Snooker Rules (fouls)

Wity said:
No he didn't.
Click to expand...
He certainly did, as per the example presented. In a miss, if the ball hits a higher point ball, the points accrued are of the higher point ball. This is also true for all other similar fouls. As another example, if you pot a red (ball-on) and accidently another high point ball also gets potted, the foul points are always of the higher point ball. This is basic.

I'm not 100% sure without reading the rules but if memory serves me well the ref can't continue to call a miss if the losing player needs snookers to win, Which he would do long before the 70 points you mentioned.
Click to expand...
I didn't state that "if the losing player needs snookers to win" and the judgement of the referee is not called specifically due to that but defined on "miss and foul" rule alone. In other words, the referee judges the foul, not whether snookers are needed or not.
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly, perhaps a week or so ago when watching Ronnie play against one of the orientals at the 2009 China Open, he was snookered behind the yellow for the red ball-on and made several attempts, all reasonable enough and inclusive of repositioning of ball(s) each time, until his opponent declared to take his turn when the shot became "easy" enough for him. I believe the attempts were around 5 or more (not sure), in which the oriental accrued 20(+) points where the foul point was 4 (of missing the red without hitting any other higher point balls). It seemed quite a frustrating and disappointing situation for both the players and as well as the referee.
 
Your right (it's been years since i read them but i have now and see i was getting your scenario mixed up with rule 14(b)
http://www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm

It can be frustrating but I dont see anything disappointing or basically/ethically wrong with it though, that is after all the name of the game. And btw how I beat my far better potter of the ball son of mine 7 out of ten times.:D
 
DKhan:

A miss cannot be called if either player needs snookers before the foul was played or as a result of the foul. For example, if blue, pink and black are left at the end of a frame (18 points on the table) and Player A is snookered and is 18 points behind, a miss CANNOT be called as Player A is never going to miss on purpose as he will then need snookers. The referee knows the player will 'make a good enough attempt to hit the ball 'on' because if he misses he will need snookers! This also applies when Player A is snookered and already needs snookers himself, say he is 19 behind on the last blue, even before he attempts to escape from the snooker he already needs to snooker his opponent (as there is not enough points on the table for him) so a miss cannot be called on him if he doesn't escape from the snooker. This rule also applies if the player escaping from the snooker doesn't need snookers but the other player does, to stop him keep putting the player back and getting all the snookers he needs that way.

We always mention 'a player needs snookers, but actually, he needs 'penalty points' but we call it 'needing snookers' as it's easier to use when explaining.

SnookerAndPool
 
SnookerAndPool said:
... I disagree with Bob in what he said above. Most players DO attempt to hit the ball on ...
Click to expand...
As I read it, you are not disagreeing with me. I agree that most players do try to hit the ball. They do not, as a rule, do their best to hit a ball on. The rule as written says: The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose a player is told, just before shooting from a snooker in a practice game that is none the less being taken seriously: "Ronnie, if you hit the ball on, I'll give you 1000000 pounds. If you do not, I'll do something you really, really don't like."

Ronnie would, of course, change his shot selection.

Or, alternatively, suppose that the rule was changed to a 100-point penalty for failure to hit the ball on. I think there would be far fewer misses if safety considerations were not present.

I'm reading the wording of the rule literally. If the organization responsible for the rules (IBSF?) wants it to mean something else, they should change the wording to match the intent.
 
I think I know what you mean. I think if they always tried to escape from a snooker by going the easiest escape the top pros would probably rarely miss the escape, but would almost always leave a chance for his opponent. I think they are trying not only to hit the ball 'on' but leave it safe which can cause them to miss a few times.
 
In a recent major tournament between Selby and Higgins, the following video displays one of the many complex nature of the "foul and miss" shots that's not only frustrating to all but argumentative, time consuming and plain silly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d2R...F102857A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=61

Here's a comment made by one to which I fully endorse:
"the original snooker rules should be brought back with the original size of snooker pockets. This shit rules made many players suffer and its time consuming . Club players often gets into argument and the players who can make barely 20 breaks or 50 may give away another 50 points by this miss rule. Snooker become a dull game and loosing popularity and the basterds in the world snookers governing body making ****ing rules."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top