What amazes me, is that the player still chose to play the same shot the obviously was the wrong shot. In cases like this the player needs to except their fate and just play the red, and see the frame out; win or lose. :thumbup:
Three fouls and you lose -- at snooker!
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
What amazes me, is that the player still chose to play the same shot the obviously was the wrong shot. In cases like this the player needs to except their fate and just play the red, and see the frame out; win or lose. :thumbup:
This is a standard counter-safety, and you can't play it much different than he tried to. The thing was, he had to lean against the pack close to the pink, if he hits the pack a bit lower, the cueball could glance (again, too difficult to just lean onto the pack dead weight) and leave the red above the black for an easy start.
Complex? Pool players I have known do tend to make things complex. Sophisticated? I suppose the same way coffee is more sophisticated than tea, or bagels are more sophisticated than croissants. I prefer to say "different" and leave it at that but you can place levels of sophistication as you wish, that is your affair. If you are a "simple kind of man", you must love the Snooker!
Was I too subtle? It was a veiled reference to One Pocket...
In point of fact, back when we had a structure, there was one game, with one set of rules - 14.1.
That all fell apart when Brunswick withdrew support. The mishmash that is Tournament
Pool today is due to the lack of sponsorship dollars resulting from the lack of viewer/fan interest.
FWIW - I do happen to love Snooker already, and am aware that there are more games than
Snooker played on a "snooker" table. Perhaps you have heard of English Billiards?
Dale
You were far too subtle for a simple man such as I. I freely admit my ignorance of nearly all things Pool. 14.1 is the only pool game that really makes any sense to me; I figure that it is the pool game most similar to Snooker in a number of ways. (Sorry, I know that American Snooker was a big thing decades ago, but to me, it is a bit too much of a bastardization of The Game so I have to play by the international (read, "proper") rules.
By your quotes, I assume you understand then that there is no such thing as a "snooker" table...English Billiards is the granddaddy of all the pocket games and as such Snooker is played on an English Billiards table, not the other way around. I generally omit that very salient point just for convenience in conversation. English Billiards is a fantastic game to play (especially to improve one's snooker skills), but I personally consider it quite boring to watch. Except for the few videos of Alex Higgins playing English Billiards. I think he could have made One Pocket exciting. :thumbup: (Veiled reference as well....while I just vaguely understand One Pocket, from the "One Pocket is so slow..." thread, I think I can safely assume that similar to English Billiards, it is fantastic to play but not exciting to watch.)
Back to 14.1...the one thing I hate about it (and I mean hate) is the allowance of intentional fouls which is really what this thread is all about. The Three Miss rule for snooker is essentially capital punishment for intentional fouls which is only proper. And lastly, also regarding the (what I consider proper) rule in 14.1, in my ignorant opinion, the best new standard rule that Pool should adopt for itself would be essentially forced safety breaks (like 14.1). Get rid of the open break, get rid of these Magic Rack gimmicks, get rid of silly "six packs", get rid of the "rack your own, or opponent racks" and the pattern racking controversies. I think it's comical the way the breaker inspects the rack like it is the prize heifer at the county fair. Safety break and alternate. Simple. Like Snooker.
What's wrong with intentional fouls in 14.1? You can't stalemate because if you have three consecutive fouls (intentional or otherwise), you lose 15 points (in addition to the three for each foul, so 18 total) and have to re-rack the balls.
Nothing....if you like that sort of thing. I don't. IMO, rules of any game/sport/pastime are to encourage/promote fairplay and sportsmanship. To knowingly and purposely breach a rule simply runs contrary to that concept. Foul - you did something wrong/against the rules. Intentional - you did it on purpose. Intentional Foul - you did something you knew was wrong but you did it anyway with malice to the rule. Why bother with rules at all? How about Ultimate Pool. Or maybe Cage Match Pool To The Extreme? Between shots, the players can just use their cues as clubs to beat each over the head like a Flintstones boxing match. The possibilities are endless. Rules? We don't need no stinking rules...
Edit: It's funny if you think about it...in pool, you have to have special rules to deal with people who repeatedly break the rules just because they feel like it. Snooker has one giant, all encompassing rule for that. Unsportsmanlike conduct is dealt with simply at the discretion of the all powerful referee-lose the frame, lose the match, out of the tournament. As with the Three Miss rule, each of these sentences can only be carried out with prior warning from the ref so it really is the player that determines his own fate, not the referee.
Last edited:
I think your opinion is based on the assumption that intentionally fouling is breaking the rules just for shits and grins when in reality there can be interesting strategy in taking an intentional foul. Other people are better at explaining that part of the game.
Your argument also implies that there is no penalty for committing a foul. First, the player is punished for it. Second, they are extremely punished for it if they repeat it. Third, I would argue that the snooker guy in the original post is just as guilty of intentionally fouling as any straight pool player. Even worse: he had a full hit on a red but chose something different. And, of course, he was supremely punished for it.
Because of the game (hit any ball into any pocket) and the size of the table, safety play in straight pool is delicate to say the least. With a few notable exceptions, it's impossible to say whether a foul was intentional or not.
I would also argue that a foul in any pool game should not be categorized as "breaking the rules." By that logic, even scratching is "breaking the rules." It violates the definition of a legal shot but it's not in the same category of, to use your example, beating each other over the head with their cue.
But the whole premise of the "foul and a miss" rule in snooker is that the player did not, to the best of his ability, try to hit a ball on. The rule starts:
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. ...
You routinely see snooker players willfully violating this rule. They intentionally foul. And even when they hit the ball on from a snooker, they rarely make their best effort to hit it. They usually consider first and foremost the chance they will give a bad leave.
The rule is written badly.
I believe the rule is well written. To the best of one's abillity, does not mean make a sincere effort to pocket a ball.
BINGO! Except for the last line, you hit the nail on the head. Au contraire, the rule is well written. People believe this is a new rule but in fact, it is not. The ref has always had the power to declare a miss if he thought the player did not make best effort. For instance, on opening breakoff, if the striker smashes into the pink to spread the reds far and wide, the ref could ALWAYS say no effort was made to hit red. Foul and table could be reset. And if the striker does it again, the ref could ALWAYS warn him that if he did it again, it would be Unsportsmanlike Conduct and loss of frame. Now (since 1994), the way the rule is written, it takes the power of discretion away from the ref and says the player will lose frame for three consecutive full ball misses. The underlying cause is still unsportsmanlike conduct (or in the British, "ungentemanly conduct") except since it is not at the ref's discretion anymore, we can't call it unsportsmanlike conduct. But that is what it is.
And that is why I say the Three Miss rule is the capital punishment of this type of conduct. In Krupa's hypothetical, Player A commits an intentional foul, Player B commits an intentjonal foul to try to roll back Player A to the same position that he didn't like in the first place. Etc., until someone blinks, usually Player A. What is the point? The Foul and a Miss is the same thing but to perfection. It's as if Player B rolled every ball back to the same place they had been previously for Player A to try it again. And three full ball misses? No more benefit of doubt, he is clearly not endeavoring to the best of his ability, therefore, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, therefore, loss of frame.
But let me ask this question: Would the players shoot differently from snookers if the penalty were loss of match for failure to strike a ball on? Or, suppose you are playing a friendly match and your friend snookers you and says, "We need to go after this shot. Let's bet dinner that you can't escape this snooker." Would you play the escape differently when only that single shot mattered?
What you see instead is that players rarely try to hit a ball on to the best of their ability. They try their best to leave no shot and maybe also hit a ball on. Their main goal is the leave, not the hit.
If they were really trying "to the best of their ability" you would never see slow lags to the cluster of reds with insufficient speed. But you do.
But the point you miss is that after the third consecutive foul, Player A will have to re-rack and re-break the balls, after losing a total of 18 points. Even if after 2 consecutive fouls A makes a legal shot, B is on two and A could make a legal shot and put B in a position where B is likely to make the 3rd foul.
Didn't miss the point at alll. Player A did not want to play a legal shot. So he didn't. He lost 18 points and a re-rack. But he NEVER took the shot. In snooker, Player A must take the shot whether he wants to or not. And if he tries to skirt around it, he is forced to try it again and again and again until he plays a legal stroke, not the wrist slap of a few points and a re-rack. Or in some cases, he loses the frame but that's just a nuance.
Man up......take the shot. A legal one.
Must be distortion, cause it sure looks like he was completely snookered on all reds.
That is new info for me, I was not aware 3-miss required an open path to a full red.
Dale(never too old to learn)
Last edited:
He can see full red to the right of the pack that he could shoot straight on the face but then he will 90% let Ronnie in the middle of all reds. Which is why he chosen to try that safety again, if he was snookered then referee wouldn't warn him about a loss of frame after his second attempt, trust me
Actually if you watch the video again he was about to shoot that red to the right of the pack which he can see full on the face but then he reconsidered and saw that it's a loss of frame too if he shoot it because then Ronnie will have an easy starter and he knew how well Ronnie is playing at the moment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you're against intentionally fouling in 8-ball? What about intentionally fouling to stop the clock in a basketball game?
Not exactly. Rather, intentional fouls generally are tactical moves where it is calculated that the penalty of committing a foul is preferable over not committing a foul.
That's a silly question. Intentionally fouling is abiding by the rules. How is that any different from intentionally not pocketing a very makeable ball and playing a safe instead? Intentionally committing a "foul" and intentionally not pocketing a ball both have penalties associated with each move according to the rules (both involve at least not being able to remain at the table). The only difference is that one is labeled a "foul" and the other isn't.
Which brings me back to this earlier post....of course snooker players are no angels. They are as devious as anyone else in humanity. So they routinely play questionable shots which makes one wonder if it really was their best effort which for decades the referees had the discretion to call as a Miss if they chose to but the refs almost always gave the players the benefit of the doubt and almost never called the Miss so the WPBSA put its foot down and said, "Enough is enough. The player WILL endeavor to make contact with the ball on" and if he doesn't, then it is a Miss, referee's discretion be damned.
It's a well written rule.
Yes, but on my monitor, it looks as if he is snookered by the blue - FWIW - I have watched many
Snooker videos and myself play Snooker more than just a little bit. Just didn't know,
like I said BEFORE, you had to have a full red.
Dale