them is what created the 'miss' rule......
....players being dishonest in snooker attempts.

..oh, and no free ball....shoot again option is good enough.

thanx for asking

regards
pt

yw, thanks for the explanation! It sounds similar to what I'm suggesting.

So what happens if the player who comes in after the foul plays a foul? Same penalty of 7 points and incoming player has choice of shot? This could lead to a series of avoidance shots something like a stalemate. Does that ever happen? If so, what do they do about it?

 

[acesinc1999]

Well, I suppose then that it depends on if you are talking about the PROFESSIONAL game, or a game between "regular Joe's" (or "regular Bruce's" for my Australian friends). I think the Foul and a Miss Rule is proper for professional play, but it is a bad idea for club play. Here is a reference as to why it is a bad idea for friendly play written by a professional referee:

http://www.rulesofsnooker.com/understanding-the-miss.html

Besides what he has to say on the subject, I think it's a bad idea for friendly play because virtually no one actually understands the rule with any clarity. For proof, you just demonstrated so yourself by making this statement:

Secondly, it is impractical, especially when a poor ref has to try to put all the balls back in the exact same place.

That is not correct. According to the actual rule, the referee is only required to replace those balls which were integral to the shot at hand. Other miscellaneous small ball movements which really had no bearing on the shot may be left as is, or they may be reasonably (NOT necessarily exactly) replaced approximately where they were before the shot. He may wish to take the time to replace them all exactly if he thinks it's important, but the rule allows him to use his discretion on that.

You are suggesting a change that you think should not be too disruptive because the situation would only occur, "rarely ...more than a couple of push outs a game" in order to correct a perceived problem which actually only causes any significant time delay maybe once every ten frames or so if even that. Again, I am talking about the professional game here. For your own game, I agree; play by whatever rules you are comfortable with; I encourage diversity that way having even come up with a few of my own variations of the game. In fact, that is really what that reference web page is about--alternative rules to cope with what would otherwise be called as a Foul and a Miss. Your suggestion as to how the situation should be handled can essentially be tacked onto his list

My primary point is that as far as the professional game is concerned, I think the Foul and a Miss Rule is correct.

 

[pt109]

yw, thanks for the explanation! It sounds similar to what I'm suggesting.

So what happens if the player who comes in after the foul plays a foul? Same penalty of 7 points and incoming player has choice of shot? This could lead to a series of avoidance shots something like a stalemate. Does that ever happen? If so, what do they do about it?

I've never seen a stalemate...if one fouls and loses 7, the shoot again
rule is good....if the other player plays a great safe instead of saying shoot again,
he gets the 7 point advantage.
If either side loses the cue-ball on his foul shot, he gets crunched by
'shoot it'.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Well, I suppose then that it depends on if you are talking about the PROFESSIONAL game, or a game between "regular Joe's" (or "regular Bruce's" for my Australian friends). I think the Foul and a Miss Rule is proper for professional play, but it is a bad idea for club play. Here is a reference as to why it is a bad idea for friendly play written by a professional referee:

http://www.rulesofsnooker.com/understanding-the-miss.html

Besides what he has to say on the subject, I think it's a bad idea for friendly play because virtually no one actually understands the rule with any clarity. For proof, you just demonstrated so yourself by making this statement:




That is not correct. According to the actual rule, the referee is only required to replace those balls which were integral to the shot at hand. Other miscellaneous small ball movements which really had no bearing on the shot may be left as is, or they may be reasonably (NOT necessarily exactly) replaced approximately where they were before the shot. He may wish to take the time to replace them all exactly if he thinks it's important, but the rule allows him to use his discretion on that.

You are suggesting a change that you think should not be too disruptive because the situation would only occur, "rarely ...more than a couple of push outs a game" in order to correct a perceived problem which actually only causes any significant time delay maybe once every ten frames or so if even that. Again, I am talking about the professional game here. For your own game, I agree; play by whatever rules you are comfortable with; I encourage diversity that way having even come up with a few of my own variations of the game. In fact, that is really what that reference web page is about--alternative rules to cope with what would otherwise be called as a Foul and a Miss. Your suggestion as to how the situation should be handled can essentially be tacked onto his list

My primary point is that as far as the professional game is concerned, I think the Foul and a Miss Rule is correct.

Thanks for the link, I'm pleased to see that they admit that the rule is problematic when there is no referee, but I'd go further, saying it is very damaging to all non-pro league comps even when there is a referee. I see arguments every week almost in our local league. I refuse to play in it now, partly because umpiring is so tedious and puts one in difficult situation.

I was aware that refs had some waver in terms of replacing balls, but again, it's a wishy washy solution, as is determining what a foul and a miss is. The rules sound like a legal document. I can understand that the pros can find a workable solution, but in my opinion, a clear and simple rule would be much better.

I guess it's a matter of opinion and preference. Some people probably enjoy when a player makes 5 attempts off 3 rails to get out of a snooker.

One irony is that many of the hardest snookers are laid after the player gets out of position on the baulk colors, then he gets rewarded for playing a dribble up shot that a 3 year old could play. It evens up the game between the shooters and the hiders.

btw: I do like that the US rules make hitting a rail necessary. That alone would kill off most of those dribble up shots.

 

[Scaramouche]

Rule change will not come about from discussions in the snooker forum of an American pool site.

Suggest proposed changes be vetted on the UK snooker forum site.

http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/board/

 

[Pathetic Shark]

umpiring

Umpiring? Aussies gotta gloat lol.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

My primary point is that as far as the professional game is concerned, I think the Foul and a Miss Rule is correct.

On balance, so do I. I'm amazed FAAM is played at amateur level.

I am generally against BIH and certainly against push outs, which would disadvantage the trap setter considerably, and provide no incentive for the snookered player to even bother trying to hit the balls.

There's no perfect solution to this and FAAM is as good as any. Maybe having to hit a cushion where there is no intention to pot is an idea, but that will be as flawed as anything else.

The best solution is to keep what we have but have refs who are capable and brave enough to do the right thing. Paul Collier called the UK semis match perfectly when refusing to call a miss on selby's 'mission impossible' snooker. Snooker prides itself on its sportsmanship and integrity, and I think the players themselves should show some minerals and give their opponents the benefit of the doubt if the snookers are particularly tough to hit. Obviously, no perfect solution here either.

As for replacing the balls slowing down the game, I like a bit of cabaret. It's a tension breaker and quite entertaining in its own right, although why they've not a got a pixelated screen up, capable of plotting exact positions of all the balls, is beyond me.

 

[Philthepockets]

You are the first one to ask...I've mentioned it once in a while since 2009.
:clapping:

In brief....with normal rules and conduct understood.

You must hit a rail after contact....just like pool.
Shoot again is in effect after any foul.
You lose 7 points on ANY foul.
You do not have to attempt to hit any ball on.....
....but you lose 7 points and 'shoot again' puts you in peril.

It becomes a more aggressive game because a snooker doesn't get you
enough....instead of rolling up, the 'D' colors tend to potted in the side
to continue a break.

The main reason I like them is what created the 'miss' rule......
....players being dishonest in snooker attempts.

..oh, and no free ball....shoot again option is good enough.

thanx for asking

regards
pt

I don't believe this would work at pro level.
Points foul is generally meaningless 4 or 7 it's what you leave that matters.
Not having to hit a ball can still allow you to gain an advantage
I think this subject is more akin to banning Unicorn hunting.

 

[Underclocked]

http://www.brunswickbilliards.com/helpful_information/the_sport/american_snooker_rules.html

These are the rules for American Snooker - I have yet to play anywhere that totally complied.

ps: the frozen ball rule is insane.

 

[acesinc1999]

I think this subject is more akin to banning Unicorn hunting.

:smile:This man has a way with words.

These are the rules for American Snooker - I have yet to play anywhere that totally complied.

ps: the frozen ball rule is insane.

I have read through these rules three times now and I cannot find anything regarding frozen (touching) ball. Are these rules complete? As for Rule # 11)

"If a player fouls and the incoming player is blocked from seeing any part of a ball on, the player may remove the impeding ball (mark the spot) and shoot the ball on. The player cannot score by pocketing this ball on that had been blocked, and the next player returns to the table when the stroke is completed."

Whaaaaat? Has anybody anywhere in history ever complied with this rule? Maybe I am reading it wrong. Even the literary style of these rules is confusing--sometimes, it's "on ball", sometimes, it's "ball on" seeming to mean the same thing. I've never seen the American Snooker rules written down before....I always just assumed they were passed on verbally which is why there would be so much local variation. pt did a much better job explaining than these (apparently) BCA written rules do.

 

[Renegade_56]

I'm with Bob Jewett on this one. Snooker is the most traditionally intact game there is so lets not screw with it like happened to one pocket and 14.1 to the point it cannot even get honorable mention on TV anymore.