Talk:Rules of snooker

Questions

The statement "The number of frames is always odd so as to prevent a tie or a draw." is false since in this match: Luca Brecel vs. Ben Woollaston | 2020 Championship League Snooker June Edition Final | Full Match, which is on YouTube but the link is blacklisted since Wikipedia is stuck in the 1990s, they played four frames, tied it two-to-two, and miraculously, the left-side player won the match. Is this based on total points or who breaks the balls or what? Equally mystifying is the "dead frame" in a different match where there was the same (4) in parentheses, the guy on the left had won 2 frames, the guy on the right won one, and when he broke for the fourth frame, he just blasted the reds wide open and it was obvious they were just going through the motions, the match was already decided.

What is the definition of "no room" in:

"If there is no available spot, it is placed as close to its own spot as possible in a direct line between that spot and the top cushion, without touching another ball. If there is no room this side of the spot, it will be placed as close to the spot as possible in a straight line towards the bottom cushion, without touching another ball."

Because it has already been established that it cannot be put on its spot. Do you mean towards top or bottom cushion whichever is closer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.189.179 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion may arise due to the reverse definition of top and bottom that Snooker uses - the top cushion is the black end and the bottom cushion is the baulk end (which is generally the reverse of how the table is shown). So normally if there are no spots available then it is put as near its spot as possible towards the black end of the table. But if all that area is covered (for example if it is the black ball and its spot and all cloth towards the cushion has reds on it) then it will be placed as near as possible towards the baulk end of the black spot. Hope that clears things up. SFC9394 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. The "black end" of the central line is indeed not unlikely to be covered by other balls. Maybe that sentence can be rewritten to make that a bit more clear?

Merge from Free ball

The free ball article has no particular reason to exist as its own miniarticle. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Now done) BunnyDust (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Miss (snooker rule)

The miss article has no particular reason to exist as its own miniarticle. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Now done) BunnyDust (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foul on the black

I have read the rules linked to and I can't find the rule that would allow losing because of a foul on the black. Is that rule really correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.24.146 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foul and a miss

The article says that a foul and a miss will be called if a player is deemed not to have made a serious attempt to hit the ball. However, from watching snooker on TV it looks like they call foul and a miss every time the players fail to hit the ball on, regardless of whether a serious attempt was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is all a bit open to interpretation. On TV a miss will almost always be called - because almost all of the time the player will be playing a more tricky escape than they need to, and at a far slower pace than they need to - all so they don't leave any reds on. If the player takes the easiest escape (say off one cushion - careering into the pack - instead of two - nestling against one on the top cushion) and if the player played it at full pace rather than as a slow nestling drag - then a miss won't be called. Very few professional snooker players do this, because they may throw away the frame if they leave something on - hence the referee is left with no option but to call a miss. SFC9394 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent explanation, and much better than the one within the article. Might it be an idea to edit the article to incorporate some of the above to make it clearer? BunnyDust (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. If the easiest escape shot doesn't give them a good chance of potting the ball, and will leave the opponent a good position, then usually a more difficult escape will be attempted that leaves the opponent in a worse position whether it succeeds or fails. In this case, without the rule it would be silly to even try the simple escape. The foul and miss rule is there to give the victim of this tactic the opportunity to claim extra penalty points they wouldn't otherwise get while the person tries there low percentage escape. 24.7.7.85 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the rule was changed a bit in 2014. The simple version is that if reds are on, hitting a color first is no longer considered a miss, unless there is a straight shot available to a ball on, in which case a miss is ALWAYS called. Simple summary. Was the cue ball hit hard enough to reach the ball on? If no, it's a miss. Was there a straight shot available to any part of a ball on? If so, it's a miss. If not, and reds are on, striking a color first is not a miss. Also if a snooker is truly inescapable, the player is allowed to simply play towards the ball on with sufficient strength to hit it if the obstructing balls were missing. Whether a snooker is considered inescapable depends on the skill of the player. A novice player can't be expected to make a multi cushion escape, so if one is required, a miss isn't going to be called. 2603:3006:1081:1C00:59D8:757A:2B5F:222E (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

155 Maximum Break

Regarding the 155 maximum break, I think one of the BBC commentators said that this had been done by Mark Selby, but I'm not sure whether it was during a tournament. Ianhowlett (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

155 was made by Jamie Cope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.14.97.6 (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested 155 + 7 for a respotted black will not occur because there is no way for the scores to be tied at 155. 2001:470:6A3F:0:6946:EEE5:F953:7BCA (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The player making the 155 must have given up 155 in fouls, without any ball being potted, before the 155 break, resulting in a respot. Actually i'm very doubtful that is would be regarded as one break, despite the quoted definition of a break.. Nigej (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you played in a handicap tournament though and gave your opponent 155 start you could make a 162.

If it did, it is staggeringly unlikely for the reason you give (although with quibble that they must have given up 155 more points in fouls than their opponent: a player 10 - 165 down could do it, for example, despite having given up 165 points). But I think it's a case of reading section 2 rule 8 ('A break is a number of pots in successive strokes made in any one turn by a player during a frame') without treating the re-spot as the end of a turn (if it were not, how could the other player ever have first shot at the re-spotted black?) Lovingboth (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is black ball 7 points?

In the first phase of the game the balls potted are either red or black, because black is the easiest colour. Seldom other colours than black are potted. Why is the player rewarded with the highest points available (7) when potting the easiest colour? Why is black not worth 2p only? (and pink 3, blue 4, green 5, yellow 6, brown 7)

In the second phase of the game the black ball become the most difficult one, and to keep the excitement high the highest point ball should be potted as the last one, so in the second phase black ball should be 7p.

If black was 2p in the first phase the total points of todays maximum break would not be 147, it would be 72. 147 points would still be possible to make, but certainly no one would have made it yet. The highest break record would still be climbing today and not be stuck since 1955. Najro (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and tell me how would you judge difficulty of each ball -.- West Brom 4ever (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When potting red balls the coloured balls closest to the red cluster is the easiest. This is because the white has to travel the shortest distance when preparing for the next shot. Imagine doing red-brown 15 times. The white has to travel across the whole table every shot. This has to be more difficult than red-black because it is more difficult to position the white ball, the further the distance is.

The pink is closer to the red cluster than the black, but it is too close because it is jammed with the reds before the frame has even started, so I think black is easier than pink. Black also has a tendency of getting jammed with the reds. The blue never gets jammed. Possibly blue is easier than black, but still the three most difficult ones is green, brown and yellow. (Well, moving the white towards green, brown, yellow give three choices which is perhaps more easy than the one choice of the black. But in getting the white back to the red cluster is difficult across the whole table, and the red choices might not be that many). Najro (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding position and continuing the break make potting black [between reds] far more difficult than you think [avoiding undesirable contact with other reds after potting the black adds further to the challenge]. The schema as it is works very well; what you suggest would result in a very different game, and probably not very exciting to watch.

As for why they pot the black, it is precisely because it is the highest scoring ball! The players intention is to win the game. If the rules were changed to make, say, yellow worth 7 points, that is what players would attempt, in order to get the highest score. Myredroom (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What colour is easier than black when having to do 15 reds? Blue because it not gets jammed?

If yellow was 7p, I dont think the players would try and do it very often because the risk of failure is so high. I think the players instead would try the more safe colours, and stay alive in the shot and not give it away to the opponent. It is better to score a low value than score nothing at all.

And the players interest in the yellow ball maybe also depend on how much prize money is put on the highest break, in comparison with prize money for acheiveing a good result in the tournament. A good tournament should really be more desirable than the highest break. Najro (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free ball messups?

The Fouls paragraph states The number of points for potting the free ball is not the worth of the nominated ball but of the original ball "on". For example, if the ball "on" is a red, and the free ball is a pink, the player will receive one point for potting the pink., whereas the Free ball paragraph says If free ball occurs with all 15 reds still on the table, it gives a chance to an offended player to compile a break higher than 147... up to 155, which is contrary to this. May I guess the text in Fouls may be wrong?

Rkarlsba 13:36 13 July 2008

It is right - it is just that the text in the fouls section doesn't expand further. "the player will receive one point for potting the pink" - so they pot the pink as if it were a red - hence they can then pot a colour since they have just potted a "red". So if, on a maximum with free ball, the player pots the "red" then the black - then the 15 reds (and blacks)- that will equal 1+7+147 = 155. SFC9394 (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching ball situations

Part of the touching ball rule here http://www.billiardworld.com/snooker.html is confusing.

"No penalty is incurred for thus playing away if (1) the ball is not on." So if the cue ball is touching a ball not "on" while "on" balls are available then the player must play away without penalty. I assume that he has to strike an "on" ball but this isn't stated.

"No penalty is incurred for thus playing away if (2) the ball is on and the striker nominates such ball." So if the cue ball is touching a ball that is "on" I assume that he can nominate it and play away without striking another ball and not commit a foul because he has been deemed to have played a ball that is "on". I've never heard players nominating a touching ball on TV when they just play away to a safe place without striking another ball.

"No penalty is incurred for thus playing away if (3) the ball is on and the striker nominates, and first hits, another ball." So if the cue ball is touching a ball that is "on" and he plays away and nominates a ball that is not "on" and strikes it, it isn't a foul. He might do this purely for position without intending to pot the ball that is not "on". I've never heard players nominating another ball on TV.

Am I correct in the above interpretations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.200.92 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is if you are touching a ball on, it counts as touching it when it benefits you to, and it doesn't when it doesn't benefit you. What it means is say you are touching blue and colors are on. You can call the blue ball, and you are considered to have touched it, so you can play for a snooker from here without fouling even if you strike another, such as by freezing the ball to a different color. But if you call green instead, then the blue ball you are attached to is not considered on, and you are not considered to have touched it, so your attempt to pot green isn't a foul, even though it was touching a color not on. If reds are on, and you are touching a red, you can shoot at any ball on the table without foul, and again you can play for a really nasty snooker, and hope for a foul and a miss. 24.7.7.85 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive rules

I've played some snooker and watched more, and there's always things to question. Even this fine article leaves a few things unanswered. (Some of this rarely, if ever, happens in professional play.)

If a ball is potted while a foul is committed, or if a ball ends out of the table, the ball will be repositioned. (This is an interpretation of the article text.)

Provided that the opponent doesn't request a repositioning of all balls: Will falsely potted (or off-tabled) coloured balls be placed on their initial spots, or in the positions they lay before the foul? And where will red balls be placed? Red balls don't have any defined "initial spots", do they?

"If a foul has been committed by not hitting a ball "on" first, or at all, and the referee judges that the player has not made the best possible effort to hit a ball "on", (...) then "foul, and a miss" is called. In this instance the other player may request that all balls on the table are returned to their position..."

What if you hit a ball "on" first with your best effort, but still commit a foul? For example you hit the ball "on" and pot a different ball, or you hit the ball "on" and touch some ball with your hand, clothes or equipment. Isn't then the opponent allowed to request a repositioning of all balls?

If you actually hit the ball on, then it is not a miss. Obviously, a hit is not a miss. :) The foul and miss rule is to prevent the opponent from leaving you a snooker that leaves no opportunity to pot a nominated ball. People will fairly often try to strike the ball on in a difficult manner and leave the opponent nasty snooker. As long as they actually strike the ball on, this is legal. Fairly often, the easiest non foul shot will leave the opponent a good position if you fail to pot the ball, while the more difficult escape will snooker the opponent so badly even nominating a ball won't help if you foul. If you try the difficult escape in this case, you open yourself to the foul and miss call, which was put in to make these difficult escapes more risky to try. Note that this is NOT actually dishonest play. The rule is just there to make such snookers more risky to attempt. If they try this stunt when they aren't even snookered, then they risk loss of frame if they don't pull it off by the third try. Very few people attempt this version.24.7.7.85 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Free ball: (...) If a colour was ball on, and both the nominated (red) ball and the coloured ball on are potted, only the ball on (colour) is scored. Both balls are then spotted."

Given that a free ball may occur after all reds are gone, I assume the parenthesis "(red)" is not called for. (That is, any coloured balls will be spotted if any are potted.) Furthermore, a red ball potted legally in a free ball situation won't be re-spotted, will it? However, if it's re-spotted, where will it be placed?

the red bit is there because normally red balls stay down. But if they are nominated as a color, they are respotted. Colors are ALWAYS respotted while reds are on the table anyway. 24.7.7.85 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input :) Eddi (Talk) 01:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All points seem to surround the idea of balls being replaced in their original positions after fouls. After any generic foul the balls will not be put back to their original positions - that can only occur with the miss rule. The miss rule is in effect saying that the player cheated by deliberately missing the ball and so should be heavily penalized. If I am on a red but accidentally pot the green then the green goes back on its spot, not to where it was. And if I am on the green but accidentally pot the red then it stays down and my opponent gets 4 points, and the choice of putting me back in to play if they wish. The only exceptions are the previously mentioned miss rule, and when something other than the player causes a ball to fall off the table (ball on edge of pocket drops in due to vibrations - it will be replaced on edge of pocket).

Bizarrely these rules enable the prospect of, for example, a player being so many points ahead and if they "got rid" of a couple reds by forcing them off the table (i.e. by blasting them over the cushion) then they would be penalized 4 points when the red is potentially worth 8 points, thus forcing the other player to need snookers because the reds would not be replaced. If found to be deliberately done, however, the player would be penalized for unsportsmanlike behavior and the frame probably awarded to the other player. Snooker is though, whether in the professional or amateur circuits, generally played with the highest levels of honesty, so these sort of loopholes are not fixed as nobody would dream of doing something like that. SFC9394 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply :) Your advice to get rid of reds will be taken into consideration :D Honestly I wasn't thinking of malevolent play when sketching these scenarios, I just found the scenarios plausible (at least in amateur play) but not covered in the article. I believe you have answered my questions, but I'll recapitulate if you don't mind.

Unless there was a miss and the opponent requests repositioning, no balls will be repositioned, and all reds falsely potted or brought off the table will stay off. However, any colours falsely potted or brought off the table will be re-spotted on their initial spots.
A miss, that is, the player didn't hit the ball "on" first (and certain other criteria). The opponent's choice to request a repositioning of balls requires a miss. No miss, no repositioning, whether or not some other foul was committed.
If a free ball is potted, it will be re-spotted, even after all reds are gone. If the ball "on" is potted legally in a free ball situation, it stays potted.

Maybe some of this could be useful in the article since I couldn't read all of it from the existing text. (But I won't dare meddle in the actual article.) Thanks again! Eddi (Talk) 04:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of multiple balls being potted

How many points are awarded when 2 or more red balls are potted in a single shot (when red is "on")? The article says 1 point is awarded for each red ball potted, however it doesn't clarify if this is in a single shot or not.
What happens if a red ball is potted followed by a colour in a single shot (when red is "on")?
Conversely, what happens if a colour is potted followed by a red ball in a single shot (when colour is "on" and correctly nominated)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.115.149 (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During the second phase, when all reds have been potted, what happens if the correct colour is potted followed by another random colour in a single shot? If the second colour is the correct ascending colour does that make a difference?
What is the theoretical minimum number of points from no balls being potted to a clear table? For example, if all reds were potted in a single shot, followed by the lowest colour, followed by the colours in sequence? (obviously not practical, but interesting nonetheless as it sets a lower bound on the score for a clear table) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.115.149 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is in the article, but some isn't detailed explicitly.

One point is awarded for each red ball that is potted legally, whether it happens in one shot or in several shots. Two points for two reds, three for three, etc. Potting multiple reds at once is rarely intended, but it's not uncommon.
& 3. & 4. are fouls. Potting a colour in combination with any other ball is a foul.(*) The order of the balls doesn't matter. Potting two colours at once (scenario 4) may also happen with reds on the table, but it's a foul anyway. The colour(s) will be re-spotted and the red(s) will stay down. In case there's a foul and a miss (definition of miss: see article), the opponent may instead request a repositioning of all balls.

(*) The only exception is with a free ball (definition of free ball: see article), where the nominated ball as well as the ball "on" – of which at least one is a colour – may be potted legally. The free ball will be re-spotted (it's always a colour) and the ball "on" will stay down (it's either a red or the lowest colour). If red was "on", 1 point is awarded for each ball potted. If colour was "on", points are only awarded for the ball "on". However, if any ball is potted that was neither nominated nor the ball "on", it's a foul and the rules concerning fouls apply (see above).

Maybe this is possible, but it's extremely unlikely. If no fouls are committed and all balls are potted in a single break, the minimal score is 44: Fifteen reds in one shot, then one yellow, and the colours in sequence, give 15+2+27=44 points. What is more likely though, with an even lower score, is potting the balls over several breaks without potting a colour for any of the reds. If no fouls are committed and all balls are potted, the minimal combined score of two players is 42: Fifteen reds and the colours in sequence give 15+27=42 points.

Eddi (Talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can do quite a bit better. In the astronomically unlikely event that all fifteen reds and the cueball or a baulk colour are potted in one shot, none of the reds are scored and only four points are given away for a foul. The baulk colour is then respotted and all the colours are potted on the next shot, that is a further seven points for a foul on the black, and none of the balls are respotted. So the minimum aggregate number of points scored in clearing a table is 4 + 7 = 11. Two shots is also a minimum number of shots to clear the table. (Though I have to say this will never, EVER be done, even if somebody tried). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and all the colours are potted on the next shot, that is a further seven points for a foul on the black, and none of the balls are respotted" - are you sure? Foul pots of colours that are not "on" are returned to the table and respotted, so I would view that the described shot would lead to a seven point foul and all the colours returned to their spots, unless the fact that all balls are potted somehow means this doesn't happen. SFC9394 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the rules aren't very specific regarding foul pots after the reds are gone, but I think we can take it from section 3, rule 11: If a foul is committed,(...) (d) Any colour not correctly spotted shall remain where positioned except that if off the table it shall be correctly spotted. That is, colours potted by foul are re-spotted. I'm not sure about the ball "on" though, in this case yellow. I know this isn't a free ball situation, but rule 10 (free ball) makes me wonder if the ball "on" stays down in similar situations, too. Eddi (Talk) 05:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free ball clarification

Yes, free balls again. I fixed the thing about nominating a red ball as the free ball for a colour (which is of course impossible, as mentioned above). But it got me thinking about this situation with free balls in the final stage. If the player pots a free ball instead of a colour, how shall he then continue? The only reasonable continuation I can see is that the player be allowed to pot the same colour a second time (but the actual ball this time) and get the points for it twice, but I can't find anything specific about this. 85.226.207.82 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the final stage, if the free ball is potted (and re-spotted), but the ball on isn't potted, the ball on remains the ball on for the next stroke and may be scored again. The next stroke isn't described under the free ball rules, since it is covered by other rules. In theory a colour may be scored several times while remaining the ball on, if the players continue potting free balls and laying snookers while making fouls. Eddi (Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the clarification! 85.226.207.82 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snookers with two/three balls left

This isn't in the article, but are not snookers, i.e. misses, worth more when there are only two or three balls left on the table? Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you are thinking of the final frame at the World Chapionships the foul was worth six points becasue six points was the value of the ball on (the pink). Four points is only a minimum - if an affected ball (either the ball on or the ball inadvertently hit) is worth more its value determines the penalty at any point in the frame. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Free Ball when Jaw-snookered

I have an old book about snooker and billiards (haven't got the name to hand). It states that if, after a foul, the returning player is jaw-snookered, they are not awarded a free-ball, but that they have the right to play the cue ball from in hand. If, from there, they are snookered on all balls, they can take a free ball. Can anyone verify this? Is there an official snooker rule book available online? Jordantrew (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules about cushion snookers were changed within the last few years (I don't remember the exact year). See section 2 rule 17(e) of the current rules. Eddi (Talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free Ball rules

The statement in brackets in the sentence "Free ball occurs after a foul shot where the resultant layout of the table leaves the opponent snookered (unable to hit any legitimate ball on either side)" is incorrect, it would be more correct to change "either side" to "both sides", but that isn't really a good enough description of snookered either. See section 2 rule 17 of the official rules (which defines snookered). I think it would be of benefit to have a definition of the term "snookered" in the article and link the word snookered here to it. In the meantime I've removed the incorrect statement in the parentheses as it is better to have an omission than an incorrect statement. Hopefully I'll get time to define "snookered" in the article soon unless someone beats me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navilite (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing balls after a foul

Is the following sentence correct?
If a ball is potted when a penalty has been conceded, the offending player's ball which has been potted is to be placed once again back into the original spot it was at before as it was an illegal pot.
It seems a bit odd to me. I thought that a colour would be respotted, and a red would stay down. This sentence implies that the ball (whether red or colour) would be placed back wherever it was (spot or not) immediately before the foul. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen this happen. Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that sentence is not correct, except in a few cases. Maybe it was part of a more general paragraph that lost its correct meaning through some editing. I've now written it so it's less specific and refers to the paragraphs on fouls and miss. Eddi (Talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ball-in-hand vs free ball

In frame 6 of the 2014 world championship final (O'Sullivan-Selby), O'Sullivan potted white while attempting to snooker yellow. (The last red was potted just before the foul shot.) Shouldn't Selby have got a free ball in addition to ball-in-hand? Yellow was close to its spot but outside the balk, and was partly covered by another ball no matter where the white was put. Since yellow could not be seen on both sides from white, I believe there should have been a free ball. Eddi (Talk) 15:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must nominate free ball

Although it's not mandatory to nominate balls in normal play when the intention is obvious, I am told that you must always nominate any free ball awarded after a foul by your opponent. Failure to nominate the free ball is seemingly a foul even if the intention is obvious and the shot correctly played. Can anyone clarify this? --Anteaus (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shoot out

What are the rules of a shoot out? I saw some on youtube. WeiaR (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Rules (August 2019)

The WPBSA has just released the new rulebook and the changelogs.--Ui56k (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of frames in a snooker match

I propose to replace the current rule "best-of-n" with a new rule named "first-to-m". This will prevent the necessity to calculate the number of frames to be won for overpowering the opponent. Taking into account that actually the total number of frames is written on a TV screen as (n), the new system will need something similar, let's say (m°) or anything else that will be considered suitable to mark the difference from the previous system. Naboco (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, Wikipedia is not about inventing new concepts. Virtually all snooker games are described as best-of-n so that's what we reflect. If best-of-n needs explaining then it should be explained but not replaced. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red ball leads

I put some work into this because before I did, the rules did not even well explain the red ball being first on a turn, and got into touching ball before really explaining the colours progression after reds are all potted. But it could use more attention on this front as I'm only making a helpful edit but it needs more. 70.187.192.243 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]