News1 min ago
Snooker Rules---Deliberate Foul
23 Answers
If a player who requires a snooker with only pink and black remaining,is left with the pink hanging over the edge of a pocket,(meaning it is virtually impossible to keep it out, would he not be better off following through--giving his opponent another 6 points but at least the frame would be still alive [two snookers required).Would the referee frown on the shot as unfair play?
A second scenario ---what if the player (in trying to keep the pink on the table went in-off somewhere else on the table?
A second scenario ---what if the player (in trying to keep the pink on the table went in-off somewhere else on the table?
Answers
14(a)i and 14(a)ii explain that a miss is not called if snookers are required. 14(a) iii explains that a miss shall not be called if the player is snookered (provided he plays with sufficient strength). Which I think is near enough what I said (though I missed off the bit about "sufficient strength). 14(d) explains the “three miss” rule and explains that...
14:20 Tue 12th Jan 2016
I suppose I must, kenny. Potting the pink means the frame is over (and lost). Following through means it is still alive and he still has a chance (albeit very slim, but a chance all the same).
The difficulty I see is in managing or adjudication of a "deliberate foul". Certainly in the professional (or indeed decent level amateur) game players should not follow through in the manner you describe. But they sometimes do even though they will gain no advantage from it. So it does happen accidentally.
I think a "deliberate foul" rule would have to entail the referee warning the player before the shot is played that if he follows through/goes in-off/or whatever it will be called as a deliberate foul and a special penalty imposed (such as balls replaced as with a "miss"). I think the potential foul will have to be clearly identified before the shot is taken but I just think the management of such a rule would present problems.
As an example, a few reds left at the top of the table, player in baulk, no pot on but no safe way back to baulk (or any other "easy" safety). The player decides to go in-off, forcing his oppenent to play from the D. A deliberate foul? Even professional players go in-off quite regularly. How can a referee call a deliberate foul in these circumstances?
The difficulty I see is in managing or adjudication of a "deliberate foul". Certainly in the professional (or indeed decent level amateur) game players should not follow through in the manner you describe. But they sometimes do even though they will gain no advantage from it. So it does happen accidentally.
I think a "deliberate foul" rule would have to entail the referee warning the player before the shot is played that if he follows through/goes in-off/or whatever it will be called as a deliberate foul and a special penalty imposed (such as balls replaced as with a "miss"). I think the potential foul will have to be clearly identified before the shot is taken but I just think the management of such a rule would present problems.
As an example, a few reds left at the top of the table, player in baulk, no pot on but no safe way back to baulk (or any other "easy" safety). The player decides to go in-off, forcing his oppenent to play from the D. A deliberate foul? Even professional players go in-off quite regularly. How can a referee call a deliberate foul in these circumstances?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.