Talk:Rules of snooker

message: The free ball article has no particular reason to exist as its own miniarticle. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Now done) BunnyDust (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[:Free ball]]

message: The miss article has no particular reason to exist as its own miniarticle. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Now done) BunnyDust (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[:Miss (snooker rule)]]

message: I have read the rules linked to and I can't find the rule that would allow losing because of a foul on the black. Is that rule really correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.24.146 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foul on the black 

message: The article says that a foul and a miss will be called if a player is deemed not to have made a serious attempt to hit the ball. However, from watching snooker on TV it looks like they call foul and a miss every time the players fail to hit the ball on, regardless of whether a serious attempt was made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all a bit open to interpretation.  On TV a miss will almost always be called - because almost all of the time the player will be playing a more tricky escape than they need to, and at a far slower pace than they need to - all so they don't leave any reds on.  If the player takes the easiest escape (say off one cushion - careering into the pack - instead of two - nestling against one on the top cushion) and if the player played it at full pace rather than as a slow nestling drag - then a miss won't be called.  Very few professional snooker players do this, because they may throw away the frame if they leave something on - hence the referee is left with no option but to call a miss. SFC9394 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an excellent explanation, and much better than the one within the article. Might it be an idea to edit the article to incorporate some of the above to make it clearer? BunnyDust (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. If the easiest escape shot doesn't give them a good chance of potting the ball, and will leave the opponent a good position, then usually a more difficult escape will be attempted that leaves the opponent in a worse position whether it succeeds or fails.  In this case, without the rule it would be silly to even try the simple escape.  The foul and miss rule is there to give the victim of this tactic the opportunity to claim extra penalty points they wouldn't otherwise get while the person tries there low percentage escape. 24.7.7.85 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally the rule was changed a bit in 2014.  The simple version is that if reds are on, hitting a color first is no longer considered a miss, unless there is a straight shot available to a ball on, in which case a miss is ALWAYS called.  Simple summary.  Was the cue ball hit hard enough to reach the ball on? If no, it's a miss.  Was there a straight shot available to any part of a ball on? If so, it's a miss. If not, and reds are on, striking a color first is not a miss.  Also if a snooker is truly inescapable, the player is allowed to simply play towards the ball on with sufficient strength to hit it if the obstructing balls were missing.  Whether a snooker is considered inescapable depends on the skill of the player.  A novice player can't be expected to make a multi cushion escape, so if one is required, a miss isn't going to be called. 2603:3006:1081:1C00:59D8:757A:2B5F:222E (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foul and a miss 

message: Regarding the 155 maximum break, I think one of the BBC commentators said that this had been done by Mark Selby, but I'm not sure whether it was during a tournament. Ianhowlett (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The player making the 155 must have given up 155 in fouls, without any ball being potted, before the 155 break, resulting in a respot. Actually i'm very doubtful that is would be regarded as one break, despite the quoted definition of a break.. Nigej (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If it did, it is staggeringly unlikely for the reason you give (although with quibble that they must have given up 155 more points in fouls than their opponent: a player 10 - 165 down could do it, for example, despite having given up 165 points). But I think it's a case of  reading section 2 rule 8 ('A break is a number of pots in successive strokes made in any one turn by a player during a frame') without treating the re-spot as the end of a turn (if it were not, how could the other player ever have first shot at the re-spotted black?) Lovingboth (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 155 Maximum Break

message: The Fouls paragraph states The number of points for potting the free ball is not the worth of the nominated ball but of the original ball "on". For example, if the ball "on" is a red, and the free ball is a pink, the player will receive one point for potting the pink., whereas the Free ball paragraph says If free ball occurs with all 15 reds still on the table, it gives a chance to an offended player to compile a break higher than 147... up to 155, which is contrary to this. May I guess the text in Fouls may be wrong?
Rkarlsba 13:36 13 July 2008
: It is right - it is just that the text in the fouls section doesn't expand further. "the player will receive one point for potting the pink" - so they pot the pink as if it were a red - hence they can then pot a colour since they have just potted a "red".  So if, on a maximum with free ball, the player pots the "red" then the black - then the 15 reds (and blacks)- that will equal 1+7+147 = 155. SFC9394 (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free ball messups? 

message: Part of the touching ball rule here http://www.billiardworld.com/snooker.html is confusing.
"No penalty is incurred for thus playing away if (1) the ball is not on." So if the cue ball is touching a ball not "on" while "on" balls are available then the player must play away without penalty. I assume that he has to strike an "on" ball but this isn't stated. 
"No penalty is incurred for thus playing away if (2) the ball is on and the striker nominates such ball." So if the cue ball is touching a ball that is "on" I assume that he can nominate it and play away without striking another ball and not commit a foul because he has been deemed to have played a ball that is "on". I've never heard players nominating a touching ball on TV when they just play away to a safe place without striking another ball.
"No penalty is incurred for thus playing away if (3) the ball is on and the striker nominates, and first hits, another ball." So if the cue ball is touching a ball that is "on" and he plays away and nominates a ball that is not "on" and strikes it, it isn't a foul. He might do this purely for position without intending to pot the ball that is not "on". I've never heard players nominating another ball on TV.
Am I correct in the above interpretations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.200.92 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touching ball situations 

message: Yes, free balls again. I fixed the thing about nominating a red ball as the free ball for a colour (which is of course impossible, as mentioned above). But it got me thinking about this situation with free balls in the final stage. If the player pots a free ball instead of a colour, how shall he then continue? The only reasonable continuation I can see is that the player be allowed to pot the same colour a second time (but the actual ball this time) and get the points for it twice, but I can't find anything specific about this. 85.226.207.82 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the final stage, if the free ball is potted (and re-spotted), but the ball on isn't potted, the ball on remains the ball on for the next stroke and may be scored again.  The next stroke isn't described under the free ball rules, since it is covered by other rules.  In theory a colour may be scored several times while remaining the ball on, if the players continue potting free balls and laying snookers while making fouls. Eddi (Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, thanks for the clarification! 85.226.207.82 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Free ball clarification

message: This isn't in the article, but are not snookers, i.e. misses, worth more when there are only two or three balls left on the table? Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  If you are thinking of the final frame at the World Chapionships the foul was worth six points becasue six points was the value of the ball on (the pink).  Four points is only a minimum - if an affected ball (either the ball on or the ball inadvertently hit) is worth more its value determines the penalty at any point in the frame. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Snookers with two/three balls left

message: I have an old book about snooker and billiards (haven't got the name to hand). It states that if, after a foul, the returning player is jaw-snookered, they are not awarded a free-ball, but that they have the right to play the cue ball from in hand. If, from there, they are snookered on all balls, they can take a free ball. Can anyone verify this? Is there an official snooker rule book available online?
Jordantrew (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules about cushion snookers were changed within the last few years (I don't remember the exact year). See section 2 rule 17(e) of the current rules. Eddi (Talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Ball when Jaw-snookered

message: The statement in brackets in the sentence "Free ball occurs after a foul shot where the resultant layout of the table leaves the opponent snookered (unable to hit any legitimate ball on either side)" is incorrect, it would be more correct to change "either side" to "both sides", but that isn't really a good enough description of snookered either. See section 2 rule 17 of the official rules (which defines snookered). I think it would be of benefit to have a definition of the term "snookered" in the article and link the word snookered here to it. In the meantime I've removed the incorrect statement in the parentheses as it is better to have an omission than an incorrect statement. Hopefully I'll get time to define "snookered" in the article soon unless someone beats me to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navilite (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Ball rules

message: Is the following sentence correct?If a ball is potted when a penalty has been conceded, the offending player's ball which has been potted is to be placed once again back into the original spot it was at before as it was an illegal pot.It seems a bit odd to me. I thought that a colour would be respotted, and a red would stay down. This sentence implies that the ball (whether red or colour) would be placed back wherever it was (spot or not) immediately before the foul. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen this happen. Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that sentence is not correct, except in a few cases.  Maybe it was part of a more general paragraph that lost its correct meaning through some editing.  I've now written it so it's less specific and refers to the paragraphs on fouls and miss. Eddi (Talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing balls after a foul 

message: In frame 6 of the 2014 world championship final (O'Sullivan-Selby), O'Sullivan potted white while attempting to snooker yellow.  (The last red was potted just before the foul shot.)  Shouldn't Selby have got a free ball in addition to ball-in-hand?  Yellow was close to its spot but outside the balk, and was partly covered by another ball no matter where the white was put.  Since yellow could not be seen on both sides from white, I believe there should have been a free ball. Eddi (Talk) 15:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball-in-hand vs free ball 

message: Although it's not mandatory to nominate balls in normal play when the intention is obvious, I am told that you must always nominate any free ball awarded after a foul by your opponent. Failure to nominate the free ball is seemingly a foul even if the intention is obvious and the shot correctly played. Can anyone clarify this? --Anteaus (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must nominate free ball 

message: What are the rules of a shoot out? I saw some on youtube. WeiaR (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  shoot out 

message: The WPBSA has just released the new rulebook and the changelogs.--Ui56k (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Rules (August 2019) 

message: I propose to replace the current rule "best-of-n" with a new rule named "first-to-m".
This will prevent the necessity to calculate the number of frames to be won for overpowering the opponent.
Taking into account that actually the total number of frames is written on a TV screen as (n), the new system will need something similar,
let's say (m°) or anything else that will be considered suitable to mark the difference from the previous system.
Naboco (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea, Wikipedia is not about inventing new concepts. Virtually all snooker games are described as best-of-n so that's what we reflect.  If best-of-n needs explaining then it should be explained but not replaced. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of frames in a snooker match 

message: I put some work into this because before I did, the rules did not even well explain the red ball being first on a turn, and got into touching ball before really explaining the colours progression after reds are all potted.  But it could use more attention on this front as I'm only making a helpful edit but it needs more. 70.187.192.243 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red ball leads