I think that once a frame is mathematically beyond a player unless he manages to obtain snookers it should be automatically ended without any attempt for snookers being allowed.

I have no qualms about snookers being played for before the above situation arises.

There is something mean-spirited about someone playing on. Yes, sometimes there will be a comeback and an upset but more often than not (due to the nature of the position) the attempt at gaining enough snookers will fail.

I once saw a world championship match (I forget the year, the players, what round it was) when someone needed and got 4 snookers.

Has anyone any stories about snookers required?

disagree, i would probably feel different if alot of the players were inclined to continue with 4+ snookers needed (which they don't) - assuming they are doing it just to irritate the opposition.

alot of the younger players coming through now days are very gung-ho (judd!!!) and would prefer to just get on with the next frame rather than go back and forth attempting snookers - which is completely fine/fun to watch.

on the other hand what your suggesting isn't too different from a football fan saying "once a football team goes 3-0 up the referee should just blow the whistle and everyone go home"

people pay good money to watch snooker, its part of the game, if taken away there would be alot of disgruntled old foe who enjoy a good safety shot. :P

There is an inherent problem with this rule suggestion. Say I am 27 ahead and am on the colours - there are 27 points on the table. So I pot the yellow and I win the game. Fair enough! But, if potting the yellow is a very low percentage option, I will snooker you behind whichever colours are grouped together. If my snooker is good, you will probably foul and then I win the game - to make the game "clean" it would have to be against the rules for me to snooker you in this situation.

So to make the game clean, we would have to do away with points away after a foul and go to free ball or ball in hand or something like that. It's no longer snooker and is a 12ft pool variant.

I think it's a fine rule to play with a friend at the local snooker club as it speeds up your session and you get on with the game. But once it's competitive (tournament or money, or even beer, on it) leave it as it is. If it's slow as hell because someone is trying to come back 4 snookers down but lacks the skills then the opponent simply finishes it off by potting the remaining balls.

Your logic is flawed, you have to be able to play for snookers, as swighey stated above. Yes it can be boring when you have someone like Peter Ebdon trying to get 43 snookers, but if you only need a couple it's within your right to try get it.

I do not see it as a problem though. A snooker player would do what you suggest with or without my suggested rule change.

People bandy the word "logic" around as it was some talisman. Logic is about the relationship between statements. You clearly think swighey's example is right but it is not. You need to take a refresher course on logic. Moreover, when it comes to arbitrarily set rules about artificial constructs there is no "have to" about it. Just so that you know.

My rule change my play worse or it may play better but so far three of you think it would not. This is not a sample size to be to extrapolated from.

Thread over.

The problem with football is the tendency for teams to eke out a win with really negative tactics when there are mere minutes remaining on the clock. Hogging the ball with no aggressive intent all. That is the equivalent for me.

You can say it is all part of the game (and it is) and that it is rational (and it is) but it is still mean spirited.

It could be regulated against if the consenus was there and if not then meh.

You start a thread to argue with yourself?!

Goodluck getting those rules changed.

I've been playing in leagues on and off for a while now, and i've never had someone continue on out of spite, or any other reason that felt 'mean-spirited'.

I've had more games taken from me with snookers than i've managed to win. Some of my most satisfying wins have been against much better players where i'm attempting to close out matches where i've been 40-50 points up and with less points on the table.

My local league implemented a 40 point rule at the colours which works pretty well, unofficially its been extended to 40 points + 8 per additional red on the table.

This is the point I am making. Under your rule a player could win the game by laying a snooker, which could be considered "mean spirited" rather than taking the pot on. Under the current rule, an aggressive skilled player would be more likely to take a difficult pot on to take the frame down there and then.

Nobody here is saying 3, or 4 or however many, is enough to slam your idea - we are just disagreeing with you and giving our reasons. I even said there is mileage in your idea. Maybe it could be tried in something like the premier league - it would sit well with shot clocks. But, and it's a big but, because of the situation I described above, points away could no longer be the penalty for a foul. Ball in hand doesn't sit well with snooker and neither does a free shot, but maybe give the incoming player one of four options: 1. free ball, 2. play from the D, 3. push out (like in 9 ball), 4. put opponent back in.
The game then takes on a different shape, like power snooker or six reds. But leave the "test cricket" of billiard sports as it is.

I remember against Ronnie O sullivan someone kept on playing when ronny was leading with 94 points points and I think 27 points still had to be played. Ronnie just went on making foul plays like potting every ball possible. Imo that is of course 'mean spirited', wasting everyone's time. However, the question is, how many points are too much.


video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lyZl69VLc

^ Ha not seen that before!

That video is a very different situation than 'mean spiritied'. Ronnie had 'run two racks' and his opponent hadn't yet got his hand on the table. The reason he played on was just to play a couple of shots and pot a few balls, not to attempt to win requiring 20 snookers.

I don't mind people playing on when they need snookers, but I absolutely think that the "free ball" should be suspended at that point in the game. If you need, say, four 4-point snookers then you should have to get four 4-point snookers (or the requisite number of snooker on blue or pink). The idea that someone can leave a free ball on and potentially award someone 8 extra points that they didn't really earn is absurd and perhaps the dumbest rule in the game, in my opinion.

It even goes against the reasoning behind why the "free ball" rule was adopted in the first place, which was as an added means to encourage players to make their best effort to hit snookers and avoid the 'unsporting' notion that you could gain an advantage by missing them. But of course when your opponent needs snookers you never intentionally miss one, so the rule is redundant at that point.

[/my two cents]

I'm gonna preface what I'm about to say by confessing my snooker experiences. I play mostly 9 ball and I don't play much snooker at all (there's 1 snooker table that's within reasonable distance to me and it's $20/hr) but I watch quite a bit of snooker on the internet, about as much as I watch pool.

I think the rules should stay the way they are. It's so difficult to draw a hard and fast line on when the frame is automatically one. Maybe someone's an expert safety player and with the lay of the balls, he could lay several snookers in a row and come from behind. Also, I think it's a legitimate (albeit a little dickish) tactic to try and take your opponent off his potting rampage by slowing down the game with some safeties.