Foul on Purpose

[perpetualboredom]

Yep seen that too, also in the UK they discussed that there's nothing wrong with playing a deliberate in off safety shot either! Sounds like nonsense - more like pool to me.

[DandyA]

Yep seen that too, also in the UK they discussed that there's nothing wrong with playing a deliberate in off safety shot either! Sounds like nonsense - more like pool to me.

I heard that discussion too ... the gist of which was that as long as you hit a ball "on" first, you can deliberately foul ... seems a bit surprising to me but I guess that's the way the refs see it ...

I mostly play pool (old EPA rules) where a deliberate foul is loss of frame and I wouldn't dream of doing it ... might do it by accident but never on purpose!

[Sn00kered]

Hi,

I was about 40 points in front last night with 2 reds left on the table.

One was tight against the cushion and with not much chance of getting from red to black.

cheers,

Char

Hi each

I replied to this yesterday but it went off for moderation... I think I did something odd with the quotes?! My aologies if that one ever re-appears in here!

Anyhows... My point was that if you are both 20 breakers then surely the point of playing on in this position is that that is how you improve? Yes, the odds are with you being 40 up with 43 remaining, but for your opponent the challenge of trying to get back at you is excellent experience and how you'd both improve.

That said I've seen ROS concede frames with enough points on the table on more than 1 occasion but even I've mugged a minus player from 34 down and 1 red remaining. I guess you have to believe that you can beat anyone as long as the points are there!

[stephenm2682]

In our league we were told the miss only applies to the professional game! But if I play in practice against someone we always play the miss rule, strange how you say the amateur game uses the miss rule cos without a legit ref(not a team member) it's hard to enforce nor can you put it back accurately without screen shot etc......

[sberry]

Thankfully I've never had to warn a player for ungentlemanly conduct as such but all too frequently have to have words about cues being swung around in the air, cues being banged hard on the floor or tables being hit hard with the fist.

One somewhat controversial incident maybe 14 or 15 years ago, was when I warned a player for playing on when an unreasonable number of snookers was required (IMHO). To my mind he was playing on as a tactic rather than in any hope of actually gaining the required penalty points to be able to win. I was told by my peers that I ought not to have done that.

Good to get clarification on that last bit as I (ashamedly) did that once a very long time ago in a comp when I was potted off the table in a first frame and was about 50-60 behind with just blue, pink, black left - I deliberately kept the last balls on the table for over half an hour which completely upset my younger opponents state of mind and got me in the flow to roll through the last three frames - in my mind it is completely within the rules but perhaps just not great etiquette, though you win no prizes for niceness?

[SnkrRef]

In our league we were told the miss only applies to the professional game! But if I play in practice against someone we always play the miss rule, strange how you say the amateur game uses the miss rule cos without a legit ref(not a team member) it's hard to enforce nor can you put it back accurately without screen shot etc......

Most serious amateur events have at least a roving referee to adjudicate if necessary. However, in league games there can be more 'discussion' about where the balls were, but most players will (or should) know pretty much where the cue ball was. The trouble is in less serious games, probably both players are paying less attention to the table than they ought to be. The vast majority of matches (even pro matches) are played without the benefit of tv playback, but still it is possible to replace the balls with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

I can see no problem calling misses in any game where the player can see at least part of a ball on, but when the player is snookered then there has to be much more leniency in the amateur game, especially at league level, with the player's ability a significant factor as well as the difficulty of the snooker.

[tommygunner1309]

If the non-offender takes the Miss and asks for balls to be replaced, then that is exactly what will happen - all balls, including the red, will be put back to their original position, and you face the same shot but with six fewer points between you and your opponent. The whole purpose of the miss rule is to put the offender back into exactly the same position with the same choices as he had before he played his first shot.
.

This is exactly what I would do. And I would also warn you that any deliberate foul of this nature occurring again, I would award the frame to your opponent.
For me, this is absolutely the worst scenario I can imagine. It is totally against the nature of the game, and would make me very angry. Call it whatever you like, it is ungentlemanly, crass, totally against the spirit of the game, and as far as I am concerned should be stamped out without question. It is, in fact, cheating. And any player who did it in our league would be severely dealt with. If this sort of thing creeps into the wonderful game of snooker, then the game would collapse into anarchy

[itsnoteasy]

A little side track but what would happen 34 behind one red on table it's in the jaws the pink is blocking it completely so there is no way you can hit it, playing the plant then is the closest you can come to hit the red so no deliberate miss, what would happen there as you must make an attempt to hit it.

[SnkrRef]

A little side track but what would happen 34 behind one red on table it's in the jaws the pink is blocking it completely so there is no way you can hit it, playing the plant then is the closest you can come to hit the red so no deliberate miss, what would happen there as you must make an attempt to hit it.

If the ball on is impossible to hit, then you must play at the (a) ball on either directly or indirectly with sufficient pace to have hit it had the obstructing ball(s) not been there.

In your scenario you can't help but play a foul, but a miss would not be called (even if you had been 34 points in front rather than behind).

[tommygunner1309]

As has been said, if you cannot hit the final red directly, as long as you make a valid attempt, only a foul would be called. This is a different scenario than the first post.

[dieselman147]

What would happen if in the same situation 34 ahead 1 red left, you can hit it but no pot is on, you unfortunatly ( ;-) )
Jump the red off the table. Foul 4, 30 in front 27 on happy days!

[SnkrRef]

What would happen if in the same situation 34 ahead 1 red left, you can hit it but no pot is on, you unfortunatly ( ;-) )
Jump the red off the table. Foul 4, 30 in front 27 on happy days!

Indeed. Rub of the green. One instance where you can significantly benefit by fouling.

[Cyril]

Slightly different but there's been many occasions where a pro has played a deliberate in- off foul as it's the only way back to baulk. Only 4 away, but nonetheless a deliberate foul was played.

[DandyA]

Slightly different but there's been many occasions where a pro has played a deliberate in- off foul as it's the only way back to baulk. Only 4 away, but nonetheless a deliberate foul was played.

I never like to see it ... I understand the refs allow it but to me, it's not in the spirit of the game ...

[arbitrage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vFd0BHG4XE