Post a reply


Postby Yanfan

Here's something I never understood.

If someone played an actual deliberate miss, there would be uproar. The referee would almost call for the death penalty.

If someone misses getting out of a snooker by a millimetre, they call a 'miss', put the cue-ball back numerous times and generally make a big deal out of it.

But, if someone plays a blatant, deliberate in-off, to get the cue ball back to the baulk end - nobody bats an eyelid. :hmmm:

Re: In-offs

Postby Johnny Bravo

The in off should be penalized with ball in hand for your opponent.

Re: In-offs

Postby Yanfan

Johnny Bravo wrote:The in off should be penalized with ball in hand for your opponent.


Re: In-offs

Postby Yanfan

Dan-cat wrote:How can you judge this in any meaningful way?

That is the problem. Every snooker player knows how easy it is to go in-off a red. In-offs are far easier than pots. You only have to watch a high level billiards match to see that. A top billiards player will practically NEVER miss a long half-ball in-off. But a pot at the same distance would only be maybe a 50-50 shot for a top snooker player. For some reason, in-offs are far easier than pots. I don't know exactly why, but they definitely are.

So, knowing that, some in-offs are blatant. It just calls for maybe more knowledge than a non-playing referee possesses. Maybe that's why blatant deliberate in-offs are always ignored.

Also, imagine having to replace the balls afterwards.

LOL. I think I've just answered my own question there, haven't I? <laugh>

Actually, if anyone does know exactly why in-offs are easier than pots, I would really love to know why. :-)