Post a reply

Number of snookers required.

Postby barrydoherty54

Professional what is the record number of snookers that was needed, in which the opponent needing the snookers came back to win the frame.

Just curious more than anything, I see players play on and on more these days needing 4 snookers or more and dragging the frame on another 10 minutes when they haven't got a chance it seems.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Sickpotter

I think it's 6 but not positive.

With the miss rule automatically applied rather than being open to ref interpretation the potential for a player to come back needing 4 or more snookers is much higher.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Andre147

barrydoherty54 wrote:Professional what is the record number of snookers that was needed, in which the opponent needing the snookers came back to win the frame.

Just curious more than anything, I see players play on and on more these days needing 4 snookers or more and dragging the frame on another 10 minutes when they haven't got a chance it seems.


Mark Selby once won a frame against Hendry at the World Champs needing 5 snookers, Hendry was bemused by the whole situation. Think Mark King also won one a few years ago against Ricky Walden needing 3 or 4 snookers.

And Nigel Bond also won the British Open in the deciding frame against Higgins after needing one snooker, Jimmy White also did the same against Thorburn to win his first ranking event back in 1986, both amazing achievments given the situation.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Andre147

Sickpotter wrote:I think it's 6 but not positive.

With the miss rule automatically applied rather than being open to ref interpretation the potential for a player to come back needing 4 or more snookers is much higher.


But the ref can't call a miss when snookers are required, unless and only unless he considers the miss was deliberate, that's the only situation when a miss can be called after a player needs snookers to win a frame.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Dan-cat

That snooker that Jimmy laid against Thorburn in the 86 Mercantile Classic is amazing. Best stun shot ever.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby vodkadiet

I remember a few instances of improbable recoveries to win frames. Mike Hallett needed 4 or 5 snookers on the colours in the final frame against Parrott in The '88 Masters semi. Billy Snaddon needed 4 snookers on the brown against Dene O'Kane in the final frame of a match. I also remember a match between Neal Foulds and Willie Thorne where one of them made an 80 break and lost the frame!

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Muppet147

There was another match between White and Thorburn in the same season as White's Mercantile Credit Classic win. I think it was the Goya Matchroom event. White had been leading 7-0 in frames and was about 70 plus up in the next frame. But Thorburn got loads of snookers and won the frame. He ultimately won the match too.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby SnookerFan

barrydoherty54 wrote:Professional what is the record number of snookers that was needed, in which the opponent needing the snookers came back to win the frame.

Just curious more than anything, I see players play on and on more these days needing 4 snookers or more and dragging the frame on another 10 minutes when they haven't got a chance it seems.



Muppet147 wrote:There was another match between White and Thorburn in the same season as White's Mercantile Credit Classic win. I think it was the Goya Matchroom event. White had been leading 7-0 in frames and was about 70 plus up in the next frame. But Thorburn got loads of snookers and won the frame. He ultimately won the match too.


That about sums the issue up for me.

You can say a player has no chance in a frame, and is just dragging the frame out. But people win from several snookers behind. It's sometimes good to see people really trying to win, and making an opponent earn their win over them.

If there are instances are people winning, and coming back from five snookers behind, no reason why a player shouldn't give it a go?

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Dan-cat

Exactly SF I agree, sometimes I think players concede too early. And especially if the player leading is on a roll, firing in big breaks, fighting for snookers can break their rhythm.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Sickpotter

Andre147 wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:I think it's 6 but not positive.

With the miss rule automatically applied rather than being open to ref interpretation the potential for a player to come back needing 4 or more snookers is much higher.


But the ref can't call a miss when snookers are required, unless and only unless he considers the miss was deliberate, that's the only situation when a miss can be called after a player needs snookers to win a frame.



That's a part of the rule that's always confused me.....when one player needs snookers the miss rule no longer applies to either player? :shrug:

I've always felt it should be interpreted like this....

If I need snookers to win my opponent can snooker me but I can't be called for a miss if I fail to make contact unless it's patently obvious I didn't make any effort. If I snooker my opponent he would get called on a miss and put back.

TBH I lack clarity on the application of the miss rule when one player needs snookers....thoughts?

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby vodkadiet

Muppet147 wrote:There was another match between White and Thorburn in the same season as White's Mercantile Credit Classic win. I think it was the Goya Matchroom event. White had been leading 7-0 in frames and was about 70 plus up in the next frame. But Thorburn got loads of snookers and won the frame. He ultimately won the match too.


Yes, I remember that match very well. It was a best of 23 frame final on ITV. It was at the time ITV were having 3 session finals, starting on Saturday afternoon, playing Saturday night, and finishing Sunday afternoon.

Thorburn was 7-0 after the first session, and trailed 0-74 in the first frame of the evening with only 4 reds left. I remember he got a free ball after White failed to escape from a snooker, and the rest is history. Thorburn won 12-10.

However Jimmy got his revenge the following spring, when he beat Thorburn 13-12 in another ITV event, after needing a snooker on the final pink.

They were 2 of great matches of what was a fantastic 1985/86 season. The best ever season in fact.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby vodkadiet

Sickpotter wrote:
Andre147 wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:I think it's 6 but not positive.

With the miss rule automatically applied rather than being open to ref interpretation the potential for a player to come back needing 4 or more snookers is much higher.


But the ref can't call a miss when snookers are required, unless and only unless he considers the miss was deliberate, that's the only situation when a miss can be called after a player needs snookers to win a frame.



That's a part of the rule that's always confused me.....when one player needs snookers the miss rule no longer applies to either player? :shrug:

I've always felt it should be interpreted like this....

If I need snookers to win my opponent can snooker me but I can't be called for a miss if I fail to make contact unless it's patently obvious I didn't make any effort. If I snooker my opponent he would get called on a miss and put back.

TBH I lack clarity on the application of the miss rule when one player needs snookers....thoughts?


If either player needs a snooker the 'miss rule' should be discarded. If you kept the miss rule in all situations it would just encourage players needing 10 snookers to carry on. That would be bad for the game.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Sickpotter

Never looked at it that way.... :chin:

Still, if the rule can put you in the position of needing snookers it shouldn't prevent you from returning the favour.

Meh, tough rule. :irk:

Should never have been needed in the professional game. :sad:

I always felt the intentional miss was only done by the poor players who need to resort to such moves, not professionals in regulation play.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Andre147

Sickpotter wrote:Never looked at it that way.... :chin:

Still, if the rule can put you in the position of needing snookers it shouldn't prevent you from returning the favour.

Meh, tough rule. :irk:

Should never have been needed in the professional game. :sad:

I always felt the intentional miss was only done by the poor players who need to resort to such moves, not professionals in regulation play.


Believe it or not (and I very recently asked a professional referee about this) the miss rule has always existed in the professional game, but it started to be used a lot more since the early 90s and by 1996/1997 it began to be similar to what we see in the professional game nowadays.

And no, in fact even top pros like the great Alex Higgins could in fact "use" a miss to their advantage, as clearly shown in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MElzhHpcV4

In the first shot by Higgins at the Masters in 1988 you can clearly see that having missed the brown on that side there was a very good chance of the cue ball running it safe and Knowles wouldnt pot the brown from that position above the center pocket anyway. So, putting it simply, one can say Alex had more advantage in missing the brown than actually hitting it, running the risk of leaving the brown on.

This is a perfect example of why the rule was changed in the 90s, because referees before then very rarely called a miss on a shot. It is perfectly fair for all pros that the rule was changed. There are some cases where referees take the rule to the extreme, but one exception doesn't make the rule.

Hope this was clear enough for you and why the miss rule was correctly changed.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Dan-cat

If a miss can't be called when your opponent needs snookers, then you could still parakeet like alex did, and leave the ball in a place where it would be hard to lay another snooker from.

is it cheating though? Hmm.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Clara8633

Dan-cat wrote:If a miss can't be called when your opponent needs snookers, then you could still parakeet like alex did, and leave the ball in a place where it would be hard to lay another snooker from.

is it cheating though? Hmm.


It probably won't be beneficial since the opponent who needs snookers will gain 4 points from it.

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby Dan-cat

IT always pains me when I need snookers and lay the most incredible snooker that you can only get 1 penalty from it. The miss rule makes my head hurt a little :)

Re: Number of snookers required.

Postby The Cueist

Yes I agree dan , Miss should not be calked for non contact of object ball as l8ng as it is not outside of
An inch.

The above would be the proviso I would suggest
Applied when having to use an off the cushion escape.

If the above was not stated then 4he rule wouldnt work
For obvious reasons