Post a reply

Re: Tied frame

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Got it - so the player in stroke has the choice whether to play the black or whether to claim the frame.

Thanks Aces

Re: Tied frame

Postby sootywooty

Hi! again All! I had a game yesterday when my opponent was 7pts behind after i had potted the blue and pink, and then i missed the black all together and went in one of the top pockets because of mainly close to the cush cueing. So now the scores are level and then one of my mates said the black is not respotted and stays put because was not an in off and i lost because my opponent potted the black which was very close to the pocket.

What is the correct rule on this please! Thanks for any help.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Black stays where it is I am afraid.

It is only a re-spot if the black is potted to tie the frame.

(There is some rule about fouls on the black being final so it is possible I am wrong. The rules are quite easy to find and I will try to have a look later).

Re: Tied frame

Postby sootywooty

Ok Thanks Alot!! Yes i was thinking that because it is yet to be potted, and if in off it is the same i would imagine because the black has yet to go down.

I will have to improve my off the cush cueing maybe not choking down enough to allow for the small amount of the cue showing, plus was the lenght of the table shoot also.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Badsnookerplayer

sootywooty wrote:Ok Thanks Alot!! Yes i was thinking that because it is yet to be potted, and if in off it is the same i would imagine because the black has yet to go down.

I will have to improve my off the cush cueing maybe not choking down enough to allow for the small amount of the cue showing, plus was the lenght of the table shoot also.

Yes. Raising the butt of the cue slightly helps me on those shots.
Good luck.

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

sootywooty wrote:Hi! again All! I had a game yesterday when my opponent was 7pts behind after i had potted the blue and pink, and then i missed the black all together and went in one of the top pockets because of mainly close to the cush cueing. So now the scores are level and then one of my mates said the black is not respotted and stays put because was not an in off and i lost because my opponent potted the black which was very close to the pocket.

What is the correct rule on this please! Thanks for any help.


Hi Sootywooty. I will need to jump in here to make a correction to this scenario. I am sorry to say that in your frame, in fact you decided to proceed incorrectly. The Black should have been re-spotted and the next stroke played from in hand decided by a coin flip, not your opponent's decision (despite the fact that it was you who fouled).

It would be best if you go back and read this post:

viewtopic.php?f=468&t=6861#p443882

for a full explanation, but to summarize, the Rule states clearly, ""When Black is the only object ball remaining on the table, the first score or foul ends the frame..." and that ALWAYS applies, frame is over. At least the regulation frame is over, but in your case the score is drawn after the foul so it is a special circumstance. What happens in this special circumstance is sort of a "mini-frame", overtime if you will, and that is the reason why the Black must be re-spotted and a coin must be tossed to decide the "breakoff stroke".

So one of your friends explained, "...one of my mates said the black is not respotted and stays put because was not an in off" and even BadSnookerPlayer, a very knowledgeable player, said, "It is only a re-spot if the black is potted to tie the frame." So it is perfectly understandable to be confused by this Rule. So let me clarify in a general sense.

By their nature, the Rules of Snooker attempt to be all-encompassing meaning that the Rules apply always to all players in all circumstances no matter what. Occasionally, the Rule may have an exception. (For instance, at least one foot must be touching the floor when a stroke is played............except in the case that you are a wheelchair player. That is in the Rules.)

So this business about "B-b-b-but the Black wasn't potted so it cannot be re-spotted" simply is not true. Look at it this way...every stroke which is ever played on a Snooker table can be classified in one of only two possible ways: 1) Fair stroke or 2) Foul stroke. That is it. HOW a foul occurs does not matter in the slightest. So the rule says that when the Black is the only object ball remaining on the table, the frame is over as soon as the Black is either potted on a fair stroke OR when a foul stroke occurs (a foul of any sort). When the game is over and the state of the scores happens to be that they are drawn level, then we proceed to the standard "tie-breaking" measure of the mini Black Ball frame. Re-spot and coin flip to decide.

I hope you didn't have a wager on your frame or any significance to it as the frame actually proceeded incorrectly and so the result really ought to be nullified. If you would like to verify the exact Rule that applies here, it is Section 3., Rule 4. (a) and (b).

Re: Tied frame

Postby sootywooty

Thanks Alot!! Acesinc, Yes i did dispute it because i recalled reading what you said in the rules about the level scores but was not sure. Their was no wager involved so no worries, but i must admit i do like to win if i can so i will remember that one for the future.

No worries BSP the rules are very complex maybe even harder than the game at times.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Pink Ball

This happened in a world championship first-round decider between Nigel Bond and Stephen Hendry. Bond potted the winning black, or so he thought. He actually went in-off, and a re-spot was needed as the scores were tied.

Bond won anyway.

Re: Tied frame

Postby sootywooty

Yes Pink Ball!! I see that example when searching utube for a maybe answer, but i thought well that could be the only way because the black was down so had to go back on it own spot, because of the pot and then the foul. But thanks for your input to help on this topic.

Another complex one is in the freeball rule, when it is in a keep on replacing because of a foul and a miss situation, someone has told me if another snooker happens the player can be offered another freeball each time in the chain should it occur till the snooker is escaped from not really sure on this one either.

We only play the offer then one miss in are games as to speed things up, and also stops the argument about an accurate replace, is bad enough with the arguments that breakout regards the more simple rules lol.

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

Pink Ball wrote:This happened in a world championship first-round decider between Nigel Bond and Stephen Hendry. Bond potted the winning black, or so he thought. He actually went in-off, and a re-spot was needed as the scores were tied.

Bond won anyway.


Fair play that Bond ultimately won this. Perhaps my most disappointing moment in regards to Stephen Hendry. The gamesmanship runs deep in this one.

https://youtu.be/TvPEBIF8dbc?t=218

(I can't figure out how to embed the YouTube if anyone has a tip for me...)

Probably an unpopular opinion here, but when Stephen cracked his cue, that is a clear sign of concession. By the Rules, the striker may accept or reject an offer of concession. By playing on, Nigel Bond in essence said, "I do not accept your concession, I will pot this ball." He didn't have to do that. He could have laid down his cue and extended his hand to accept Stephen's concession. Stephen very probably would have said, "He has to pot that ball!" but had I been the referee (and I am guessing any referee worth his/her salt), my reply would be that by cracking the cue, Stephen effectively said, "I have no intention of playing another stroke this match." i.e., "I concede." Case closed. This is very probably another case in point that surprisingly often, the players don't really know the more subtle rules of the game.

Lesson for the players here...if you are in a match, say with some minor wager on the line, and your unevolved brute of an opponent pulls the adolescent trick of cracking the cue like this, lay your cue down and accept the concession. No need at all to prove your manliness by potting the ball anyway under the pressure.Tell him if he cracked his cue, it was obviously to free up his hands to pull out his wallet. You will wow him with your super-human intelligence and knowledge of the Rules. And once a concession is offered, it CANNOT be rescinded. That is also in the Rules. Sorry, if you put your cue back together, it doesn't matter. Pay up.

Re: Tied frame

Postby sootywooty

Lol!! Aces, yes a knowledge of the rules is good maybe best to kid them you have been for refs training but you prefered to play in the end.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Pink Ball

acesinc wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:This happened in a world championship first-round decider between Nigel Bond and Stephen Hendry. Bond potted the winning black, or so he thought. He actually went in-off, and a re-spot was needed as the scores were tied.

Bond won anyway.


Fair play that Bond ultimately won this. Perhaps my most disappointing moment in regards to Stephen Hendry. The gamesmanship runs deep in this one.

https://youtu.be/TvPEBIF8dbc?t=218

(I can't figure out how to embed the YouTube if anyone has a tip for me...)

Probably an unpopular opinion here, but when Stephen cracked his cue, that is a clear sign of concession. By the Rules, the striker may accept or reject an offer of concession. By playing on, Nigel Bond in essence said, "I do not accept your concession, I will pot this ball." He didn't have to do that. He could have laid down his cue and extended his hand to accept Stephen's concession. Stephen very probably would have said, "He has to pot that ball!" but had I been the referee (and I am guessing any referee worth his/her salt), my reply would be that by cracking the cue, Stephen effectively said, "I have no intention of playing another stroke this match." i.e., "I concede." Case closed. This is very probably another case in point that surprisingly often, the players don't really know the more subtle rules of the game.

Lesson for the players here...if you are in a match, say with some minor wager on the line, and your unevolved brute of an opponent pulls the adolescent trick of cracking the cue like this, lay your cue down and accept the concession. No need at all to prove your manliness by potting the ball anyway under the pressure.Tell him if he cracked his cue, it was obviously to free up his hands to pull out his wallet. You will wow him with your super-human intelligence and knowledge of the Rules. And once a concession is offered, it CANNOT be rescinded. That is also in the Rules. Sorry, if you put your cue back together, it doesn't matter. Pay up.

And Steve Davis would have been world champion in 1985

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

Pink Ball wrote:And Steve Davis would have been world champion in 1985


Pinky, to be clear, you are saying that Dennis Taylor cracked his cue in 1985? I watched it live on telly and I have watched the video maybe a dozen times. I never noticed this. Unless maybe it was a different frame, not the decider. Were you there live at the Crucible and saw something personally that perhaps was not on telly? I ask in all honesty as I have never noted anything untoward. No matter, an offer of concession must be accepted by the striker and clearly in 1985, just as Nigel Bond against Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis did not indicate that he was aware of let alone accept an indication of concession so the impetus was on him to pot the ball. He didn't.