Post a reply

Tied frame

Postby shawbros9

If a player goes in off the black and the result is a tied frame, does the black remain in the position it finished in after the foul or is it placed on its spot?

Re: Tied frame

Postby Dan-cat

shawbros9 wrote:If a player goes in off the black and the result is a tied frame, does the black remain in the position it finished in after the foul or is it placed on its spot?


If it's a black ball game, a foul on the black ends the frame, regardless of score.

Re: Tied frame

Postby PoolBoy

Yeah, as Dan-cat states, whenever there is only the black ball remaining, the first pot or foul ends the frame.
So, in the original example, the tied frame would then go to a re-spotted black - so the black wouldn't remain where it was after the foul (which tied the scores).
Hope that makes sense!

Re: Tied frame

Postby Dan-cat

It wasn't clear from Shawbros original post if it was a re-spotted black, or just that the scores were tied. Same outcome though as Poolboy states - a pot or a foul ends the frame.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Wildey

Different scenarios

Player A =68......Player B =61 only black left player A Pots the black and goes in off Score is tied at 68-68 frame then over BUT you cant end with a tied score so Black is re spotted and cueball in D.

Player A =68......Player B =61 only black left player A goes in off Score is tied at 68-68 frame then over BUT you cant end with a tied score so Black is re spotted and cueball in D.


Player A =68......Player B =61 only black left player A miss cues Score is tied at 68-68 frame then over BUT you cant end with a tied score so Black is re spotted and cueball in D.


Player A =68......Player B =61 only black left player A misses the black altogether (somehow) Score is tied at 68-68 frame then over BUT you cant end with a tied score so Black is re spotted and cueball in D.


All leading to the same conclusion

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

shawbros9 wrote:If a player goes in off the black and the result is a tied frame, does the black remain in the position it finished in after the foul or is it placed on its spot?


This question has already been thoroughly and accurately answered, but I will go ahead and chime in as there is an element which is a personal pet peeve of mine. It may not be the Oxford standard definition, but in my mind, "tie" and "draw" are not equivalent terms. To tie as in a sporting event is conclusive; to draw is merely temporary. A final score may end in a tie. A football (soccer) match can end in a tie. It doesn't happen very often, but as the good people of London recently discovered, an American football game can end in a tie. A frame of snooker may NOT result in a tie. Ever. After the final Black, it may be a draw, the scores level. But a winner will be decided. Likewise, a chess game may not result in a tie. A condition of "stalemate" may be reached (also a possibility in Snooker) so a game may be a draw with no effect on the ultimate match score; the board is re-set and the game is re-played.

A re-spot Black frame is fairly common when the Black is potted to draw the scores level so everyone always knows what to do. A fouled final Black whether by in off or failure to contact doesn't happen too frequently so people tend to be confused by it. So when this type of situation comes up on occasion, the best way to think of it is simply like any other sport...there is "regulation play", then there may be "overtime" (re-spotted Black). So what is "regulation play"? That has already been answered above, but to repeat for clarity using a quote from the Rules verbatim: "When Black is the only object ball remaining on the table, the first score or foul ends the frame..." and that applies ALWAYS. Now, in the event that the first score or foul on that final Black results in the scores being equal as we have in the original post, then we still have the end of "regulation play" and we move into "overtime". Overtime is always the same....spot the Black, flip a coin (or any other agreed method) to determine choice, White ball in hand. Play out the overtime again to "the first score or foul ends the frame." And we have a winner.

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

P.S.- I will add to the above post because there has often been the question come up something like, "I was up four points with only Black left. Then I fouled by not contacting Black on a thin cut and my opponent said that he won. But he would only be up by three points so I say I could still win if I pot Black. Who is right?"

If you don't know the answer to this question, refer to the above post.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Dan S

Acesinc,
Snooker and chess are very different in relation to draws. In chess, a draw is an acceptable result and can come about from several different situations. The game is halved, points 1/2-1/2 each. In snooker, of course, this never happens.

Re: Tied frame

Postby SnookerFan

Dan S wrote:Acesinc,
Snooker and chess are very different in relation to draws. In chess, a draw is an acceptable result and can come about from several different situations. The game is halved, points 1/2-1/2 each. In snooker, of course, this never happens.


Did you join the forum, just to say that?

Re: Tied frame

Postby Badsnookerplayer

SnookerFan wrote:
Dan S wrote:Acesinc,
Snooker and chess are very different in relation to draws. In chess, a draw is an acceptable result and can come about from several different situations. The game is halved, points 1/2-1/2 each. In snooker, of course, this never happens.


Did you join the forum, just to say that?

Bullying of new member reported

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

Dan S wrote:Acesinc,
Snooker and chess are very different in relation to draws. In chess, a draw is an acceptable result and can come about from several different situations. The game is halved, points 1/2-1/2 each. In snooker, of course, this never happens.


I admit I am no chess expert so I learned something here. I just made an assumption about chess to illustrate the point that (in my opinion at least) there is a difference between a tie (which is or can be a final, conclusive result) and a draw (which is a temporary situation awaiting resolution).

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

acesinc wrote:P.S.- I will add to the above post because there has often been the question come up something like, "I was up four points with only Black left. Then I fouled by not contacting Black on a thin cut and my opponent said that he won. But he would only be up by three points so I say I could still win if I pot Black. Who is right?"

If you don't know the answer to this question, refer to the above post.


As there have been several "Why are things the way they are?" type questions of late on the Island, I will pose another. I was playing in a tournament a while ago (one of the very few available) and had a match with someone who seemed to have been around the game for quite some time. Unfortunately, short format Best of 3's, six red only so not the most thrilling of Snooker to be had. So it was 1 and 1, on the decider for the match. Down to the final Black and he fouled, White going in off. Of course, I offered condolences, "Oh, that was unlucky" and extended my hand. He refused it, retrieving White from the pocket and said, "What do you mean? I was up by three points."

You can imagine what followed. Literally, every single player in the place said, "End of frame" but my opponent insisted, "I have played in a hundred tournaments. I have never heard of this rule!"


For some reason, "First pot or foul on the Black ends the frame" would appear to be a Rule that defies intuition. It has been the way it is practically forever, certainly going back to the time that I learned the Game 35 years ago. Back then, I was taught that when keeping the scoreboard, say Player A pots final Pink to close the gap to three points or whatever, or perhaps takes the lead by three points or whatever, then proper procedure is to go to the scoreboard and simply zero out the sliders. There is no score anymore. Next pot or foul ends the frame. That is it.

But this way of thinking does not seem to have infiltrated the rest of the world outside the British and Irish isles. Of all the members and players that have passed through my club, every continent has been represented except Australia (Aussies would seem to avoid the USA?) and whenever I have played someone from the rest of the world and the frame comes down to the final Black, I slide the sliders to zero making the distinctive "click", and my opponent will look at me and say, "What is that for?" to which I respond of course, "Next pot or foul ends the frame. The score is irrelevant." There have been a few exceptions to this. Currently, I have two club members who never questioned zeroing out the scoreboard. One is an Englishman, one an Irishman. All the other exceptions over the years have also come from the Isles. The rest of the world it would seem would prefer to continue keeping the score even when the score has no relevance whatsoever.

So why is it that players' intuition is to continue keeping the score when the Rule is and has always been, "First pot or foul on Black ends the frame?" And more to the point of this post, why is the Rule what it is? If the leading player fouls so the score would say that the lagging player is now the leading player, why by the Rules is he suddenly declared the winner, rather than just the current leader? I have my opinion of course, but it is nothing more than an educated guess. I will keep my opinion to myself for now though and await any other responses there may be.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Dan-cat

acesinc wrote:
acesinc wrote:...
For some reason, "First pot or foul on the Black ends the frame" would appear to be a Rule that defies intuition. It has been the way it is practically forever, certainly going back to the time that I learned the Game 35 years ago. Back then, I was taught that when keeping the scoreboard, say Player A pots final Pink to close the gap to three points or whatever, or perhaps takes the lead by three points or whatever, then proper procedure is to go to the scoreboard and simply zero out the sliders. There is no score anymore. Next pot or foul ends the frame. That is it.

...


Yes!! this is exactly what my snooker mate does, and the swoosh and resounding clack of the sliders adds drama. 'Black ball game!' he announces. Well if I'm on the shot. If it's him who has cleared to the pink to force the black ball game then he doesn't interrupt his stroke. I do that. Swoosh. Clack. 'Black ball game!' Haha. It's a tradition now.

Asking why does this end the game is a bit like saying 'why is the yellow two points?' - someone decided it long ago (Neville?) and that became the game. I'm sure though that you Ace have a more detailed and exquisite explanation.

Actually while we are on this subject I let my chimp out a bit in our last BO17 tournament. He won it 9 - 7. However, two of those games were black ball games and he fluked the black twice. I was angry. Not at him particularly just at the snooker gods and the timing of the flukes. It wasn't even like we had a prolonged battle on the black either time, it was literally his first attempt at the black on each occasion. When going for a long pot on the black he tends to bash it rather, and I guess there is method in this as there is more chance of getting it safe. However, watching it career off four cushions and drop in the corner pocket nearly made me spit my dummy out -twice! Gaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh did that grind my gears. I had to take myself off to the bar and calm down. I was at one point leading the tournament series 4-1 (BO17s played over the last two years) and he had got it back to 4 all, and this tournament was for him to take the lead in the series for the first time. The fact that it was 4-1 to me was always a little unjust as we are very equal really. But now he leads 5-4 with the help two fluked black ball games!!!

Still sore about this. Waaaah! I'm off to make a calming cup of tea.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Badsnookerplayer

I think it is so that nobody can play on with the black on the table endlessly. An unsporting person might play on hoping his opponent eventually fouls but this would be detrimental to the viewers of the game.

Personally, if a game was drawn on the black I would be happy to see a 'blue ball shootout' like in the Shootout. I liked that.

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

Dan-cat wrote:... (BO17s played over the last two years) and he had got it back to 4 all, and this tournament was for him to take the lead in the series for the first time. The fact that it was 4-1 to me was always a little unjust as we are very equal really. But now he leads 5-4 with the help two fluked black ball games!!!
...


9 BO 17's over the course of 2 years? My friend, you need to get more table time! The boy will be home from Uni for 9 days starting this weekend and I think that we will probably surpass your full tournament frame total barely halfway through that.

:D

Re: Tied frame

Postby Dan-cat

Ah you see we don’t always consider it a tournament session. Sonetimes it’s just a knockabout best of three or five, and we play a lot looser and it’s more of a practice session. :-D

Re: Tied frame

Postby Johnny Bravo

Dan-cat wrote:It wasn't clear from Shawbros original post if it was a re-spotted black, or just that the scores were tied. Same outcome though as Poolboy states - a pot or a foul ends the frame.


This is a very stupid rule. Another one is that the frame ends when a player pots the pink if the points provided by the remaining black ball aren't enough for the other player to tie/outscore his opponent. Why can't he continue to play for a snooker behind a pocket jaw ??? :chin: :shrug: In theory, it's achievable. :irk:

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Nobody wants to watch for three hours as Fergal tries to angle David Gilbert

Actually, BSP, I think the scenario that you pose here would be quite a bit more thrilling than the scenario that I believe would play out in real life if the Rule were different than the current "first pot or foul...". Playing for the angle would actually be positive snooker but it would come at the greatest risk.

Put on your thinking cap....you are eight points down with only the black on the table. You "need snookers". (I have always disliked that phrasing; obviously, it is incorrect. What you really need are penalties from your opponent, but I am a salmon swimming upstream on this one.) So how do you go about attempting to weasel seven points in penalties from your opponent? There are two ways in fact; as usual, your yin and your yang.

Yin is the positive play that you propose....attempting to play for the angle forcing the opponent into difficulty and hoping to reap the reward. Truth is that an angled ball is nearly certain to be a single cushion escape, not at all difficult in most cases, certainly not for a professional. So you will probably need to succeed at several angles before one of them may bear some fruit for you. And then there is always the risk....every time you attempt to angle, you are putting yourself in danger of putting White in off and so the risk just barely justifying the reward. And lastly, to move White in such a way for the angle, this gives you less control of where the Black ball is going to end up on the table.....you MUST put White where you need to, therefore, Black will go wherever it has to. This means that within several angle attempts, you are likely to leave Black in an open, pottable position.

Your yang on the other hand is a completely opposite way of thinking. Rather than actively attempting to force your opponent into a foul with the angle, yang would be the method of feeding him the rope to allow him to hang himself. Your main concern would be to keep the Black ball on the table at all costs. Black goes down, frame over. So you must play a shot which it will be all but impossible for your opponent to pot Black. And what is the absolute safest shot possible? It is probably counter intuitive...it would be the close quarters shot. Touching ball would be ideal, but even White just very close to Black would mean incoming striker has no alternative but snicking the finest possible edge (no chance of a pot) and hey, maybe in the process, maybe the Referee may even call a "push" to allow you the penalty points you need.

So if allowed to play on, the lagging player would just play a roll up to Black every single time. The leading player then would simply put the White as far away from Black as possible in order to make the roll up to Black that much more difficult. So the lagging player always playing for close quarters hoping for a push or an in off at the response, the leading player always playing for distance hoping the lagging player comes up short or strong on his roll up.

The same strokes repeated over and over. What does that sound like? Stalemate. It would be like Groundhog Day, continuously repeating cycle. And I believe the same would be true if the "first pot or foul..." rule did not apply to what we traditionally call a "Black ball frame". The lagging player would constantly play the close quarters safety (must keep Black on the table), and the leading player would constantly play the distance safety. And with an occasional in off or push foul, the roles may occasionally be reversed but simply continue on.

Such thrilling game play would make watching a thousand point nursery cannon break seem fingernail bitingly exciting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfg8o4gHrs

P.S. - I very much recognize the nearly unimaginable talent displayed in the above clip; simply making comment about how well the general viewing audience would accept that display of talent as entertainment.

Re: Tied frame

Postby kolompar

I also don't like that rule. Seems wrong that a frame could end with an object ball still on the table.
Think it would be fun to watch and wouldn't take that much for a foul or pot to happen, and not many players would play on anyway.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Alex0paul

Nigel Bond

Re: Tied frame

Postby Lucky

What would happen if one player potted the pink putting himself 8 points in front but angled himself. Would he have to play or just call frame. Sometimes players pot the pink put there cue down and shoot off the toilet or whatever whilst the ball is still rolling.

Re: Tied frame

Postby Deewee

Don't think so and it wouldn't make a difference. They would just win the frame by one point if they missed instead of eight.

Re: Tied frame

Postby acesinc

Lucky wrote:What would happen if one player potted the pink putting himself 8 points in front but angled himself. Would he have to play or just call frame. Sometimes players pot the pink put there cue down and shoot off the toilet or whatever whilst the ball is still rolling.


"Fascinating!" - Mr. Spock

I thought I knew the answer to this one so I went to look it up to be certain. Section 3. Rule 4. End of Frame, Game or Match. And I discovered....it's not there! Scratched my head and thought, "Where else can it be?" When one is confused within the Rules of Snooker, the Definitions section is very often a good place to begin looking. And there it is, very first rule in Section 2.

Back to Lucky's scenario, for anyone who believes the striker wins the frame whether he plays at Black or not, you are wrong. For anyone who believes the striker must play at and contact Black for a legal stroke, you are wrong. So getting to the Rule that controls this situation:

"
Section 2.
1. Frame
...the frame is completed by:
...
(b) claim by the striker when; Black is the only object ball remaining on the
table, aggregate points are not relevant, and there is a difference of
more than seven points between the scores in his favour;
"

I like to think that the Rules parallel a legal document, attempting to be precise in the meanings of terminology; hopefully minimalist in nature (at least like the days of yore, not the bloated crap that gets shoved through our "parliament" this side of the pond these days); and continuously building a foundation the precedents upon which future rulings will be made. So this Rule, Section 2., Rule 1. clause (b) has non-obvious significance in that it lays down the precedent that there are situations that arise in which a player is forced to concede the frame to his opponent. The Rule does not use those words instead opting to say that the striker may "claim" the frame, but the point is made clear that the opponent off the table has no say in the matter whatsoever. Forced concession.

What does this mean? It means exactly what the most recent posts of this thread have been all about...that is, why is it that the Rule says the first pot or foul ends the frame when Black is the only ball remaining? The answer...based on the precedent of the above Rule, there is a time when forced concession is the proper end to a frame.

So let's back up a few paragraphs.....back to Lucky's question. There would seem to be only two possible answers and we are left to decide which is correct: 1) either the frame is over as soon as Pink entered the pocket, the stroke was deemed legal, and the difference was now 8 points, or 2) the striker having potted Pink must now endeavour to legally contact Black to conclude the frame. But as I stated above, in fact, both of these positions are incorrect. When you re-read the Rule above, it makes the statement that "claim by the striker" will end the frame. In other words, he may play at the Black if he wishes to, but it is not required that he do so.

So why in the world would he play at the Black when in doing so, he may foul giving his opponent seven points to put him back in the frame? You would not be likely to see this at the Professional level but I can imagine the following scenario in an amateur tournament. <cue wavy lines for imagination...>

Lucky's scenario, striker just had a very good break, nearly the best so far of the tournament in fact after potting the Pink ball. Six points short of the tournament high break which would carry a prize of a hundred pounds. The striker may claim this frame as his, place his cue on the table, and walk away if he wants. But if he is angled in the top left corner and the Black is perched in the jaws of the top right corner, he does in fact have a fair chance of potting that Black ball to take the high break prize. On the other hand, if he does not contact Black or perhaps puts White in off, then his opponent will be entitled to the resultant seven points penalty putting the difference at less than seven points and so play continues. Well now, what to do, what to do?......

So what this Rule means is that striker has the right to remain at the table if he wishes. If he does, he faces the consequences of the stroke whatever they may be. Or more likely, he can claim the frame in effect, forcing the opponent to concede.