Post a reply

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby chengdufan » 27 Dec 2021 Read

Tim Dunkley wrote:We are trialling the Biskitboy rule at the annual Sightsavers Snooker Spectacle at Chandlers Ford Snooker Club on Sunday, January 2.

Tim Dunkley (WPBSA coach)

:goodpost:

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby orky » 30 Dec 2021 Read

Some interesting points here. One of the rules which I would change is to do with the re rack rule... namely points difference should be carried over into the next frame. Remember the willie Thorne v Andy Hicks scenario when they were on the blue and Thorne was something like 50 points up? At least if they re racked under rules proposed he would have maintained that lead going into the re racked frame. Btw I'm so pleased shot clocks haven't been mentioned, they would IMO be the death of the sport I love.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 31 Dec 2021 Read

Dan-cat wrote:
Tim Dunkley wrote:We are trialling the Biskitboy rule at the annual Sightsavers Snooker Spectacle at Chandlers Ford Snooker Club on Sunday, January 2.

Tim Dunkley (WPBSA coach)


Wow! The Biskitboy gambit! Brilliant



Fantastic news, Tim! I had read the article you wrote on it, what, a year ago?, and I am so happy that you are taking this seriously. I also read the Facebook post about the tournament with the shoutout to Snooker Island. If you are going to be trialling this idea in an actual tournament, that indicates to me that you have likely already been testing the waters in casual play in the club. So you likely already have a fair idea of probable results but need to formalize. I am also guessing that tournament players will self-referee which is of course where the BiskitBoy concept really shines.

Your club is gorgeous! I hope you might have some video equipment set up for the tournament and if you do happen to catch a BiskitBoy event in progress, I would love to see the game situation and the players' thought process and strategy and if you can somehow post that to Facebook or YouTube or whatever, that would be fantastic.

I love this BiskitBoy idea but I have never successfully employed it at my club for resistance to trying something new. Some who follow my posts will remember that I do play a snooker variation in my club called Club 74, and I also had resistance to that.....essentially, like BiskitBoy, people don't seem to want to play by "unwritten rules", they want to (theoretically) follow the proper written rules to the letter. (For the record, the Rules of Club 74 are indeed formalized, written as a single page addendum to the Standard Rules.) Which is exactly wherein the problem with Foul and a Miss lies: it is literally impossible to follow the rule to the letter in the amateur game. I did twist arms to force my players into trying the Club 74 (essentially said that is the only way I will play, I don't follow the "standard Rules" anymore) and after they tried it, they found out they like the concept so it is common occurrence at my snooker club now whether it is myself on the table or anyone else. But I never had the strong arm to incorporate BiskitBoy among my regular players so it never got a fair trial at my place. (To be clear, FAAM is handled differently in Club 74 so neither BiskitBoy nor the standard FAAM rule is required.)

So, Tim, if you read this, please, please do a follow up post to let us know how it went, whether good or bad. I am so very happy that you have both the integrity and the wherewithal to give this concept a fair trial. Best of luck to you and all your tournament participants. Play well!

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby gninnur karona » 01 Jan 2022 Read

Acesinc, I've read your posts on this thread and feel somewhat conflicted.

I like the BiskitBoy idea as laid out with the four steps.

However, I would consider unethical a player openly opting out of 'the striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on' by instead deliberately knocking a ball safe (your yellow ball example).

Could your proposal be modified to eliminate that unethical option?

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 01 Jan 2022 Read

gninnur karona wrote:Acesinc, I've read your posts on this thread and feel somewhat conflicted.

I like the BiskitBoy idea as laid out with the four steps.

However, I would consider unethical a player openly opting out of 'the striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on' by instead deliberately knocking a ball safe (your yellow ball example).

Could your proposal be modified to eliminate that unethical option?


Hi GK, very happy to hear your suggestion if only because it means that someone takes the time to read and digest my ridiculous posts. :-D You will probably be surprised to hear that honestly, I agree with you. I read a story once by the late, great Isaac Asimov, (it was a sort of "war of the worlds" type story, long time ago, can't remember exactly,) and in a preface to the story, Mr. Asimov, a strict pacifist, said that as he wrote it, the story evolved of its own and followed the arc that war was the correct answer within the confines of his story. It was not his intended outcome when he began writing, but it was the inevitable outcome when he laid out the facts of the story.

I find myself in a similar position.

I feel that I have run a lot of thought experimentation on this BiskitBoy concept. I will greatly appreciate Tim's gathering some real world data (hopefully), whether that data supports or denies my thought experiments. So while I agree with you on the ethics issue, I do believe the example I posited is where the concept MUST naturally evolve. If we accept the NON-call of a deliberate miss now, we can simply bypass another twenty years of evolution of the Rule. This will obviously take a bit more explanation.......

The Foul and a Miss rule actually evolved from a perceived (but actually very real) lack of ethics in shot selection. Back in the day, it was called a "professional miss" but not in the official circles. Example: last Red is touching Black cushion, White is in Baulk in plain view of Red. To move that Red at all would be dangerous as it could wind up pottable in front of a pocket, so the Pro decides to play at it very, very, very thin and doesn't mind at all giving up four points when he "misses" as the Red is still unpottable on the cushion. You could certainly argue that this is unethical shot selection and thus FAAM was eventually born (1994). The deliberate foul rule existed previously but always caused controversy when it was called so it was nearly never called. (I think I saw deliberate miss twice in the three years I lived in England in the 80's.)

Now, I again refer you to that John Higgins video earlier. Higgins could have very easily hit any number of Reds from his table position. Heck, I could have easily hit a Red and I pretty much suck. If he had really '... to the best of [his] ability, endeavour[ed] to hit the ball on', then.........he would have. Isn't that already a deliberate foul then? Isn't that unethical? And it happens all the time. In the attempted escape, the professional player has a very specific result in mind, ethics be damned.

I don't know how old you are but there was a term that had been specifically defined in the Rules and that was "angled". It doesn't exist anymore. It has evolved away out of the Rules completely because it was no longer needed because of the way other terms were defined. Going way, way back in time, even the term "snooker" has evolved. The common, everyday definition of "snooker" would be "to not be able to see the object ball in a direct line with the cue ball". Then, someone a long, long time ago came up with the idea of a "Free Ball" as a punishment for a player making an unethical (or simply poor) shot choice. "Free Ball" required a very specific definition of the term "snooker" and so it evolved to say what it is today, that is, "The cue-ball is snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on..." meaning that the White can see the Red 100 percent but if, say, the Black ball is directly next to the Red, then the Red is still technically "snookered" by definition. It's sorta illogical really, but it was a necessary evolution for "snooker" to be defined this way for the Free Ball concept to work.

And this is exactly my point about the BiskitBoy rule. If it were to be implemented, but with your point of ethics intact, the players would naturally find a way around your ethics, exactly like our FAAM today was implemented in 1994 to restore proper ethics, but John Higgins (and everyone else) simply found a different way to bypass the ethics. My suggestion, while it is against my own predisposition, is where the game would find itself in another 20 or 30 years by natural evolution. So why not just go ahead and implement it straightaway and be done with it?

Happy New Year to all!

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Tim Dunkley » 02 Jan 2022 Read

The trial ‘miss’ rule seemed to work as planned in today’s Sightsavers Snooker Spectacle at Chandlers Ford Snooker Club.

There were no major discussions or disputes. Players of, or close to, century-break standard preferred to have the balls replaced. Ball in hand was only given by players lower down the pecking order. And that, of course, is the whole idea.

No videos available.

Tim Dunkley (WPBSA coach)

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 02 Jan 2022 Read

Tim Dunkley wrote:The trial ‘miss’ rule seemed to work as planned in today’s Sightsavers Snooker Spectacle at Chandlers Ford Snooker Club.

There were no major discussions or disputes. Players of, or close to, century-break standard preferred to have the balls replaced. Ball in hand was only given by players lower down the pecking order. And that, of course, is the whole idea.

No videos available.

Tim Dunkley (WPBSA coach)


Thanks for the update, Tim, and congratulations on what certainly appears to have been a fun and successful event for a worthwhile cause! I took a quick look at the Facebook post and it definitely looks like you had some knowledgeable and talented players in the bunch. Again, my greatest appreciation for giving the BiskitBoy idea a fair shake. With this, I hope the concept might advance even further up the ladder now. I did take note of another comment that was made on the Facebook post; I will post it anonymously here, but easily verifiable for any that may be interested to check:

"A really good day and hopefully plenty of money raised for the brilliant Sightsavers charity. Well done to Dave Stewart, Tim Dunkley, Ray and everyone one else that helped or donated.
The variation on the miss rule seemed a success and was used the correct way by all of the players. Would love to see this trialled at Under 14 level as it’s a great introduction to the miss rule and takes away that judgement call that young players often get wrong. Can also be implemented by the players with absolutely no need for roaming referees to get involved unless helping to reposition balls if required. If you look at this as an introduction to the full miss rule rather than a change of rule I really think it has legs. It also works fantastically well when you have a field of mixed ability just like this event." - Facebook comment

This comment primarily agrees with Tim's assessment with the additional statement that it could also be used as a sort of introduction to the Professional full FAAM Rule. Personally, I especially like the part that I bolded as that reflects the true circumstances of informal club snooker.

Again, Tim, thanks for your open-mindedness and willingness to trial this concept.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby gninnur karona » 04 Jan 2022 Read

acesinc wrote:Now, I again refer you to that John Higgins video earlier. Higgins could have very easily hit any number of Reds from his table position. Heck, I could have easily hit a Red and I pretty much suck. If he had really '... to the best of [his] ability, endeavour[ed] to hit the ball on', then.........he would have. Isn't that already a deliberate foul then? Isn't that unethical? And it happens all the time. In the attempted escape, the professional player has a very specific result in mind, ethics be damned.

And this is exactly my point about the BiskitBoy rule. If it were to be implemented, but with your point of ethics intact, the players would naturally find a way around your ethics, exactly like our FAAM today was implemented in 1994 to restore proper ethics, but John Higgins (and everyone else) simply found a different way to bypass the ethics. My suggestion, while it is against my own predisposition, is where the game would find itself in another 20 or 30 years by natural evolution. So why not just go ahead and implement it straightaway and be done with it?

Happy New Year to all!


John Higgins hasn't deliberately committed a foul even though, as you rightly point out, he could have ensured that he hit a red. Yes, he had a specific result in mind, following a strategy geared to maximise his likelihood of winning the frame. Under the current foul and a miss rule points are awarded to his opponent as a sanction when he failed to hit one of those reds. Nothing unethical.

This type of situation isn't unique to snooker.

Take the service in a tennis match. This is the one stroke in a tennis match which has its own specific rules. Effectively each service can be considered a seamless prelude to the playing of a point. Only once the ball has landed first bounce (without touching the net cord) in the receiving area of the court is the playing of the point activated. Professional players should be able to serve into the required area of the court near on 100% of the time - yet they fall far short of that. They're not deliberately fouling. They're following a strategy which they believe enables them to win the maximum number of points. They have as you correctly said a specific result in mind. Yes, the server is sanctioned when failing to land the ball in - first by being given a second chance, then if repeating the fault by the award of that particular point to their opponent. Likewise nothing unethical. And for the record a solution that works equally well for both professional and amateur.

Under the current foul and a miss rule the snookered player has choice about the strategy that he adopts but is restricted in one essential way. He cannot by a foul shot leave the table in a worse state for his opponent than if he hadn't committed that foul shot - this because the innocent player has the protection of the final say. Giving the player committing the foul the control of who plays next shot without respecting that protection sounds wrong.

I like the objective of the BiskitBoy rule but would prefer it to be implemented in such a way that your yellow ball example foul is outlawed.

And Happy New Year to one and all.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby McManusFan » 04 Jan 2022 Read

With ball in hand, are you able to 'generate' a free ball? I.e. place the ball behind a colour so you can't see the final red, and claim free ball? I know you can't do this when placing the white in the D after an in-off but this might provide enough of an advantage to counteract balls being put safe from a foul and miss.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 04 Jan 2022 Read

For Gninnur Karona, (I won't quote previous posts, just to save space,) you make your point very, very well. The tennis parallel is very good. I don't disagree with anything you say except the point that "John Higgins hasn't deliberately committed a foul...". There, I do disagree. It is exactly, and I mean exactly, the same as the "professional miss" of the olden days except that the old professional miss White could see Red in a straight line and the player would still miss it on purpose. Today, the player must play an indirect stroke and will miss on purpose. He is happy to accept fouls and give away points in order to get his intended outcome. That is an infraction of the Rule of "endeavouring to hit the Ball On." I can say without fear of contradiction that anytime a Professional snooker player faces this sort of situation (that being a relatively easy to escape snooker, but dangerous if the escape is made in the obvious way so the decision is made to attempt a more difficult escape), the initial attempt is NOT a full on attempt to hit the intended Ball On. He will nearly always Miss the first attempt and tweak ever so slightly in following efforts to get the desired contact. It is a pre-meditated process. A professional miss.

Look at it this way......imagine that the absolute perfect strike of the object ball to give desired result would be an EXACT 1/8th ball hit (as judged by the mathematical fractional ball aiming method). But of course coming off 1, 2, maybe 3 cushions, the player KNOWS that he is not likely to hit that precise 1/8th ball......he is far, far more likely to hit it too thin (or of course, miss it completely), or hit it too thick. Let's say it is hypothetically impossible for him to hit it exactly 1/8th ball for some reason (Star Trek force field or something....just go with me on this). In such event, he must decide to either hit it too thick, like a half-ball (fair stroke, but White will slow and remain among the Reds instead of deflecting back to Baulk), or too thin (99.9% chance that White will NOT graze that thinnest edge of Red, nearly certainly going to be a foul with a complete Miss). I am here to tell you the Pro WILL Miss this contact to the thin side every time. Then, of course, he will learn from the mistake and tweak the next stroke ever so slightly to close in to that thinnest of edges that he is looking for. In Mechanical Engineering, this is called tolerancing, not a novel concept at all. So let's not lie to ourselves; John Higgins' strokes in that video are "professional misses" and if you don't agree then we need not discuss the topic any further.

But keep in mind, in principle, I agree with you. I love the fact that the pastime we love has a hundred year old rule that says that no matter what, you must make a bona fide attempt to hit the ball on. The problem is it is like the speed limit on the motorway.....if we are honest, nearly everyone breaks the rule. It's there and we want it to be there, but that doesn't mean we follow it to the letter.

And lastly, (to keep this relatively short, but again, if we are honest, probably a lot more to come in future posts,) the topic of the thread is about Rules that ought to be changed. As I said earlier, this is one very horribly written Rule. It is subjective (which is a terrible characteristic for a Rule), and nearly no one except trained Referees understand it (though most people think they do......see the Dunning-Kruger Effect if you are not already familiar with it). Out of over a hundred players that have passed through my club in its twelve year existence, I would suggest that two of them have properly understood the implications of the Rule. Perhaps not coincidentally, those two were high caliber players, multiple century breakers, and probably good enough to have a go at Q-School. But every other run-of-the-mill player knows what he knows about it from watching the snooker on telly, NOT according to what is actually written in the Rule Book. It is almost as if the Rules go out of their way to not be clear. Sort of like if the posted speed limit were to be "about 50 miles/hour" then a cop gives you a ticket for going 49 because 48 mph is about 50 and that is what the cop subjectively figured you should be traveling. It's a horribly written rule. The principle is sound but my objection is to the way the Rule is written, not the spirit of the Rule. It needs the subjectivity eliminated and objectivity inserted. If you can accomplish that using the BiskitBoy suggestion while maintaining endeavour to hit the Ball On, I am absolutely open to it. I would need to see your contribution to decide.

The really big problem, on which I have not even yet pontificated, is the Impossible Snooker which of course means that endeavouring to contact the Ball On is futile. Does anyone even realize that it is far, far less damaging to find yourself in an Impossible Snooker than it is to find yourself is an everyday very, very difficult snooker? Does that make any sense at all? It is a paradox consequential to the way the Rules are currently written and BiskitBoy can be made to eliminate this paradox. Anyway, I could go on for days about that, but I will have to save it for another discussion. Gotta go to work.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 05 Jan 2022 Read

McManusFan wrote:With ball in hand, are you able to 'generate' a free ball? I.e. place the ball behind a colour so you can't see the final red, and claim free ball? I know you can't do this when placing the white in the D after an in-off but this might provide enough of an advantage to counteract balls being put safe from a foul and miss.



Good morning, McMF (this side of the world at least). First, keep in mind my most important point and that is that the Rule as written sucks. No other more accurate way to state it. Yes, as written, it works fine for the professional tour so nobody involved in the professional tour would seem to have any motivation to address the fundamental problems with the Rule that I stated previously. So any effort that I put into suggesting change is solely to come up with a solution that would allow for a properly written Rule that can be applicable to both the Professional game and also the casual amateur game. And these are only suggestions, certainly not set in stone, I am not married to any of these ideas other than that the Rule as currently written OUGHT TO BE CHANGED.

So, to address your specific query, I would say no, personally, I would be opposed to the concept of 'generating' a Free Ball as you suggest. Like Law in a courtroom, I feel that the Rules should properly follow standards of long standing precedent as much as possible. My earlier suggestion of dropping the 'endeavour to hit the Ball On' requirement goes against the grain of that, I absolutely admit, but this is only because historically, the 'endeavour to hit the Ball On' Rule has PROVEN to only be a suggestion, and not a properly ENFORCEABLE Rule. Professional Misses always occurred in the past, Professional Misses continue to occur in the present, and Professional Misses will continue to occur in the foreseeable future. So I take the bold step of suggesting maybe the 'Endeavour....' Rule should just be scrapped seeing as it simply is not obeyed anyway.

So I believe you reference the correct precedent that when a White in-off foul gives a player ball in hand from the D, Free Ball is only allowed when the player is technically snookered from any spot within the D. Likewise, with a full table ball in hand, a player should only be allowed a Free Ball if technically snookered from every possible White position on the table. And I believe that is virtually impossible. I can only foresee that being the case if a single object ball, say, the last Red, is surrounded by a minimum of three other balls not on, like a Red centered with Blue/Pink/Black around it touching or nearly so. Even if that last Red were surrounded by Pink/Black touching it on opposite sides, that is NOT technically a Free Ball situation. (I won't explain here, but you can ask why if you don't understand why this is so.)

However, it seems to me that a fundamental point is being missed. For any of my examples following, assume Player A is the one who laid the devious, very difficult snooker and Player B is attempting to escape said snooker (, or alternately, with BiskitBoy, allow ball in hand to Player A). I am inferring (perhaps incorrectly) that the concern you have is that allowing Player B to blatantly disregard 'endeavour...' and drive, say, the Yellow directly to a cushion is somehow conferring an advantage to Player B. I don't agree that is the case. Player B is simply following a strategy, though the path of that strategy is still very perilous and Player B is nearly certain to lose the frame no matter.

Table example same as earlier post: all colours on spots, last Red behind Black, Player A, winning but not quite by 'snookers required', leaves White behind Brown. Yes, if Player B drives Yellow to cushion, then A will require that Yellow to win. But consider all other consequences.....

If B gets Yellow safe as desired but in the process, leaves the last Red snookered, then A coming to the table does NOT need to pick up the White and play it from in hand. Instead, A can claim the Free Ball and play the White from where it came to rest, thereby (with Free Ball) driving the score up further so that now B requires snookers.

If B gets Yellow safe as desired and in the process also gets the White somewhere near the Black cushion so the last Red is NOT in a snookered position, then now A can go ahead and pick up the White to play it from in hand. If potting Red/Black is enough to leave B needing snookers, then A would opt to do that. But if Red/Black is still not enough points for snookers required, then guess what? A does not need to actually pot that last Red. Imagine how tight the next snooker will be when A places White six inches from the Red and drives Red all the way up into Baulk leaving White kissing the Black from behind. If and when B is unable to escape THIS very tight snooker, we are edging closer to snookers required if not having already crossed it.

So please don't think that driving Yellow to cushion gives B some sort of big advantage. It certainly does not. It is simply following a strategy, albeit a strategy with still a very low chance of success, without the tedium of Referees replacing balls to their previous position with every attempt to finally come to the foregone conclusion of snookers required. Honestly, I do believe that if a BiskitBoy change were PROPERLY written into the current rule set, the Professional game would almost certainly play out exactly the same way that it does now. I believe (my thought experiments only, obviously I have no way to test my hypothesis) that professionally, we would only see a BiskitBoy ball in hand occur maybe once or twice a season; probably about the same frequency that the Deliberate Miss used to be called back in the olden days. I believe in very nearly every circumstance, any professional player would find it in his best interest to control his own destiny by replacing the balls and trying again and again to make the contact, just as occurs now. If Player B (snookered) opts to give Player A ball in hand, his situation is truly desperate.

On the other hand, myself as a low level amateur, I am terrible at escaping very difficult snookers. My best chance would often be to put my faith in my opponent's LACK of talent. (Not demeaning my opponent; I am simply stating that I know my opponent is as bad at potting balls as I am so I fully expect he will NOT run the table out on me.) I have stated from the beginning that I believe the BiskitBoy change would have very little effect on the Professional game. This would be especially true if the 'endeavour...' requirement is kept as Gninnur Karona suggests. If the Deliberate Foul were to be adopted as I am suggesting, then I believe the Professionals would actually then USE the BiskitBoy change occasionally, but still not very often.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby McManusFan » 05 Jan 2022 Read

Good evening Aces. Well explained as always. You've convinced me, Biskitboy and lose the endeavour the hit the ball on.

I like the current balance with the miss rule in the professional game, and this rule change preserves that whilst tidying up the rule set for amateurs and the like.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 06 Jan 2022 Read

McManusFan wrote:Good evening Aces. Well explained as always. You've convinced me, Biskitboy and lose the endeavour the hit the ball on.

I like the current balance with the miss rule in the professional game, and this rule change preserves that whilst tidying up the rule set for amateurs and the like.


AnglesFan, I am very happy to hear this. Especially the understanding of preserving the professional game as it is now. I think resistance to this concept is primarily that it is radically different than current rules so we would see sweeping changes to how the game is played. No, I think the pro game would be virtually untouched. I can't repeat that sentiment often enough. Think about it.....BiskitBoy would be nothing more than an additional option on which a player makes a decision in the event of a foul. In this case, the option goes to the fouling player while the non-fouling player still has all of the usual options as well. If, and this is a huge IF, the fouling player does indeed decide to choose the BiskitBoy option, he will be placing his fate in the hands of his opponent. Who, as a professional snooker player, does that? I daresay that every pro would rather stumble on their own 3, 5, 10 times FAAM before the sequence ends at snookers required and will barely give a passing thought to using the BiskitBoy option during that time. To place the White in the hand of the professional opponent is a near death sentence for the frame, just barely this side of concession. It won't happen often.

The main time the BiskitBoy gambit would be used (professionally) would be in the rare events of Impossible Snookers. These happen once in a blue moon. I don't mean very, very difficult escapes; these are quite commonplace. I mean situations where hitting the Ball On is literally impossible such as if the White became lodged in the jaws of a pocket and meanwhile a ball or two Not On surround it so the striker has literally no path at all to contact the Ball On. THIS is the sort of situation that the Professional player will look to the BiskitBoy option and decide his best course of action. Very rarely indeed. Currently, if a player lays a very, very difficult snooker, it may result in turnover of 10, 15, 20 or more penalty points. But if one of the balls rolls just a quarter turn further or shorter, maybe the snooker would be truly impossible and in that case, do you know what the turnover of penalty points will be? Four points! Does that make any sense? That a merely difficult snooker has far more potential value than an impossible snooker? Travesty!

Let me spin a yarn, regale the masses with a tale of the most absolute pointless ten minutes of my life. Yes, it is every bit as boring as it sounds, but it is instructional. I mean you could say it was pointless when you were a baby when you were just laying around in your crib all day waiting on your Mum to change your soiled nappies. But at least those times had purpose in that one is in the process of learning to control one's bladder and bowel, and hardening one's mental stamina in learning to deal with a wet bottom. The ten minutes I will tell you about served no purpose whatsoever and it is ten minutes of my life I will never retrieve.

Years ago, so I am in my usual friendly, weekly competition. My opponent and I know each other very well, similar talent levels, and probably like most casual players, we LOVE to fantasize and imagine ourselves on the big stage at the Crucible. So my opponent absolutely, positively wishes to always play to the letter of the professional rules. Another thing for which my opponent is famous (or infamous perhaps) is his amazing good fortune in how the balls seem to roll for him nearly every time. And it isn't just me grumbling about my bad luck; everyone in the club notes how this guy seems to be surrounded by unicorns and rainbows and sunshine on the baize.

Down to the last Red, I am happy with my level of play and I am up by low double digits. My opponent plays for a safety bringing White back to Baulk and the Red left somewhere near Pink spot. When he strikes, it is rare that only two balls move; there are often 4, 5, 6 balls in motion. So White is heading near Green on spot, and from other accidental collisions two other colours, I think Yellow and Blue but it doesn't matter, are also in motion and heading the same general direction. And, you guessed it, a perfect very, very difficult snooker, the type that the only path out is back toward the Baulk cushion. And to boot, Pink is also in the general vicinity of the Red adding yet another pitfall. Well, I knew what was coming. I tried my best to get close. In the first three or four attempts, the best I managed was to get maybe about a foot or so away from the Red. I admit freely, I was getting upset thinking how moronic this situation is. And on that third or fourth attempt, the White stopped kind of near the Red looking at it straight into one of the Black corner pockets with the Pink in the open and the Black on spot. The scores were about even now or maybe he was up a couple points. A pro would have accepted table position and cleared up from there. My opponent picked up White, rolled it back to me, "Foul and a Miss".

I admit I was pretty steamed at this point. I looked at the scoreboard, determined how many more misses were needed, still another five or six, and I just rapid fired off the White not even bothering to aim. I may have closed my eyes for a couple of the strokes. On the last foul, the tenth or eleventh, I didn't even wait for the White to stop. "And frame...." and I set the Baulk colours back on spot.

So that was it. Forty-some point turnover and a concession. I had already long known how bad the Foul and a Miss Rule was so it is not like this situation turned on a light bulb in my head at the time. And there is no doubt that all over the world, situations like this occur when perhaps there is some wager on the line, friendly or serious, and I expect the result is not the same as mine and my friend's simple re-racking of the wasted, pointless frame to continue our game.

And that, in a nutshell, is the reason that I champion a change to the Rules, such as BiskitBoy would bring.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby gninnur karona » 06 Jan 2022 Read

acesinc wrote:my objection is to the way the Rule is written, not the spirit of the Rule. It needs the subjectivity eliminated and objectivity inserted. If you can accomplish that using the BiskitBoy suggestion while maintaining endeavour to hit the Ball On, I am absolutely open to it. I would need to see your contribution to decide.


Perhaps I can suggest a completely different tack which could both resolve your yellow ball conundrum and deal with your objections to the consequences of the current foul and a miss rule.

What do you think of implementing a rule allowing a player:
(1) when they come to the table to opt to accept a 4-point (or more if only higher colours left) penalty and give the other player ball in hand anywhere on the table;
(2) after they have potted a ball legitimately to opt to accept a 4-point (or more if only higher colours left) penalty and give the other player ball in hand anywhere on the table;
(3) after they have committed a foul but moved no balls apart from the cue-ball, in addition to incurring the penalty points of their foul, to opt to accept a 4-point (or more if only higher colours left) penalty and give the other player ball in hand anywhere on the table.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 07 Jan 2022 Read

gninnur karona wrote:
acesinc wrote:my objection is to the way the Rule is written, not the spirit of the Rule. It needs the subjectivity eliminated and objectivity inserted. If you can accomplish that using the BiskitBoy suggestion while maintaining endeavour to hit the Ball On, I am absolutely open to it. I would need to see your contribution to decide.


Perhaps I can suggest a completely different tack which could both resolve your yellow ball conundrum and deal with your objections to the consequences of the current foul and a miss rule.

What do you think of implementing a rule allowing a player:
(1) when they come to the table to opt to accept a 4-point (or more if only higher colours left) penalty and give the other player ball in hand anywhere on the table;
(2) after they have potted a ball legitimately to opt to accept a 4-point (or more if only higher colours left) penalty and give the other player ball in hand anywhere on the table;
(3) after they have committed a foul but moved no balls apart from the cue-ball, in addition to incurring the penalty points of their foul, to opt to accept a 4-point (or more if only higher colours left) penalty and give the other player ball in hand anywhere on the table.


I think I rolled out of bed a little thick this morning. Or the caffeine in my coffee hasn't yet taken effect. Sorry, GK, I am confused by your suggestions here so I think I will need a bit more clarification than the short post to clarify that followed this. I will attempt to address the points as I understand them but my feeling is that I am not understanding them very well.

(1) Are you saying player comes to the table, a very difficult snooker, and so decides to not even play at all? Simply accept 4 point penalty and give ball in hand to opponent? If that is your intent, I don't understand why anyone would ever do this. Why not at least have a go? I know I personally have escaped quite a few snookers that I never expected to reach in the first attempt.

(2) Again, I am just confused. Are you saying a player pots a ball, say Red, and leaves himself a horrible snooker, like the White buried in the pack of Reds? Then it is the same as above; don't even bother trying, just give the penalty and ball in hand?

So now, if I look at (1) and (2) together, perhaps you are suggesting that the act of giving ball in hand away to the opponent should in itself cost a penalty, i.e., if a player makes an escape attempt, misses, 4 away, put it back, no-thank-you-you-can-have-ball-in-hand, then maybe you are suggesting another 4 away, 8 away total? That would explain about not even bothering to try the escape attempt in the first place at the cost of a single penalty.

and (3), again, I am sorry but I am simply confused. My brain may well still be foggy. It sounds to me again like adding an additional penalty on top of giving ball in hand.

So I cannot give an honest opinion here. You may have the greatest idea in the world, but it just isn't making any sense to me what exactly the idea may be. I hope you might have a different way of explaining it. By the way, there is no need to add any bits about the penalty being higher when the high colours are involved. That is standard rules so for purpose of explanation, we would probably be best to stick with the most common example of last Red on the table and a really tough snooker is laid. From that example, please try to explain your three points again. Sorry if I am being daft.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby gninnur karona » 08 Jan 2022 Read

Acesinc, if this idea does have merit (BiskitBoy+?) the credit should go to this thread. Discussion serves as catalyst. I'll stress 'if'.

Indeed I am suggesting that the act of giving ball-in-hand to the opponent should incur a penalty.

A simple rule equally applicable in both professional and amateur worlds.

(1) and (2) I would imagine that the most likely possibility of a player deciding to give ball-in-had via this rule would be in any of your previously described snookers that are impossible to escape. I certainly would expect a player unable to continue a break to play safe rather than suffer a penalty but there is no need to outlaw this - keep the written rule simple.

(3) I am essentially proposing that a player should not have the option to first reconfigure the layout of balls on the table by a foul shot before mandating ball-in-hand to their opponent.

(3) Yes two (or more) penalties. First for each foul shot, and then in giving ball-in-hand to the opponent.

I imagine the basic scenarios unfolding:
Player in truly impossible snooker. Hand ball-in-hand to opponent immediately;
Player in 'normal' snooker (simple to complex). Professional makes the number of efforts they need. Amateur approach depends on complexity of the situation.

So to take your example of the really tough snooker. I would hazard a guess that:
Professional comes to the table and, as they do today, takes the number of attempts they need to escape the snooker;
Amateur comes to the table and decides, based on the probability of escaping the snooker and the potential damage from giving ball-in-hand, whether they are going to pursue attempts to escape the snooker or give ball-in-hand immediately. If they decide to attempt to escape the snooker and fail then the game continues much as today except that if the opponent chooses to have the balls put back and only the cue ball is concerned (ie no other balls had moved) then the player will again have the option to give ball-in-hand to their opponent. If, for example, an amateur had two failure to escape the snooker before giving up they would incur 2x4-point penalties for the fouls and 1x4-point penalty for giving ball-in-hand to their opponent.

Hope this makes more sense.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc » 08 Jan 2022 Read

Huh............

I am not against this.

I will need to give it a bunch more thought when my brain isn't muddled as it is now (non-snooker related....a lot going on at work now), but you may be filling my checklist for what is needed to make the Rule viable for both professional and amateur. THAT has been my problem with this from the start. I have played in three Nationals tournaments in the last decade and the topic of FAAM came up in the players' meeting beforehand each time. Tournament Director ruling: there will be no Foul and a Miss; do your best to hit the ball on. The USA is a tiny country in the World of Snooker. It's not like there is a qualified Referee lurking on every street corner willing to donate time and talents to making subjective decisions about Fouls and Misses in relatively minor tournaments in the obscure backwaters of the Snooker Metropolis. All the frames up to the Finals are self-refereed. In a self-refereed match, an official Rule which REQUIRES a subjective third party opinion is useless as tits on a bull, as the saying goes.

If a stroke can possibly be called a Foul and a Miss, then it should either ALWAYS be called FAAM, or it should NEVER be called a FAAM. Or alternately, there should be another way to proceed, whether BiskitBoy or some other answer. It should not be subject to someone's opinion. Perhaps if nothing else I maybe shed some light on the WPBSA rules committee's "dirty little secret" of the Impossible Snooker. The very few times I have seen video of an Impossible Snooker situation, the players have been completely at a loss as to what is expected of them. Simply don't know what to do. And to top it off, BY THE RULES, the Referee is also not allowed to even tell them what to do. And if indeed the player DOES know what to do and plays the stroke correctly, then, HAVING BEEN IN AN IMPOSSIBLE SNOOKER situation, the player suffers the merest slap on the wrist of a penalty with a single minimal foul! Compared to, if memory serves correctly, the current record for most FAAM in a row is something like 14 times balls replaced, or over 50 points. Doesn't logic dictate that an Impossible Snooker ought to be more costly than a very difficult snooker? It is embarrassing really. Like your drunk uncle at family gatherings.



gninnur karona wrote:Acesinc, if this idea does have merit (BiskitBoy+?) the credit should go to this thread. Discussion serves as catalyst. I'll stress 'if'.



This topic has arisen several times over about the last five or six years when the concept was first proposed by a one topic wonder named BiskitBoy. He would seem to have disappeared into the mist as the proverbial Sasquatch but perhaps his legend will remain.

I am incredibly grateful to Tim Dunkley for looking into the viability of this concept. I hope the idea can continue to gain steam and be further studied. Maybe your idea will win out as the best path, Karona, maybe mine, or maybe some other variation no one has thought of yet. Sadly, more likely is that the Rule will simply pretty much remain as it is. One voice of reason that I have very much missed in these discussions is that of Andre147. As an accredited referee, he is surely the single most knowledgeable Islander in regards to the Rules and their proper application. Andre, your opinion, input, agreement, or vehement disagreement would be welcomed, if you care to join. Even if you just wish to state that you have no opinion at this time, it would be nice to know you are listening.

To any who have read and considered my musings, I thank you.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Pink Ball » 25 Apr 2023 Read

Introduce a new spot halfway between the brown and blue spots for the following scenarios.

A) No other spot available when re-spotting a colour. As it's well away from the action zone, it will usually be free and would greatly reduce the number of times we see a referee fannying about for ages trying to get a ball as close to its spot as possible (almost always the pink).

B) Re-spot a red that was potted in the course of a foul shot IF the player the foul is committed against wishes for it to be re-spotted. It's ridiculous that a player can profit from a foul shot. Say they're 33 points up with one red (35 points remaining), they pot a red but go in off, they are 29 points up with 27 left and their opponent now needs a snooker.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby D4P » 25 Apr 2023 Read

Pink Ball wrote:B) Re-spot a red that was potted in the course of a foul shot IF the player the foul is committed against wishes for it to be re-spotted. It's ridiculous that a player can profit from a foul shot. Say they're 33 points up with one red (35 points remaining), they pot a red but go in off, they are 29 points up with 27 left and their opponent now needs a snooker.


Yes, the potential for this scenario has bothered me ever since I started watching snooker. It's clearly a loophole that should be filled.

An even worse version of this scenario could involve a player intentionally potting the remaining red when the object ball was actually a color (that the player couldn't pot)...

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Andre147 » 25 Apr 2023 Read

D4P wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:B) Re-spot a red that was potted in the course of a foul shot IF the player the foul is committed against wishes for it to be re-spotted. It's ridiculous that a player can profit from a foul shot. Say they're 33 points up with one red (35 points remaining), they pot a red but go in off, they are 29 points up with 27 left and their opponent now needs a snooker.


Yes, the potential for this scenario has bothered me ever since I started watching snooker. It's clearly a loophole that should be filled.

An even worse version of this scenario could involve a player intentionally potting the remaining red when the object ball was actually a color (that the player couldn't pot)...


But this situation is covered in the rules. If the referee believes the player has commited an intencional foul, he will warn him that a further unsporting conduct will result in a frame being awarded to his opponent.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby D4P » 25 Apr 2023 Read

Andre147 wrote:But this situation is covered in the rules. If the referee believes the player has commited an intencional foul, he will warn him that a further unsporting conduct will result in a frame being awarded to his opponent.


Interesting. That's better than nothing, but it wouldn't do anything to penalize the player for committing the intentional foul (if they didn't commit a subsequent one)...

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Pink Ball » 25 Apr 2023 Read

Andre147 wrote:
D4P wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:B) Re-spot a red that was potted in the course of a foul shot IF the player the foul is committed against wishes for it to be re-spotted. It's ridiculous that a player can profit from a foul shot. Say they're 33 points up with one red (35 points remaining), they pot a red but go in off, they are 29 points up with 27 left and their opponent now needs a snooker.


Yes, the potential for this scenario has bothered me ever since I started watching snooker. It's clearly a loophole that should be filled.

An even worse version of this scenario could involve a player intentionally potting the remaining red when the object ball was actually a color (that the player couldn't pot)...


But this situation is covered in the rules. If the referee believes the player has commited an intencional foul, he will warn him that a further unsporting conduct will result in a frame being awarded to his opponent.

It shouldn't matter if it's intentional or not, although I can't remember that rule ever being enforced anyway. Not that the represcussions are anything to right home about even if they are warned.

A foul is a foul, intentional or not.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Andre147 » 25 Apr 2023 Read

D4P wrote:
Andre147 wrote:But this situation is covered in the rules. If the referee believes the player has commited an intencional foul, he will warn him that a further unsporting conduct will result in a frame being awarded to his opponent.


Interesting. That's better than nothing, but it wouldn't do anything to penalize the player for committing the intentional foul (if they didn't commit a subsequent one)...


A warning gives them a fine in professional snooker.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby D4P » 26 Apr 2023 Read

Andre147 wrote:
D4P wrote:
Andre147 wrote:But this situation is covered in the rules. If the referee believes the player has commited an intencional foul, he will warn him that a further unsporting conduct will result in a frame being awarded to his opponent.


Interesting. That's better than nothing, but it wouldn't do anything to penalize the player for committing the intentional foul (if they didn't commit a subsequent one)...


A warning gives them a fine in professional snooker.


Ah, well, that does add a little bite to the bark...

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Pink Ball » 26 Apr 2023 Read

D4P wrote:
Andre147 wrote:
D4P wrote:
Andre147 wrote:But this situation is covered in the rules. If the referee believes the player has commited an intencional foul, he will warn him that a further unsporting conduct will result in a frame being awarded to his opponent.


Interesting. That's better than nothing, but it wouldn't do anything to penalize the player for committing the intentional foul (if they didn't commit a subsequent one)...


A warning gives them a fine in professional snooker.


Ah, well, that does add a little bite to the bark...

Nowhere near enough and it still doesn't cover unintentional fouls, which are still fouls.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby FoulNMiss » 26 Apr 2023 Read

Maybe instead of calling a miss, something closer to the free ball, with the difference that you couldn't pot any colour (just touching it would be fine obviously). I'm just afraid the momentum would be even bigger for the safety player.
Post a reply