Does anyone other than myself find it mildly irritating when commentators fabricate excuses for players when they miss? Oh it was a kick, a bug on the table broke his concentration, and so forth. These guys are human beings and they miss pots that one would not think they would miss occasionally. The "kick" is the one used most often, and even after the replay shows no sign of a kick, they, the commentators, still insist this was the reason for the miss. Why can't they just say "oh my he missed an easy one there, that will leave a mark"? I guess they are just trying to build drama into something for the entertainment value, which personally, I don't find entertaining. Yeah, I know, I have the option of turning down the volume which if it just gets too silly, I do just that.
Kicks
- Thread starter onepocketron
- Start date
The only times I have encountered kicks is when the cloth is new.
As the cloth receives more play, the problem disappears.
These guys are always playing on new cloth, at least new by the standards of thee and me.
I attribute the kicks to the slickness of the cloth: spin on the cue ball isn't lost as quickly and transfers to the object ball which also has reduced resistance to changing its state.
Balls will pocket more easily on new cloth.
I am sure that many dissenting, wrong opinions will follow, and there will be much blood on the floor.
Right, Mr. Jewett?
As the cloth receives more play, the problem disappears.
These guys are always playing on new cloth, at least new by the standards of thee and me.
I attribute the kicks to the slickness of the cloth: spin on the cue ball isn't lost as quickly and transfers to the object ball which also has reduced resistance to changing its state.
Balls will pocket more easily on new cloth.
I am sure that many dissenting, wrong opinions will follow, and there will be much blood on the floor.
Right, Mr. Jewett?
Last edited:
The only times I have encountered kicks is when the cloth is new.
As the cloth receives more play, the problem disappears.
These guys are always playing on new cloth, at least new by the standards of thee and me.
I attribute the kicks to the slickness of the cloth: spin on the cue ball isn't lost as quickly and transfers to the object ball which also has reduced resistance to changing its state.
Balls will pocket more easily on new cloth.
I am sure that many dissenting, wrong opinions will follow, and there will be much blood on the floor.
Right, Mr. Jewett?
I very much agree with your assessment Scaramouche, especially the specific terminology that I have highlighted. My cloth is about two years old and the set of balls about five. I rarely get a kick, maybe once in 6 to 8 hours of play and, in agreement with your theory, it is most prone after cleaning the balls well (highest surface friction) and ironing the cloth (and I do this with a light spray of silicone, so the lowest surface friction). As a semi-private club, general usage is light maybe 20 hours a week, and maintenance is usually every week or two. I have noticed kicks seem to occur more often in the dry winter air, maybe giving some credence to the "static electricity" theory, but I think this is more related to the dry air making surface friction between balls at its absolute highest, I assume to your agreement. My last point which many players don't seem to realize is that, statistically, kicks will occur far most often on shots with the cue ball struck above centerline (follow or stun run through) and most especially on low power shots where the cue ball has more time to "climb" up the OB (while the OB initially spins in place like you suggest) than with high power shots. Think of this like a "rumble strip" on the highway....at high speed, your tires just buzz right over with little effect but some noise; at low speed, you really feel the car's suspension jumping up and down (just like the cue ball jumping up and down on the cloth fibers). A top spin shot adds to this effect because it tends to initially impart some "bounce" into the cue ball anyway like a jump or masse. Kicks also tend to occur on short to medium-short shots, not on a longish shot where the initial "bounce" will settle before contact. Also, they will occur most often on fullish shots, three quarter ball or more because fullish shot will want to climb up the equator while a bouncing cue ball on a half ball or thinner cut will strike the OB at essentially the same angle anyway and not be able to "climb up" the OB.
Scaramouche, your same logic is also part of the reason why a professional can draw back eight feet on a ten foot shot. Besides their robotic form, the high ball surface friction and the low cloth friction helps out a lot. They could not perform such a shot as well on a club table, even with perfect form.
As for the OP's point, I would say I generally agree with the commentator's assessment when a kick occurs. You can often tell a kick by the sound of the contact....this may seem ridiculous, but to my ear, a kick sounds like a "THUNK!" while a good, normal contact sounds like a "THWACK!" I believe the different sound is due to the cue ball NOT being in contact with the bed of the table (bouncing up in the air a little) when the contact is made, accounting for the odd sound and also the odd angle. Onepocketron, if you find a commentator suggesting a kick on a ten foot, thin cut, played at high speed with draw, then I would agree, he must be grasping at straws and making excuses. Other than that, at the professional level, it probably really was a kick.
I do agree with you that I have played against (amateur) players who, by their own observation, would appear to get a "kick" just about every other inning at the table. I think this is more in line with your point. As for missing simple straightforward shots due simply to a "bad shot", I would say that with today's "robotic" players with their advanced textbook coaching, this really does not occur too often, maybe only in the high pressure circumstances where the nerves set in. Snooker players call it "losing your bottle". Professionally, a break will end far, far, far, far more often by misinterpreting positional play to leave oneself a hard shot rather than "losing bottle" on an easy shot.
Onepocketron, for your same reasoning, I actually prefer to watch the really old videos from the 70's and 80's.....the days of swilling beer and smoking cigs while playing professional snooker. The skill level was not nearly so high then and you often see missed shots that you think, "Jeez, even I would have made that three out of four!" and it has nothing to do with kicks. I find that at my level, I learn a lot more about the game from the old time players than I can from the modern guys simply because I don't have 60 hours a week to devote to the game like they do. I certainly admire the skill of the modern players, but I know that I will never get anywhere close to there, so the old time players seem to play the game at a more "reachable" plateau, and watching is more suspenseful when either player may well miss a relatively easy shot.
Sorry for the long post, but the tumbleweeds have been rolling through here lately so I had to jump at the chance.
On the other hand, the players do occasionally get very remarkable kicks and these do not always involve the object ball or cue ball jumping into the air.
I think that the cloth is not nearly as important as the surface of the cue ball and the type of chalk being use. It would be interesting to force the top snooker players to use Kamui release 0.1 chalk (or whatever it was called), which leaves nice, colorful patches all over the white.
The nature of the cloth is immaterial at the instant of impact; it can only affect the outcome prior to the impact. This is due to the nearly instantaneous contact time and the inability of the cloth to muster any significant force during that time.
I think that the cloth is not nearly as important as the surface of the cue ball and the type of chalk being use. It would be interesting to force the top snooker players to use Kamui release 0.1 chalk (or whatever it was called), which leaves nice, colorful patches all over the white.
The nature of the cloth is immaterial at the instant of impact; it can only affect the outcome prior to the impact. This is due to the nearly instantaneous contact time and the inability of the cloth to muster any significant force during that time.
Last edited:
I imagine that as a California guy, you don't have much experience with your car tire sitting on a patch of ice in the winter. I believe one of Newton's Laws of Motion states something like "an object at rest tends to stay at rest..." and I think that despite modern revisions, Newton's opinions are still pretty valid. Specific coefficients of friction are a very tough thing to measure on an instantaneous time scale but using one's imagination, if a spinning cue ball's surface has a slightly higher coefficient of friction with an object ball surface than that of the stationary object ball's surface coefficient of friction with the cloth, then the "cog wheel effect" of the two balls can, with imagination, cause the object ball to "skid" in an unusual way before eventually gripping the slippery cloth and beginning to move in a straight line. This is how I interpreted Scaramouche's statement and I agree with it.
I believe this is true even if the ball surfaces are pristine although adding a high friction element such as a chalk spot to the mix will certainly magnify the effect.
TheThaiger
Banned
Pixie dust.
Actually, it's the balls. Old, chipped, chalk covered club balls, no kicks. New, shiney, spotless super aramith pros, kicks galore. The leather from the pockets leaves marks on SAP balls, which causes kicks. Mine become unplayable after an hour or two.
Just my experience.
Actually, it's the balls. Old, chipped, chalk covered club balls, no kicks. New, shiney, spotless super aramith pros, kicks galore. The leather from the pockets leaves marks on SAP balls, which causes kicks. Mine become unplayable after an hour or two.
Just my experience.
Do you find that the Aramith cleaner fixes things?
I imagine I had experience sliding on ice long before you did. I have not always lived in California.
I think you need to look at the forces involved during the collision since it will be only those forces that determine the initial direction of the object ball. I think that if you do that you will very quickly come to the conclusion that the ball-cloth force at the base of either ball is a tiny, tiny fraction of the ball-ball force.
Object accelerate (begin to move) because of forces. Unless you can come up with some other force in the correct direction to cause a kick, we will have only ball-ball forces during the collision.
I wait with bait on my breath.
Stop eating the bait. :grin: I think any sort of foreign particle or substance on the cloth or the ball can induce a kick reaction.
Well, except that it has to be between the balls at the moment of contact.
I agree that the frictional force at the base of the object ball is tiny, but I would submit, NOT insignificant. I have no scientific evidence to back this up but a wealth of empirical evidence. Specifically, when I first set up my table in my basement with completely fresh surfaces all around, there was hardly another hand that re-spotted colors, especially as this geographical area is a snooker desert and a playing partner with sufficient interest is difficult at best to find. I had spots marked in the lightest of pen strokes and I carefully and fastidiously placed every ball rolling it gently onto spot. In a short period of maybe a month or two, I could detect the telltale wobble even as colors were still being most carefully spotted. But how could a dimple form under these, the gentlest of conditions? Initially, I thought it must be the sliding action of the color ball as it leaves spot after being struck and has not yet begun a forward roll. Carrying through with that thought however would reveal that a "dimple" would not form in a specific spot, but rather a set of "tracks" would form in a line from spot to the natural target pockets. Surely, visible, detectable lines of wear should be present as the OB must slide for a short period if even only a half or quarter inch before the "roll" portion of its journey begins. Except that the "tracks" are not there. It's a dimple.
The only conclusion I can reach is that the color on its spot MUST be imparted with an initial spin transferred from and opposite to the cue ball upon contact much like the cue tip imparting spin on the cue ball. This spin must exist if even only for the smallest fraction of a revolution BEFORE the power transfer begins forward motion just as the balls of Newton's Cradle seem to stand still in time for just a fraction of an instant upon their contact. And the object ball eventually digs a dimple into the cloth like the tires of a Jeep on a mud track but in super duper slo-mo. From this series of events, I infer that contact of OB and cloth resist motion, forward motion more so than spinning motion; friction between ball surfaces to transfer spin is greater than friction between OB and cloth to resist spin (and I certainly agree, even more so with particular foreign substances involved); and a forward spinning cue ball may have a tendency to "climb" a stationary object ball that is naturally tending to resist motion, especially forward motion.
Now that my table is available to a variety of players in my club, to a man, they all have the same sort of comment..."Someone has really been slamming the balls on the spots. We really need to get everyone trained better when we change the cloth." I don't think there is a one of them who believes the little anecdote I just relayed. I can also say with confidence that nearly all have more problems with kicks than I do.
Knowledge is power.
The conclusion I reach is that the cue ball when striking the object ball sometimes forces it down into the spot it is resting on. This can happen in two ways. On power shots, the cue ball may be slightly off the table when it hits the object ball, as on the typical nine ball break shot. Or, if the cue ball is rolling and it strikes the object ball nearly full, the forward spin of the cue ball will rub on the object ball (coefficient of friction about 0.1) and force the object ball into the cloth.
This simple explanation fits with the facts and is sufficient.
I agree 100 percent, but a "nine ball break shot" NEVER occurs on a snooker table--the nearest similar shot would be a black ball shot to open the pack except the the nine ball break will be struck with top spin (I think....I am not a pool player, so I don't state this as fact), while the black ball shot is most often struck with draw and the black does not have the support of stacked balls behind it to resist its movement like the one ball on the foot spot does. And I can say CONCLUSIVELY that the dimpling will occur on every single color spot, even baulk colors where high power strokes are rarely played, but of course some variety of spin shot is played regularly. Secondly, you stated "Or, where the cue ball is rolling..." seeming to discount any other spin except natural roll. I rarely play natural roll shots much preferring draw, stun, and stun run through as they are much more predictable and I am even starting to fiddle with side spins to coax the OB into the pocket on narrow angle shots (although I am quite certain that I have been imparting unintentional side all along through the decades). The relatively rapid development of the dimples on all of the color spots indicates to me that EVERY type of spin transfers to the OB before it can begin forward motion. Where I believe we disagree is that you seem to be saying that the CB-OB contact results in immediate forward motion of the OB as if it is in a vacuum because the resistive friction of the cloth is too minute to have an effect whereas I (and also Scaramouche, if I interpret his statement correctly) believe that the OB is nestled into the cloth and is resistant to forward motion to a small, but detectable degree allowing for the potential of kicks whether any foreign substance is present or not. Hence, the kick is so unpredictable because any ball can be nestled into the surprisingly, inherently inconsistent snooker cloth surface to an unknowable degree before any particular stroke. It's like Schrodinger's cat...you cannot "know" that you are going to get a kick until after you take the "measurement" by taking the shot. But you can guard against kicks to a certain degree by avoiding the types of shot that have a tendency of creating a kick. But no matter how much you guard against it, sometimes the cat dies, especially when using new, pristine cloth and balls that have not been worn down to act as more consistent, more predictable surfaces.
Of course, proper snooker cloth and pool cloth are as dissimilar as cats and dogs and I rarely find myself on pool equipment at all and can positively state that I have NEVER played on pool equipment that wasn't beat to hell by prior usage so I have zero experience on pristine pool surfaces. On the other hand, I have changed out my snooker cloth several times and I am on my second set of snooker balls so I have verified information in that regard.
Similar to your idea of having the pros try playing using Kamui chalk, I would be interested for the powers that be to experiment with the variable of the cloth. It would be easy enough for someone with the wherewithal to cover a table with high quality pool table cloth, no other changes at all, and have the professionals give their feedback on the frequency and intensity of kicks in that circumstance. I think this would actually provide more reliable results than the Kamui chalk test....in my own experience, the "measles" cue ball is such a visual distraction that I don't think I can play my normal game when using it and I think that an artificial "measles" cue ball covered in chalk spots may cause a professional to subconsciously play differently than his usual game, thus tainting the experiment.
Scaramouche? You can jump back in anytime....I'm sure you are on the sidelines enjoying your blood bath like a Roman spectator in the Coliseum.
Last edited:
BTW, Thaiger, I will be happy to retire those Super Aramith Pros out to pasture for you. I can display them in a place of prominence worthy of their stature and perhaps send you a status update on occasion as to their well being. Just use them for their good hour or two, then send them COD down this way.
TheThaiger
Banned
No, I meant this happens after they have been cleaned with their ball cleaner. I can't imagine the pockets get cleaned much, mind...
I have always wondered whether minute inconsistencies with the cloth or slate causes kicks. Good to see I'm not alone. But there is one thing I am certain about: kicks are primarily a snooker phenomenon. Actually, there are two - hit the ball well and they need not concern you.
TheThaiger
Banned
BTW, Thaiger, I will be happy to retire those Super Aramith Pros out to pasture for you. I can display them in a place of prominence worthy of their stature and perhaps send you a status update on occasion as to their well being. Just use them for their good hour or two, then send them COD down this way.
They are out to pasture anyway - I've only used them once since buying them 18 months ago, and can't stomach the thought of playing snooker for at least that long again.
Long post about kicks
A while back, someone posed the query as to why kicks seem to be so much more prevalent today than even just a few decades ago. I can espouse my soliloquy on the subject for any who care to hear it. It's a long post, so unless you have insomnia, you may wish to skip it. Bearing in mind, of course, that I do not profess to "know" the answer; I simply give my opinion based on what I consider to be quite thorough personal observation.
I believe there are two primary reasons for this apparent increase in today's frequency of kicks compared to yesteryear, the first and foremost being the continuous epic battle of man versus nature. I can hear the collective gasp of "Huh?" (except for Underclocked uttering his adorable "Whut?") so I shall attempt to explain. In any endeavor of man (in the word's generic sense; not intending to sound sexist), we attempt to control the elements of our environment for our own self interest and purpose. When tools or implements of some sort are required, these will be designed and constructed of materials, natural or "man-made", according to whatever is deemed to have the appropriate characteristics for the task at hand at the time. As time evolves all, these assessments of design and construction are under continuous review and subject to revision as opinions change and materials evolve. Why are modern phenolic blend snooker balls the way they are? Obviously, they need to be of a material that will retain its shape and elasticity under sustained usage in its environment. I would suspect the surface ought have a friction that is high relative to a chalked cue tip (materials may have "relative" frictions as well as an absolute measure of coefficient of friction measured against a standard...for instance, the male and female parts of a Velcro strip could be said to have extremely high friction relative to each other, but both "halves" are quite slick to my fingertip. So the materials of the cue ball, cue tip, and chalk may be tested and manipulated to acquire whatever the desired characteristic may be. The chemical compound of the exact phenolic resin is something that can, using modern technology, be quite easily manipulated, tested for performance, and manipulated some more in order to get the performance characteristics desired, but the "kicker" (pun intended) is that laboratory testing will be specific to the characteristic desired, i.e., a snooker ball material may be developed to a specific, laboratory tested coefficient of friction numerical measurement rather than the subjective opinion of say, someone competent actually trying out a new snooker ball in game conditions. This is a quote directly from the Saluc (Aramith) website regarding SuperPro 1g:
"These sets are quite special: while their packaging and design make them look pretty like the regular Aramith Tournament Champion snooker sets, they are in fact drastically different and allow the W.S.A. professional players to reach the highest scores during the W.S.A. competitions."
They sure seem to be saying right there, "Hey, these are not made of the same stuff as the others." And so comes into play the unbreakable "Law of Unintended Consequences"--by manipulating a variable to a desired outcome, other unforeseen consequences are certain to result. Don't be surprised if the SuperPros are replaced as the official tournament ball before long.
The cloth too has changed over the years but surely, it can't be much different than 20 or 30 years ago. How much can you really do with sheep's hair? Apparently, some type of chemical preservative or something is a variable that has been tinkered with, and as I have previously stated, I personally believe the cloth is stealthily much more responsible for this phenomenon than it is given credit/blame for. Even if it were found that the development of "superior" napped cloth were the main contributor to the kick phenomenon, I for one would not wish to see a changeover to basic pool cloth--heavy napped cloth of English Billiards precedes even the invention of the game of snooker itself. In my opinion, I will be content to accept the occasional kick both as spectator and player as a variable of the phenomenon of a fluke rather than substituting mere pool table cloth for the traditional green baize and the players must deal with it as they will.
Bringing us to what I believe to be the second primary cause of increased kicks: the players themselves. The level of play of the top professionals has improved dramatically during my lifetime; Neil Robertson's century of centuries is irrefutable evidence of this. No offense of course to the old time players, given modern conditions and circumstances, perhaps some or many of the old timers could have been as good or even better than many modern day players were they given today's equipment, knowledge, and mechanical and psychological coaching. As I view things, the single most impressive thing about modern players is the number of ridiculously EASY shots they will make during the course of a frame. That, of course, sounds counter-intuitive, but what I mean by it is that with their mastery of cue ball control, positioning the following shot is so much more often "inch perfect" now than in years past. Evidence? How many 147's do we see now compared to 20 or 30 years ago? About the same ratio increase as with kicks I suspect. How can this possibly tie together? If you had the ability to position yourself perfectly for the next shot to follow, where would you ideally place the cue ball? I would want to leave myself a shortish, fullish shot that I did not need to do a lot of extra work with the cue ball, perhaps just leave myself a nice soft straight shot to let the cue ball roll gently to its NEXT perfect position. Does that sound familiar? Go back a few posts to see that THAT is precisely the type of shot that will have a greatest tendency to actually produce a kick. So I believe that "inch perfect" positional play comes at a cost. If you are only good enough to leave yourself "reasonable" position, you are probably hitting a lot more longer, thinner cuts and using more power to get the cue ball where you want it to go next, therefore, you are automatically going to leave yourself fewer opportunities for a kick to be likely to occur.
I can't say that any of these things is the individual culprit in this drama; most likely it is a combination of a number of factors. Another suggestion of the cause is the heating elements used in modern professional tables, ironically, to give consistency to the playing surface. Unintended consequence? Maybe they need to enclose the base of the snooker table and cool the slate down to a uniform 50 degrees Fahrenheit and see how that reacts?
Like Star Wars, the saga continues...
A while back, someone posed the query as to why kicks seem to be so much more prevalent today than even just a few decades ago. I can espouse my soliloquy on the subject for any who care to hear it. It's a long post, so unless you have insomnia, you may wish to skip it. Bearing in mind, of course, that I do not profess to "know" the answer; I simply give my opinion based on what I consider to be quite thorough personal observation.
I believe there are two primary reasons for this apparent increase in today's frequency of kicks compared to yesteryear, the first and foremost being the continuous epic battle of man versus nature. I can hear the collective gasp of "Huh?" (except for Underclocked uttering his adorable "Whut?") so I shall attempt to explain. In any endeavor of man (in the word's generic sense; not intending to sound sexist), we attempt to control the elements of our environment for our own self interest and purpose. When tools or implements of some sort are required, these will be designed and constructed of materials, natural or "man-made", according to whatever is deemed to have the appropriate characteristics for the task at hand at the time. As time evolves all, these assessments of design and construction are under continuous review and subject to revision as opinions change and materials evolve. Why are modern phenolic blend snooker balls the way they are? Obviously, they need to be of a material that will retain its shape and elasticity under sustained usage in its environment. I would suspect the surface ought have a friction that is high relative to a chalked cue tip (materials may have "relative" frictions as well as an absolute measure of coefficient of friction measured against a standard...for instance, the male and female parts of a Velcro strip could be said to have extremely high friction relative to each other, but both "halves" are quite slick to my fingertip. So the materials of the cue ball, cue tip, and chalk may be tested and manipulated to acquire whatever the desired characteristic may be. The chemical compound of the exact phenolic resin is something that can, using modern technology, be quite easily manipulated, tested for performance, and manipulated some more in order to get the performance characteristics desired, but the "kicker" (pun intended) is that laboratory testing will be specific to the characteristic desired, i.e., a snooker ball material may be developed to a specific, laboratory tested coefficient of friction numerical measurement rather than the subjective opinion of say, someone competent actually trying out a new snooker ball in game conditions. This is a quote directly from the Saluc (Aramith) website regarding SuperPro 1g:
"These sets are quite special: while their packaging and design make them look pretty like the regular Aramith Tournament Champion snooker sets, they are in fact drastically different and allow the W.S.A. professional players to reach the highest scores during the W.S.A. competitions."
They sure seem to be saying right there, "Hey, these are not made of the same stuff as the others." And so comes into play the unbreakable "Law of Unintended Consequences"--by manipulating a variable to a desired outcome, other unforeseen consequences are certain to result. Don't be surprised if the SuperPros are replaced as the official tournament ball before long.
The cloth too has changed over the years but surely, it can't be much different than 20 or 30 years ago. How much can you really do with sheep's hair? Apparently, some type of chemical preservative or something is a variable that has been tinkered with, and as I have previously stated, I personally believe the cloth is stealthily much more responsible for this phenomenon than it is given credit/blame for. Even if it were found that the development of "superior" napped cloth were the main contributor to the kick phenomenon, I for one would not wish to see a changeover to basic pool cloth--heavy napped cloth of English Billiards precedes even the invention of the game of snooker itself. In my opinion, I will be content to accept the occasional kick both as spectator and player as a variable of the phenomenon of a fluke rather than substituting mere pool table cloth for the traditional green baize and the players must deal with it as they will.
Bringing us to what I believe to be the second primary cause of increased kicks: the players themselves. The level of play of the top professionals has improved dramatically during my lifetime; Neil Robertson's century of centuries is irrefutable evidence of this. No offense of course to the old time players, given modern conditions and circumstances, perhaps some or many of the old timers could have been as good or even better than many modern day players were they given today's equipment, knowledge, and mechanical and psychological coaching. As I view things, the single most impressive thing about modern players is the number of ridiculously EASY shots they will make during the course of a frame. That, of course, sounds counter-intuitive, but what I mean by it is that with their mastery of cue ball control, positioning the following shot is so much more often "inch perfect" now than in years past. Evidence? How many 147's do we see now compared to 20 or 30 years ago? About the same ratio increase as with kicks I suspect. How can this possibly tie together? If you had the ability to position yourself perfectly for the next shot to follow, where would you ideally place the cue ball? I would want to leave myself a shortish, fullish shot that I did not need to do a lot of extra work with the cue ball, perhaps just leave myself a nice soft straight shot to let the cue ball roll gently to its NEXT perfect position. Does that sound familiar? Go back a few posts to see that THAT is precisely the type of shot that will have a greatest tendency to actually produce a kick. So I believe that "inch perfect" positional play comes at a cost. If you are only good enough to leave yourself "reasonable" position, you are probably hitting a lot more longer, thinner cuts and using more power to get the cue ball where you want it to go next, therefore, you are automatically going to leave yourself fewer opportunities for a kick to be likely to occur.
I can't say that any of these things is the individual culprit in this drama; most likely it is a combination of a number of factors. Another suggestion of the cause is the heating elements used in modern professional tables, ironically, to give consistency to the playing surface. Unintended consequence? Maybe they need to enclose the base of the snooker table and cool the slate down to a uniform 50 degrees Fahrenheit and see how that reacts?
Like Star Wars, the saga continues...
Last edited: