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

Colin Colenso said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm hence the thread! :p

Agree the miss could be tweaked but I'm convinced Snooker is popular because the game takes so long and every frame is different, unlike 9 ball which is just too quick and repetitive.
 
TheOne said:
Hmmm hence the thread! :p

Agree the miss could be tweaked but I'm convinced Snooker is popular because the game takes so long and every frame is different, unlike 9 ball which is just too quick and repetitive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, being on the end of some stupid Foul and Miss decisions got my goat up enough to seek some opinions, but I've been thinking this for weeks since I've been watching and playing matches.

I don't think this rule would speed up matches significantly, nor change the basic nature or strategy of snooker. It just seems like the most sensible rule for making the game fairer and more importantly, easier to adjudicate. The better player will win at the same percentages as before.

As for the rule being tweaked, I'd like to hear a sensible argument for how it could be, but I'm pretty convinced that the Foul and Miss rule will grow increasingly complex and will never be well understood my most who play the game. Even qualified referees argue about how to interpret the current rules.

A law that confuses is a bad law. This rule will confuse people, often, as long as it is used. I'd prefer a simpler rule, even if it didn't optimize fairness, but in this case, I don't think this rule stands out as a fair one. Quite often it results in objective calls and is often abused with several attempts being used to make a shot that simply slows the flow of the game.

Ball In Hand would be a major change, but I've never seen or heard of a rule that can deal with this situation well. The other alternatives that I can think of are 2-visits or push out, and they would be even more vehemently opposed. If a rule like a push out was available for full ball snookers only, we'd see the fishing line coming out to adjudicate what is an actual full ball snooker. That wouldn't be good for viewers or amateur players. A ball in hand rule makes the game simple. Foul and the opponent gets an almost definite valuable advantage. So get good at not fouling.

Snooker was popular years ago when the foul and miss rule wasn't used the same way. I doubt changing to ball in hand would reduce the game's popularity, I'd tend to think it would make the game more interesting.

Colin
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
Yeah, being on the end of some stupid Foul and Miss decisions got my goat up enough to seek some opinions, but I've been thinking this for weeks since I've been watching and playing matches.

I don't think this rule would speed up matches significantly, nor change the basic nature or strategy of snooker. It just seems like the most sensible rule for making the game fairer and more importantly, easier to adjudicate. The better player will win at the same percentages as before.

As for the rule being tweaked, I'd like to hear a sensible argument for how it could be, but I'm pretty convinced that the Foul and Miss rule will grow increasingly complex and will never be well understood my most who play the game. Even qualified referees argue about how to interpret the current rules.

A law that confuses is a bad law. This rule will confuse people, often, as long as it is used. I'd prefer a simpler rule, even if it didn't optimize fairness, but in this case, I don't think this rule stands out as a fair one. Quite often it results in objective calls and is often abused with several attempts being used to make a shot that simply slows the flow of the game.

Ball In Hand would be a major change, but I've never seen or heard of a rule that can deal with this situation well. The other alternatives that I can think of are 2-visits or push out, and they would be even more vehemently opposed. If a rule like a push out was available for full ball snookers only, we'd see the fishing line coming out to adjudicate what is an actual full ball snooker. That wouldn't be good for viewers or amateur players. A ball in hand rule makes the game simple. Foul and the opponent gets an almost definite valuable advantage. So get good at not fouling.

Snooker was popular years ago when the foul and miss rule wasn't used the same way. I doubt changing to ball in hand would reduce the game's popularity, I'd tend to think it would make the game more interesting.

Colin
Click to expand...

Not sure bih is way to go, especially from first miss! :eek: It's just too much to give away especially like u said lots of snookers occur from flukes. In 9 ball there is only 1 object ball in play so I'd argue its often easier to kick a ball safe. In Snooker its often almost impossible if the reds are all over the place.

Why not just 3 fouls and its game away, ball goes back every time no interpretation needed? I can see problem is with putting balls back but its hard to see a way around that, unless u do away with it altogether and simply increase the point penalty for a foul dramatically?
 
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.
Click to expand...

The intentional foul in pool rarely creates an advantage, though it may reduce the incoming players advantage when played well and cleverly. I think this aspect of the game is very interesting to watch, especially because it is quite rare.

In english pool deliberate fouls are a fundamental and regular part of the strategy, sometimes played several times per game, and this can make the game quite interesting to observe, as is chess to an educated observer. But for a mainstream market, one wouldn't want to see too much of this kind of complex strategy play, but when used well on occassion, as we sometimes see in 9-ball, it becomes a shot of interest.

In snooker we currently see many fouls played to gain an advantage, though the player may be prefering to not foul, they don't mind fouling a couple of times previous to their legal shot as a means to assertain the best angle and speed to play a shot to avoid leaving their opponent in a bad position.

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
In snooker we currently see many fouls played to gain an advantage, though the player may be prefering to not foul, they don't mind fouling a couple of times previous to their legal shot as a means to assertain the best angle and speed to play a shot to avoid leaving their opponent in a bad position.

Colin
Click to expand...

In the videos I have watched on youtube and web feeds, I don't recall any fouls - with points lost - that I thought were just testing out the angles before the shooter executed a killer shot.

I do recall a commentator mentioning that one player had to take 13 shots to get out of a snooker in a previous match in the competition. Assuming it was a red, that's 48 points.

If the player doesn't like the prospect of repeatedly trying to get out of a snooker he has a simple alternative - leave the cue ball in an advantageous position for his opponent. that is, park the cue ball in the same spot as the opponent would place it, IF HE HAD BALL IN HAND:D
 
Last edited:
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...

You can't be serious.
 
I think the worst rule in cuesports is found in one pocket. Knock a ball into my pocket and it counts for me, unless..............and this is the part that makes no sense at all............you foul.

Why should whether you foul have anything to do with whether the ball you knocked into my pocket will count for me? It's a terrible rule, and leads to some really absurd shots, including one in which the cue ball is intentionally jumped off of the table while opponent's ball is knocked into their pocket.

Absolutely ridiculous!
 
Scaramouche said:
In the videos I have watched on youtube and web feeds, I don't recall any fouls - with points lost - that I thought were just testing out the angles before the shooter executed a killer shot.

I do recall a commentator mentioning that one player had to take 13 shots to get out of a snooker in a previous match in the competition. Assuming it was a red, that's 48 points.

If the player doesn't like the prospect of repeatedly trying to get out of a snooker he has a simple alternative - leave the cue ball in an advantageous position for his opponent. that is, park the cue ball in the same spot as the opponent would place it, IF HE HAD BALL IN HAND:D
Click to expand...

You don't tend to see much of this on the youtube clips and they are often highlights featuring breaks. But I have DVDs of tournament coverage and the situation arises quite often.

I don't think this rule is a big problem with pros, though it is boring to watch a ball being replaced multiple times and usually eventually a safe reply is made, I think the main problem is at the league and amateur level, where players and referees are so often confused about the interpretations.

Many arguments flare up over this rule. When I referee, I cringe at having to adjudicate these situations because one of the players will often think the call is wrong. Not to mention, that everytime there is a shot on, with the potential to foul, I have to pay close attention to the exact position of the balls in case they need to be replaced. That is a real pain.

Such complex rules may be part of the reason for billiard's demise as a popular game. A referee had to be a near calculating machine to keep track of the number of cannons, pots etc during a break.

The best rules are simple rules I think. It encourages more beginners to try a game.

Colin
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
I think the worst rule in cuesports is found in one pocket. Knock a ball into my pocket and it counts for me, unless..............and this is the part that makes no sense at all............you foul.

Why should whether you foul have anything to do with whether the ball you knocked into my pocket will count for me? It's a terrible rule, and leads to some really absurd shots, including one in which the cue ball is intentionally jumped off of the table while opponent's ball is knocked into their pocket.

Absolutely ridiculous!
Click to expand...
I have only watched a few 1-pocket matches, but by your description sjm, that does seem like a stupid rule. Having an incentive to jump a ball off the table is ridiculous.

Colin
 
sjm said:
I think the worst rule in cuesports is found in one pocket. Knock a ball into my pocket and it counts for me, unless..............and this is the part that makes no sense at all............you foul.

Why should whether you foul have anything to do with whether the ball you knocked into my pocket will count for me? It's a terrible rule, and leads to some really absurd shots, including one in which the cue ball is intentionally jumped off of the table while opponent's ball is knocked into their pocket.

Absolutely ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Except for the part about that is the way all pool games were played
before coin tables where you can't get the balls back.

Any and all balls pocketed on a stroke in which the shooter scratches,
are spoted. What could be better than that?

Dale<who remembers when>
 
Let it go Colin, it was just a league match, who cares if the guy was 90, couldn't see and had a stroke like Mike Tyson! :D


PS
Just kidding mate, good thread ;)
 
Colin Colenso said:
it is boring to watch a ball being replaced multiple times
Colin
Click to expand...

Repeating a shot multiple times is an expensive exercise. If your opponent is as inept, the logical stategy is to shoot the cue ball to a spot where he will take the shot rather than have you repeat the attempt, an approach to the game similar to a 9-ball pushout, 9-ball being a game so much loved by you that you want to make all other games more like it.:D
 
Hi Colin:

I myself as a pool player like what you are suggesting. However I just want to point out one thing..

The BIH anywhere on the table after a foul is huge.

It is quite possilbe for a decent player to run 66 pts and win when given BIH. It is also possible for that to happen in today's rule, but the player would have to make a long shot from the half-circle kitchen first.

I am reading book about shanghai :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top