Stupidist Rule in Billiard Sports - The Snooker Foul and Miss!

Colin Colenso

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Wondering what others here, who are familiar with Snooker, think of this rule. Personally I think it rates up their, in stupidity, with many of the crazy local bar rules we often laugh about.

Personally, I'd like to see snooker change to Ball In Hand after every foul. The game would instantly become a heck of a lot simpler. This would force snooker players to improve their kicking skills.

I would also recommend that a ball must hit a rail after impact on every shot, so as to reduce the ease of playing snookers, and to reduce slow safety play.

I would consider the rule, that is used in English 8-ball, that allows a player not to hit a rail after impact if totally snookered. This reduces the incentive for players to play for snookers.

Any thoughts?

Colin

Edit: I noticed I spelt stupidest wrong in the thread title. How ironic!
 
Last edited:
IMHO I feel that I like the rules in snooker as is. The reason is simple. Snooker is about learning to properly move the cue ball to develop the table but in the same hand, show the discipline required to play the odds and move to a safety when demanded. If you have a match between players who can only put together 20 or 30 points per break then of course the rule seems silly and the game will be very slow. However, I have had the pleasure of being a part of, and watching, some great matches were the breaks are 80 or more. In that case the safety game is fun to watch because it is normally only for the first few shots until someone screws up or steps up. Plus, if you have to hit a rail after the snooker then the opening break would change in its dynamic. The ideal opening break in snooker,IMO, is to properly open half the pack and glue the cueball behind one of the low colors. This is key so if the opposing player were to leave the cueball in the rack end of the table after the kick attempt then the good break would be rewarded. Should a ball have to hit a rail after the break I think more players would only try to move 3 or 4 balls (as per the rule) and leave the pack together forcing the incoming player to play a hard shot into the pack in an attempt to get a rail.

I like that snooker and pool are very different. It makes for a nice change of pace. Just my opinion though.
 
Colin Colenso said:
Wondering what others here, who are familiar with Snooker, think of this rule. Personally I think it rates up their, in stupidity, with many of the crazy local bar rules we often laugh about.

Personally, I'd like to see snooker change to Ball In Hand after every foul. The game would instantly become a heck of a lot simpler. This would force snooker players to improve their kicking skills.

I would also recommend that a ball must hit a rail after impact on every shot, so as to reduce the ease of playing snookers, and to reduce slow safety play.

I would consider the rule, that is used in English 8-ball, that allows a player not to hit a rail after impact if totally snookered. This reduces the incentive for players to play for snookers.

Any thoughts?

Colin

Edit: I noticed I spelt stupidest wrong in the thread title. How ironic!
Click to expand...

I would think that ball in hand for snooker would be too much of a punishment. If I were to give ball in hand to Stephen Hendry he would most certainly hit me with a 50+ break depending on the layout. More than likely he would leave me needing snookers.

That said, I don't think pros foul so often that it make a huge difference. So I guess I wouldn't be opposed to the rule, especially considering it would probably go towards improving my average break :D.
 
With regards to the proposed rule change....I could get used to the idea of ball in hand on a foul, but not the requirement to hit a rail. There is, however, a certain mood in a game, lets say in the example Cameron uses wherein he needs snookers, where if you are the player leading you know where to miss to if you do so you don't sell the game. Ball in hand would force more precision in the shot not simply where you leave the cueball. The pro's though have another rule wherein an attempt to hit a given ball must come within a certain distance (I believe a ball width or less) to constitute a real try for contact. If the shot misses by a greater distance than the rule allows the ball would be replaced to the original starting position, a 7 point foul is incurred, and the player must make another attempt. Given that situation, the penalty is actually worse than ball in hand.

By the way, the only time Hendry runs 50 after an open shot is when there is only 50 left on the table....
 
PoolSponge said:
IMHO I feel that I like the rules in snooker as is. The reason is simple. Snooker is about learning to properly move the cue ball to develop the table but in the same hand, show the discipline required to play the odds and move to a safety when demanded. If you have a match between players who can only put together 20 or 30 points per break then of course the rule seems silly and the game will be very slow. However, I have had the pleasure of being a part of, and watching, some great matches were the breaks are 80 or more. In that case the safety game is fun to watch because it is normally only for the first few shots until someone screws up or steps up. Plus, if you have to hit a rail after the snooker then the opening break would change in its dynamic. The ideal opening break in snooker,IMO, is to properly open half the pack and glue the cueball behind one of the low colors. This is key so if the opposing player were to leave the cueball in the rack end of the table after the kick attempt then the good break would be rewarded. Should a ball have to hit a rail after the break I think more players would only try to move 3 or 4 balls (as per the rule) and leave the pack together forcing the incoming player to play a hard shot into the pack in an attempt to get a rail.

I like that snooker and pool are very different. It makes for a nice change of pace. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...
Poolsponge,
I don't think you quite got my meaning with the proposed rule changes.

When I said a ball must hit a rail, that ball can be the cue ball. As used in pool. This rule improved the English pool game a lot when it was introduced in around 1990.

btw: On the break shot, most pro players actually attempt to get the CB onto the rail, not up close to one of the baulk colors.

I don't believe my recommendations would lead to less safety play necessarily. It may even increase the incentive to play for snookers, which is an art to be appreciated.

What I don't like is seeing many frames ruined by having players deliberately missing and then having the CB replaced 2,3 or more times. It ruins the flow of the game and results in many disagreements at both pro and local league level.

Colin
 
I like the ball in hand concept. With regard to playing top notch palyers like Hendry and opening them up to running points, it would be no different than leaving ball in hand to a pro in a 9 ball game. They would almost certainly run out resulting in a loss of game. But, I am still a proponent of only brining one cue to the table, not a playing cue, break cue, and jump cue, or other combinations.
 
Cameron Smith said:
I would think that ball in hand for snooker would be too much of a punishment. If I were to give ball in hand to Stephen Hendry he would most certainly hit me with a 50+ break depending on the layout. More than likely he would leave me needing snookers.

That said, I don't think pros foul so often that it make a huge difference. So I guess I wouldn't be opposed to the rule, especially considering it would probably go towards improving my average break :D.
Click to expand...
Hi Cameron,
Yes, ball in hand would be a pretty big punishment, especially at the pro-level, though I wonder what the average break would be for a pro from ball in hand. My guess would be 30-40 points. A little higher than what we see when a player actually gets the first pot off to get into a break. ( I'd like to see some stats of pro-level tournies for how often match winning breaks are made from reasonably open positions achieved early in a game.

Big breaks usually require a few crucial / risky shots into the pack to open balls. Ball in hand only gives the players a start, not too different to if they got left on an open ball.

In 9-ball and 8-ball, BIH is basically a match win. In snooker, it would probably make a player 70% favorite for the frame.

What this would mean, is that snooker players would have to use their utmost skills in avoiding fouls, rather than what we see now, which is dribble up shots to balls on rails. I think we'd find fouls would be quite rare if the player faced giving up BIH.

btw: Players could still come back from behind with these rules if a point penalty was also included. I'm not sure if that is a great idea though. I see a lot of games drag out another 10 minutes from people trying to get a snooker. Might be best to just finish the game when the lead exceeds the possible points on the table.

Colin

ps: Remember the current foul and miss rule is not that old and that billiards has made many changes in its history in an effort to create a more enjoyable and challenging game. I think there is room for improvement without losing the essence of the game, which really is break-building.
 
Not a regular snooker player or anything, but Colin's idea seems reasonable, particularly in regards to snooker's frozen ball rules.
 
Colin Colenso]Wondering what others here, who are familiar with Snooker, think of this rule. Personally I think it rates up their, in stupidity, with many of the crazy local bar rules we often laugh about.

Personally, I'd like to see snooker change to Ball In Hand after every foul. The game would instantly become a heck of a lot simpler. This would force snooker players to improve their kicking skills.

Snooker, unlike 9 ball, rarely has a match determined by a fluke. It is a game of skill. Ball in hand would diminish the skill required.

Most snookers require running the cue ball around the rails. Good snooker players know the angles, they just do not use them to sink balls as much as pool players because of the acreage the and small pockets. If you like kicking, play snooker on a small pool table:D

I would also recommend that a ball must hit a rail after impact on every shot, so as to reduce the ease of playing snookers, and to reduce slow safety play.

Requiring a ball to hit a rail would remove the skill required to hit the very soft shot, dumbing down the game.

I would consider the rule, that is used in English 8-ball, that allows a player not to hit a rail after impact if totally snookered. This reduces the incentive for players to play for snookers.

Snooker is the name of the game. In addition to your rule changes, you really should come up with a name for this new thing. How about HyBrid Billiards?:D

Any thoughts?

Colin

Edit: I noticed I spelt stupidest wrong in the thread title. How ironic!
 
Colin Colenso said:
Wondering what others here, who are familiar with Snooker, think of this rule.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not applicable to the amateur game and the pros are more than skillful enough to play off three cushions and rest up against a ball. If they choose to err on the side of dropping short to avoid selling out they should receive due punishment, and they do.

As far as safety goes, even at our level there is as much enjoyment to be had playing a great safety bout with someone your evenly matched with. In fact it's a part of the game that separates out the good from the great and where experience counts. Plain fantastic potters are ten-a-penny around here nowadays.

I don't think the analogy to pub 8 ball works either. The game was going nowhere when both players spent most of the game just trying to manoeuvre their balls over all the pockets or forcing two visits before risking an attempt to run out. They needed to be forced to go for it.

Boro Nut
 
Scaramouche said:
Colin Colenso]Wondering what others here, who are familiar with Snooker, think of this rule. Personally I think it rates up their, in stupidity, with many of the crazy local bar rules we often laugh about.

Personally, I'd like to see snooker change to Ball In Hand after every foul. The game would instantly become a heck of a lot simpler. This would force snooker players to improve their kicking skills.

Snooker, unlike 9 ball, rarely has a match determined by a fluke. It is a game of skill. Ball in hand would diminish the skill required.

Most snookers require running the cue ball around the rails. Good snooker players know the angles, they just do not use them to sink balls as much as pool players because of the acreage the and small pockets. If you like kicking, play snooker on a small pool table:D

I would also recommend that a ball must hit a rail after impact on every shot, so as to reduce the ease of playing snookers, and to reduce slow safety play.

Requiring a ball to hit a rail would remove the skill required to hit the very soft shot, dumbing down the game.

I would consider the rule, that is used in English 8-ball, that allows a player not to hit a rail after impact if totally snookered. This reduces the incentive for players to play for snookers.

Snooker is the name of the game. In addition to your rule changes, you really should come up with a name for this new thing. How about HyBrid Billiards?:D
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply Scaramouche,
But you did not address the Foul and a Miss rule, which has been under continual re-evaluation.

There is still quite a lot of luck in snooker, with fluked balls, fluked snookers. The only difference is that 1 game of snooker requires about 3 times more shots than a game of pool, hence race to one tends to separate the players skill as effectively as a race to 3 in pool.

The foul and a miss rule can be particularly unfair. For example, when you are on a ball by a fraction, but not enough to try to hit it. If you miss it, it is a foul and a miss regardless. Sometimes this results in multiple fouls.

For league players who have to ref games, there is much inconsistancy in interpretation. This does not encourage people to get involved at the league level. The referee often ends up getting abused when this situation arises, which is usually a couple of times a game.

As for a ball hitting a rail, this is a secondary rule, not the main issue here, but I think it would be an advantage. In English pool we used to be able to dribble up behind a ball for a snooker. It was often done after a player lost position and greatly slowed down the game. I am very glad it was removed from the game. Yes, it requires some skill, but not as much skill as finding a snooker that involves having a ball hit a rail.

Colin
 
Boro Nut said:
I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not applicable to the amateur game and the pros are more than skillful enough to play off three cushions and rest up against a ball. If they choose to err on the side of dropping short to avoid selling out they should receive due punishment, and they do.

As far as safety goes, even at our level there is as much enjoyment to be had playing a great safety bout with someone your evenly matched with. In fact it's a part of the game that separates out the good from the great and where experience counts. Plain fantastic potters are ten-a-penny around here nowadays.

I don't think the analogy to pub 8 ball works either. The game was going nowhere when both players spent most of the game just trying to manoeuvre their balls over all the pockets or forcing two visits before risking an attempt to run out. They needed to be forced to go for it.

Boro Nut
Click to expand...
Good comment Boro Nut,
Yes, English 8-ball was in great need of being sped up through rules which provided incentives for more aggressive playing. Much of the reason has been pocket blocking, which is different to what we see in snooker.

But I still think there is too many safety exchanges in snooker, which drag on due to the foul and miss rule and via the ability to play softly onto difficult to hit balls with a couple of trial and errors.

If a play had just one shot to get out of the snooker, they would be forced to get out of the snooker on the first attempt. I think snooker is the only game in the world where a player can make several attempts at the same shot until he gets it right.

Replacing of the balls to their exact positions is also often difficult. It just seems like a messy rule to me. A new player needs to absorb an entire chapter of related rules to be able to understand the vagrancies of the foul and a miss rule.

I regularly watch and play the game, yet I still don't fully understand how to enforce the rule in all situtations. Often it is subjective. Neither do most league players. Why have a rule that 90%+ players are unsure about, when a much easier rule could be put in place?

For example, last night I was snookered. The easiest way for me to hit my ball was by swerving. I missed by a mm and was called foul and a miss. So I changed to going for the ball off a rail, which was a much harder shot. When I missed, it was just called a foul.

Another 2 times I could see about 0.2mm of my ball which was 9 feet away, which is not enough to aim for directly with any confidence. Basically, I had to hit this ball or I would incur a foul and a miss. Sometimes hitting such balls is nearly impossible. Whereas if I couldn't see the ball at all, a reasonable attempt would be satisfactory. Meaning, a not quite snooker is often more devastating than a complete snooker.

Anyway, I appreciate all comments. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I like to argue my case:D

Colin
 
A few years ago the International Billiards & Snooker Federation (IBSF) proposed a rule change, in that after three successive called "misses", the non-offending player would be offered ball in-hand. However, this really upset the World Porfessional Billiards & Snooker Association (WPBSA), snooker's professional governing body, who insisted they were the sole custodians of the rules so could only make changes to them, so in the end the IBSF decided to drop the change.

The IBSF also proposed at the time that a frame would be over once a player required four or more snookers.

These rule changes were proposed by the IBSF in order to speed up matches particularly in the IBSF World Championships, where time is very limited to complete the matches. In that case, the IBSF should have instead of proposed these changes as conditions of their Championship rules of play, that way they could have enforced these new rules and not come into conflict with the WPBSA.

Regards.

Alan Morris.
 
Last edited:
I think the points penalty is enough for a foul. In a small pool room in Georgia if you foul you pay the points penalty and if you don't have a clear shot a the object ball they will pick it up the blocking ball, mark the spot and let you shoot. I have also seen some play that after a foul you can make the other person shoot again if you don't like the cue ball position. I personally like that way best.
 
How about?

How about using the "old" , American "Push out " rule. When you are "snookered", your first shot at the table may be a deliberate "foul".
If your oppoonent allows you to shoot again...your next shot MUST be a legal shot or your opponent now has "ball in hand"!
If the oppponent accepts the position and shoots the shot, HE must make a legal shot or HE gives up ball in hand!
 
ajrack said:
How about using the "old" , American "Push out " rule. When you are "snookered", your first shot at the table may be a deliberate "foul".
If your oppoonent allows you to shoot again...your next shot MUST be a legal shot or your opponent now has "ball in hand"!
If the oppponent accepts the position and shoots the shot, HE must make a legal shot or HE gives up ball in hand!
Click to expand...

A push out option would certainly reduce the incentive for playing snookers, but it would also mean we would not see too many attempts at getting out of snookers. It think it would be a shame to lose that skill from the game.

Colin
 
Alan Morris said:
A few years ago the International Billiards & Snooker Federation (IBSF) proposed a rule change, in that after three successive called "misses", the non-offending player would be offered ball in-hand. However, this really upset the World Porfessional Billiards & Snooker Association (WPBSA), snooker's professional governing body, who insisted they were the sole custodians of the rules so could only make changes to them, so in the end the IBSF decided to drop the change.

The IBSF also proposed at the time that a frame would be over once a player required four or more snookers.

These rule changes were proposed by the IBSF in order to speed up matches particularly in the IBSF World Championships, where time is very limited to complete the matches. In that case, the IBSF should have instead of proposed these changes as conditions of their Championship rules of play, that way they could have enforced these new rules and not come into conflict with the WPBSA.

Regards.

Alan Morris.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input Alan,
I think the IBSF should have trialed those rules so that players could begin to assess the pros and cons.

I remember a few years ago in our local leagues that whenever a player required more than 2 fouls that the game was ruled as over. This did speed things up.

I think that the idea that a game would be over at the pro-level with BIH is an inaccurate one. BIH is not much different that finding oneself in good position during a break. I estimate that top pros only make winning breaks from such situations around 30-40% of the time. Certainly much lower that pool players win games with ball in hand.

It's always hard to institute change. I can't see it changing significantly quickly, but I hope it does. I for one consider giving up league every time I encounter games where the foul and a miss rule interupts the smooth flow of play.

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
Wondering what others here, who are familiar with Snooker, think of this rule. Personally I think it rates up their, in stupidity, with many of the crazy local bar rules we often laugh about.

Personally, I'd like to see snooker change to Ball In Hand after every foul. The game would instantly become a heck of a lot simpler. This would force snooker players to improve their kicking skills.

I would also recommend that a ball must hit a rail after impact on every shot, so as to reduce the ease of playing snookers, and to reduce slow safety play.

I would consider the rule, that is used in English 8-ball, that allows a player not to hit a rail after impact if totally snookered. This reduces the incentive for players to play for snookers.

Any thoughts?

Colin

Edit: I noticed I spelt stupidest wrong in the thread title. How ironic!
Click to expand...

And I thought you were refering to all those followers of the
philosophy of stupidity

Changing the miss after foul rule and require hitting a rail,
now all you have to do is cut the table down to 5 x 10,
make the pockets 50% tighter, and the balls 1/16 bigger,
and, wallah, you've got American Snooker from the old days
Not todays official "English Snooker played in the USA" snooker

Chris Hightower described how the game was played, if snookered
on a "full ball" after a foul, blocking balls were moved, and
incomming player got to shoot away. There also was no re-shooting
of shots not being an honest effort to hit the ball on.

As far as ball in hand, I don't like it at all for Snooker, tho this may be
based more on emotion than evaluation, and I would actually
prefer to play the English rules for snookered after a foul.

Dale Pierce
 
I loathe the pool intentional foul and ball in hand because it can reward a player who cannot make the shot. What follows is my complaint I posted in another thread a few months ago.

In Snooker, you cannot foul to create a strategic advantage. There are several remedies, in addition to the loss of points, and they do not give advantage to the player who committed the foul. (It was subseqently pointed out to me that if a player is ahead by 28 points or more, with the colours and at one red left on the table, knocking the red off the table, since the red stays down and would not be respotted, would leave the enemy needing snookers.)

2006 World Pool Championship, Foldes vs Luong, 13th frame:

Three balls were lined up perpendicular to the side rail. Object ball and cue ball both landed by the rail, but on opposite sides of the the line of three balls.

Luong shot, didn't hit the object ball. It was an honest attempt. First foul.

Foldes hit a ball close to the object ball. First foul and a deliberate foul. He could have place the cue ball and hit the object ball. Now there are four balls blocking the object ball.

Luong could not place the cue ball where he could hit the object ball. Shot and removed two of the balls. Second foul.

Foldes hit a ball close to the object ball, although he could have placed the cue ball to hit the object ball. Second foul and a deliberate foul. Now there are three blocking balls.

Luong still could not place the cue ball to be able to hit the object ball because of the three blocking balls. He placed the cue ball about a foot away, took his jump cue and made the shot, hitting the object ball from above, not making a ball.

Play goes on. Foldes wins the rack, loses the match.
 
Scaramouche said:
I loathe the pool intentional foul and ball in hand because it can reward a player who cannot make the shot. What follows is my complaint I posted in another thread a few months ago.

In Snooker, you cannot foul to create a strategic advantage. There are several remedies, in addition to the loss of points, and they do not give advantage to the player who committed the foul. (It was subseqently pointed out to me that if a player is ahead by 28 points or more, with the colours and at one red left on the table, knocking the red off the table, since the red stays down and would not be respotted, would leave the enemy needing snookers.)

2006 World Pool Championship, Foldes vs Luong, 13th frame:

Three balls were lined up perpendicular to the side rail. Object ball and cue ball both landed by the rail, but on opposite sides of the the line of three balls.

Luong shot, didn't hit the object ball. It was an honest attempt. First foul.

Foldes hit a ball close to the object ball. First foul and a deliberate foul. He could have place the cue ball and hit the object ball. Now there are four balls blocking the object ball.

Luong could not place the cue ball where he could hit the object ball. Shot and removed two of the balls. Second foul.

Foldes hit a ball close to the object ball, although he could have placed the cue ball to hit the object ball. Second foul and a deliberate foul. Now there are three blocking balls.

Luong still could not place the cue ball to be able to hit the object ball because of the three blocking balls. He placed the cue ball about a foot away, took his jump cue and made the shot, hitting the object ball from above, not making a ball.

Play goes on. Foldes wins the rack, loses the match.
Click to expand...

So you'd prefer pool to be based solely on firepower, and not on tactical manouvers? You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but I'm not sure how many would agree with you. I know I don't. I like how pool requires both tactical thinking and creativity to create a plan that makes you a favorite to win, and also great skill to execute said plan. I think it's a testament to Foldes' strategy to recognize the opening Luong gave him by committing the first foul with the low ball in a clustered situation like that. I also like to see what kind of shot a player will come up with when confronted with no choice but to execute something extremely difficult (using a jump cue to land ON TOP of a totally protected ball). I realize my whole post has been about pool and this thread is about snooker, but I think the same philosophy applies. Forcing a player to come with a great shot from a tough situation makes for a better game, in my opinion, than making complicated rules to make the tough situation more equitable.

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top