Shoot again
- Thread starter pt109
- Start date
No way. Especially in 1p. The taking of intentionals is a big part of the game.
You can still take all the intentional fouls you want...but ‘shoot again’ creates new considerations.
I think it will be good for the game..no other rules change...including the 3 foul rule.
1p is perfect as is. Why jack with it just for 'new considerations'?? Its not gonna happen.
I feel it’s an improvement...it’s absolutely fair.
As far as I know, the top snooker players started using it in the 1930s...it was called ‘the professional rule.’
The BSCC eventually wrote it into the rules of snooker.
American snooker rules use it also...it works.
Strongly agreed. If fact, one of the most creative shots I've ever seen in one pocket was a foul Corey Deuel took against Darren Appleton at Derby City (?2016?) that got him out of a seemingly inescapable trap in the double hill rack. Grady Matthews always contended that the use of intentional fouls was part of one pocket's majesty. --- he also felt that they were underutilized.
I have similar problems in straight pool. The back scratch, in which a player stuck at the top of the table with the pack largely undisturbed, is a shot in which the player hits the cue ball into the foot rail and then hits the back of the pack to loosen a couple of pools.in the front of the rack. This tactical shot is so fundamental to straight pool that I think its elimination, which would be the consequence of permitting a "shoot again" option, would dumb down the tactical portion of the game.
Last edited:
Think I'm OK with those who want to tweak the rules, but the benefits need to be clear and the change widely accepted by the pro players as advisable.
The back scratch would change. Under today's rules, the back scratch to loosen balls in the front of the rack denies the long return scratch that would put you in jail. What if If I hit the back scratch so soft that I fail to loosen balls in the front of the rack? Under today's rules, opponent can reply by taking a multi rail foul to the center of the head rail that will give me a huge problem. --- but they can't do so if I have the option to put them in again whenever they take a foul. If they make me shoot again in this situation, my safety is ridiculously easy from behind a largely undisturbed rack. Hence, the percentage would be to tap into the back of the rack, and the skill that is normally required to execute a back scratch successfully is no longer required. The purist in me just doesn't like this.
Similarly, if I come to the table after opponent's scratch and I run into trouble during my inning, I lose the right to take a scratch that would place opponent, already on a foul, in a jam. The game's tactics change, not in a way that I like.
Perhaps I like it more if, in straight pool, the "shoot again" request is not an option for a player that's on a foul. In that event, I don't have big problems with the changes in the strategic nuances, but why would adding the "shoot again" option enhance the game? I just can't see it.
What the "shoot again" rule does in snooker is to eliminate any intentional fouls, why would you ever want to do that to 1P?
One pocket some kind of sacred artifact?
Intentionals should have stiffer penalties than y'owe,one. Ball in hand and/or Minus 5 say?
One Pocket with a doubling cube. Hmm, never seen that.
Shoot again kinda proves how inane intentionals are.
Intentionals should have stiffer penalties than y'owe,one. Ball in hand and/or Minus 5 say?
One Pocket with a doubling cube. Hmm, never seen that.
Shoot again kinda proves how inane intentionals are.
In snooker there are points awarded for the foul with a loss of game hanging over the offending player.
In 1pkt there is a ball owed for a foul. Incoming player can tap the cueball taking a foul and starting the 3 foul sequence for loss of game.
Incoming player can shoot the cue ball back where it was,thus creating a shoot again situation.
In 1pkt there is a ball owed for a foul. Incoming player can tap the cueball taking a foul and starting the 3 foul sequence for loss of game.
Incoming player can shoot the cue ball back where it was,thus creating a shoot again situation.
Ironic that snooker is victimized by defense syndrome as well. The table dimensions make ducking a no brainer and too often the "stately elegance" is just an interchange of duck safeties; lagging to a hook IOW...
No wonder kids rather do video games.
No wonder kids rather do video games.
Perhaps the term snooker has escaped you
The shoot again option will often be exercised in snooker after a missed kick. It came up several times in the semifinal of the 2020 World Snooker Championships between Mark Selby and Ronnie O'Sullivan. The grinding, tactically oriented Selby often wins frames by wearing opponents down through forced repetition of kicks.
I am getting the sense that there is a miss understanding about the shoot again option in snooker, as SJM stated it is usually after an attempted kick that results in a foul. The incoming player has the option to accept the table or make the other player shoot the shot again. In the case where he chooses to make the other player shoot, the table is restored to as close to exactly the same as before the foul shot. I have seen this done in tournament matches, by rule it could also be done in routine play but the ability to restore to the previous situation can be an issue. In tournaments there is equipment available to help establish correct ball position. I have seen games in tournaments where this was done multiple times. After each attempt if another foul is committed the non-shooting player receives the points for the foul, (Min 4 Max 7) and the choice to accept the table or shoot again applies. Snooker is quite a different game from one pocket or straight pool.
