Rewarded for a foul shot

[Captain-Fantastic]

Something is wrong when a player is rewarded for a foul shot in snooker.
eg....with only one red left on the table......and you are 30 points behind. the other player pots the red and goes in off, which is a foul shot....but now you need a snooker, where as before the foul shot you could win.
So the player that potted the red is gaining an advantage, even though he played a foul. Crazy.

[SquaredCue]

Yes, that is a realistic situation where a foul shot can be advantageous. If you are 32 points in front and you can pot the last red along the cushion, the cue ball is bound to fall in the middle pocket, yet that is the correct shot to play. Foul, 4 points penalty, your opponent will be 28 points behind with only 27 points on the table. However, if you attempt a safety shot, your opponent can win that safety battle and pot blue, pink or black after the red and all colours to win the frame without snookers.

pot red and white when 32 pts in front

last-red-in-off-foul.png (90.47 KiB) Viewed 32184 times

Another situation where the intentional foul shot is your best choice is the following: Only pink and black are left and you are 14 points behind, so you need a snooker to win (red -1 with snookerq terms). There is no way you can keep the pink on the table. Have you lost this frame? Not yet! Roll the white into the pink full ball with medium speed to pot pink and white, too. It's a foul, 6 penalty points, so you will be on -7 but the pink is respotted! You still have a chance to lay snookers as it is not a certainty that the opponent pots pink from the D.

pot pink and white when 14 pts behind

pink-in-off.png (93.36 KiB) Viewed 32184 times

As these examples show, making an intentional foul is sometimes the correct shot to play in the game of snooker, the finest cue sport of them all.

[SquaredCue]

There exist situations where the object ball is impossible to hit. In those cases the cue ball shall be played towards the ball on with sufficient strength so that the cue ball would reach the object ball if the snookering balls were not there. If the cue ball is played that way, the professional referee will not call foul and a miss, only a plain foul.

SnookerQ's built-in referee is not smart enough to judge whether the object ball is impossible to hit or not, therefore a miss will always be called if the score difference allows it. This is not a serious issue with the game referee because impossible to hit cases are extremely rare. I haven't seen a single impossible to hit case in the history of SnookerQ during valid games and not even in the TV. The picture below shows a theoretical example.

impossible-to-hit.png (94.15 KiB) Viewed 32180 times

[Captain-Fantastic]

Well I don`t like it, and I won`t have it!!!
In a similar situation where there are no reds left, just the six colours, the coloured ball would be respotted, so why can`t the red be put back on the table in the first instance?.....maybe in the center of the black cushion.

[Wizard]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but you said 30 points behind before the opponent goes in off
Therefore you receive 4 points for the foul and his red doesn't count hence making you 26 points behind
There are 27 points left on for a 1 point win if you clear the table yes?
I'm confused?

[ZORRO]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but you said 30 points behind before the opponent goes in off
Therefore you receive 4 points for the foul and his red doesn't count hence making you 26 points behind
There are 27 points left on for a 1 point win if you clear the table yes?
I'm confused?

Well corrected Wiz......ok same scenario...but I`m 34 points behind......

[Wizard]

@Zorro this is an Australianism mate "lift your game"
I get where you are coming from but to be fair it would be a stretch to win from 34 down with only 35 on

2 sides to the coin he has to have the skill to pot the red and go in off let's be honest he could have missed the red and gone in off playing that shot. Brave shot really if I was 34 up I wouldn't be playing it

[Captain-Fantastic]

I`m not saying he plays to pot the red and go in off on purpose.
He pots the red and goes in off....accidently or on purpose.

My point is, a player shouldn`t benefit from a foul shot.
When you think about it...why don`t the colours stay down when potted and go in off?....when only the colours are left?

[Wizard]

Just watched a game of football where the winning side was in front for the last 20 seconds of the match but they won it. The other side had lead from the start for the rest of the game. I thought of this post.

Rules are you pot a red and it stays down even if you foul. That applies to all 15 reds not just the last one left on the table. Colours have to be potted without a foul otherwise they come back up. That's just the basic rules and I know I don't need to explain that but based on that you would not see it as the opponents advantage to pot the red and the white at any other stage during the match. Even on the last red it means you have come 4 points closer despite in your scenario now needing snookers. Were that me you were playing I would see you as having the advantage because you now have the cue in your hand and I just get to watch you play.

So you're 34 points down and the last red goes in but so does the white. You are now 30 points down assuming the opponent doesn't pot a colour but you need a snooker.
Or you're 34 points down and the last red goes in but the white stays out. You are now 35 points down needing 2 snookers with the opponent lining up a colour to make that margin even greater.
Or the red misses and the white goes in off now you need 30 points with 35 left on.
At the end of the day you're 34 points down and the opponent pots that last red it would be rare to win from there as it would even if he misses the red and the white stays up. You still need red and a high colour then all the colours to win.

Just how it is really, interesting scenario though

Probably failed to make my point there which is that scenario can occur much earlier in the match not just on the last red. Effectively by going in off the red after potting it you are taking away a potential 8 points from the opponents next break so you're giving away 4 and the chance to clear up from there which is often worth more than the perceived 4 point advantage.

[SquaredCue]

Excellent explanation, Wizard! Thanks!

[BIG-G]

Just watched a game of football where the winning side was in front for the last 20 seconds of the match but they won it. The other side had lead from the start for the rest of the game. I thought of this post.

Rules are you pot a red and it stays down even if you foul. That applies to all 15 reds not just the last one left on the table. Colours have to be potted without a foul otherwise they come back up. That's just the basic rules and I know I don't need to explain that but based on that you would not see it as the opponents advantage to pot the red and the white at any other stage during the match. Even on the last red it means you have come 4 points closer despite in your scenario now needing snookers. Were that me you were playing I would see you as having the advantage because you now have the cue in your hand and I just get to watch you play.

So you're 34 points down and the last red goes in but so does the white. You are now 30 points down assuming the opponent doesn't pot a colour but you need a snooker.
Or you're 34 points down and the last red goes in but the white stays out. You are now 35 points down needing 2 snookers with the opponent lining up a colour to make that margin even greater.
Or the red misses and the white goes in off now you need 30 points with 35 left on.
At the end of the day you're 34 points down and the opponent pots that last red it would be rare to win from there as it would even if he misses the red and the white stays up. You still need red and a high colour then all the colours to win.

Just how it is really, interesting scenario though

Probably failed to make my point there which is that scenario can occur much earlier in the match not just on the last red. Effectively by going in off the red after potting it you are taking away a potential 8 points from the opponents next break so you're giving away 4 and the chance to clear up from there which is often worth more than the perceived 4 point advantage.

I can see your point Wiz

[Captain-Fantastic]

Lengthy explanation Wizard, but you seem to have missed my point completely.

[Wizard]

Lengthy explanation Wizard, but you seem to have missed my point completely.

Wouldn't say I missed your point. My point is whenever that happens last red or not you are 4 points closer to your opponents score. I doubt many players would deliberately go in off the last red to get what you perceive as an advantage. In fact they'd much rather miss the red and leave a difficult shot as opposed to giving you a chance to get back into the game if you know how to lay a decent snooker.

The biggest advantage is having the cue in your hand so I'd take that red and white going down any day over the red going in leaving you needing even more points to catch up or both balls missing but you have no shot on the red. Just saying not sure how you see the foul as an advantage just because it's at that stage of the match when you are already looking like it's a tough ask

[Captain-Fantastic]

Let me simplify my point.
My opponent pots a red and goes in-off (regardless of whether it`s deliberate or not), which leaves me now needing a snooker to win, whereas before the foul shot there was enough points to win the frame.
So...the red he potted ILLEGALLY stays down...leaving me needing a snooker.
Let`s compare this to a similar situation when there are no reds left, just the 6 colours.
I`m 22 points behind, so can win with all the colours, my opponent pots the yellow and goes in-off, if the yellow stays down, it leaves me needing a snooker, which would be unfair so the yellow is re-spotted, which is only right.
Why is the yellow re-spotted?....because it`s an ILLEGALLY potted ball....same as the red ball in the first instance......so surely to make it fair (and I didn`t just call you Shirley) the red should be re-spotted (nearest the center of the black cushion) to make it fair.
I rest my case.

[Wizard]

One last shot at this just to be clear you are suggesting change the rules of snooker (not just this game) so that an "illegally" potted red comes back up on the table?

My point was that this scenario can happen any time in the game so (for example) your opponent breaks, pots a red but the white goes down too. Are you saying you want to see the red come back up too even at that early stage or only on the last red or only when it means you now need snookers when you didn't before?

At any stage of the match pot red + in off = potential 8 points less you can score. Still not sure why you are singling out that fact it was the last red on the table. The effect on the score and the potential to score is the same from the very first red not just the last one.

Just as a side line where would you place the returning red off the break if those were the rules?

[Captain-Fantastic]

I`m saying only when it means you now need snookers when you didn't before, and the red to placed as near to the middle of the black cushion as possible.

[Wizard]

Okay I'm enjoying this "potential rule change" scenario following it to the bitter end.

So now you've gone from 34 behind to 30 behind (with a potential 35 left on) and it's your shot but the white is anywhere in the D and the red is on the cush behind the black (if it's on it's spot) or behind anything else covering that area or if you're lucky it's an open shot.

Here are some questions that come from that scenario...

1. Is it now a free ball if you can't hit the red because other balls are blocking the line of sight?
2. If there is a ball in that position (on cush behind black) do we place the red in front of that ball?
3. If you (the player already behind) pot the last red and go in off does the same apply? If not why not?

For mine it doesn't seem right to bring the red back up period but especially if it is purely because it disadvantages one player and would not disadvantage the other should the situation be reversed.

[Captain-Fantastic]

Ok, so the red to be re-spotted in the middle of the baulk cushion, to avoid the free ball.

[Captain-Fantastic]

3. If you (the player already behind) pot the last red and go in off does the same apply? If not why not?
No, because opponent doesn`t need a snooker to win.

[Wizard]

Ok so your initial post talks about being rewarded for making a foul shot

Now you are suggesting you should be rewarded for playing badly and requiring a snooker but your opponent shouldn't because he played better so he doesn't need one?

I think given the rarity of this scenario happening in the first place and the fact you got yourself in that spot where it could happen = just do your best and occasionally you'll get a snooker or two and still win.

Odds are against it but never say never.

Certainly not going to happen often enough to merit a change in the rules of the game so it's down to you really cue in hand always preferable to any other scenario

[Captain-Fantastic]

Just because he`s ahead and I`m behind, doesn`t mean that he`s playing the best of the two.

Why shouldn`t the red come back up?

Why, when just the six colours left do they get re-spotted when potted and go in-off?

What`s good for the goose is good for the gander!

I don`t like it... and I won`t have it!

[Wizard]

Okay so to list all the possibilities

You need 32-34 there's 35 on (last red) he pots red and goes in off leaving 27 on you now need 28-30
You need 40-42 there's 43 on (2 reds left) he pots red and goes in off leaving 35 on you now need 36-38
You need 48-50 there's 51 on (3 reds left) he pots red and goes in off leaving 43 on you now need 44-46
You need 56-58 there's 59 on (4 reds left) he pots red and goes in off leaving 51 on you now need 52-54
You need 64-66 there's 67 on (5 reds left) he pots red and goes in off leaving 59 on you now need 60-62
Beyond that you need snookers anyway so let's look at the last 5

Do we want to bring up the red in all of those scenarios just because you now need a snooker?

Interesting topic but if you're going to bring up the last red you'd have to include the last 5 as the situation is the same in terms of you needing snookers. Maybe something similar to this prompted the colours coming back up?

[Captain-Fantastic]

Yes, red should be brought back up for all of those possibilities.
It is an illegally potted ball after all.
Thought about another sport to compare it with, came up with golf.
When a golfer hits a ball out of bounds (off the legal playing area), the ball comes back on to the legal playing area.
So, the illegally potted ball in snooker should be returned to the playing area.
Does that make sense?

[Wizard]

Okay I understand your position and trust me I have searched far and wide for scenarios where the red might come back up.

The only one I can find is where a "foul and a miss" is called and the opponent requests the balls be replaced (as they were before the shot). This would include any red that has gone down. In your scenario this would not apply as the target ball was red and that's what they hit first.

eg: Ball on is black the player misses the black and in the process sinks a red. Referee calls foul and a miss the red then comes back up to where it was before the foul shot was played.

All I can say is at the start of the game you're both playing under the same conditions and the same scenario could happen to either of you. It's just a rare occasion and they have obviously made a set of rules so as not to make the game too long and tedious.

Like you have said all along I doubt they played it deliberately and why would they if they had a chance to clear up and make a certainty of it?

As for the rules of this game I'm sure we would prefer to stay true to the rules of the actual game as played in real life rather than modify it to suit the odd and very rare time where your scenario may occur.