| Posted on 29th December by Sumit Bhargava of Brussels |
I am new to this game and play it with a friend who teaches me most of the rules
as we go along. There is one he tells me that is tough to digest and I would like to
seek clarification. When potting, assuming the distance between the cue ball and
object ball is not more than 6 inches (and not touching), is it a foul if I push the
cue through beyond the position that the object ball had occupied ?
|
It would not be a foul by itself, but might increase the chance of you making one.
Pushing the cue through when the two balls are close together greatly increases
the chance of striking the cue-ball twice. Especially on a straight shot when the
cue-ball may not have enough time to move out of the way before the cue comes
through behind it.
|
| Posted on 29th December by Bill Readdy of Uxbridge |
In a game of doubles, when the game ends up as a draw and the black is then
re-spotted, does the game then carry on in the same player order, or can the
next team to play change their player order ?
|
The official rules for doubles (or four-handed snooker) are quite clear on this situation.
When the game ends as a draw and the black is re-spotted, whichever team plays the
next shot can choose which player actually plays that shot, but play must continue in
the same order as it had throughout the frame.
|
| Posted on 21st December by Eric Day of Birmingham |
During a game it is dicovered that the blue is in a pocket and no-one knows how or
when this occurred. What should happen now ?
|
When it was discovered that the blue was not on the table, it would be
respotted without penalty and play would continue as normal.
But had the player potted the blue with his previous stroke, and then played the
next stroke so quickly that the referee could not replace the blue, then of course
that would be a foul and a five point penalty would be given to the opponent.
---------------------------------------------------------
The players are no longer held responsible if the referee makes a mistake in
re-spotting a ball, and this means that the following event could take place.
Imagine towards the end of a frame, all the reds have been potted, and so has
the green - but no one has noticed. The player then pots the yellow, followed
by brown and then blue. But before he plays the pink, someone realises that the
green had been missing from the table, and had not been potted between the
yellow and brown.
The green would then be replaced on the table, and the player would continue
his break with the green, then pink and finally black.
The colours would then have been potted quite legally in this order:-
yellow, brown, blue, green, pink and black.
|
| Posted on 16th November by Jim Bibby of Birkenhead |
Our rule-book says that, when the cue ball and object ball are close to each other, a
player can avoid a push-shot by making the thinnest possible contact with the object
ball... but how do you judge "thinnest possible contact" ? I would have thought that
the object ball would hardly move, but my regular opponent always claims he is making
such contact, yet by hitting the cue ball hard he moves the object ball a foot or more
(frequently potting it). How far would a referee allow the object ball to move before
calling it a push shot ?
|
This is something that a referee would have to decide when the shot took place.
The rules, as you say, state that it wouldn't be considered a push shot if a very
fine contact was made. To make the object-ball move a foot or more would seem
to be borderline, but again this would vary on the speed of the table as well as the
strength the shot was played. It would be a very untidy rule to have a maximum
distance the object-ball could travel before it was deemed a push shot, as each
shot would have to be measured and then perhaps multiplied by a + or - factor to
allow for a fast or slow cloth. The only other option would be to impose a defined
angle at which the cue-ball could be played towards the object-ball, and would be
difficult to enforce properly during a match.
To settle this argument you might have to approach a qualified referee and ask him
to give his verdict, always assuming your regular opponent would agree to this !
|
| Posted on 3rd November by Clint Christianson of Chicago |
What is the largest size snooker table found in a snooker hall ? Last year I played
snooker at a hall in Ireland and the table seemed to be well over 12 feet in length
and 6 feet in width ....is this possible ? My friends argued saying that there is no
way a table can be over 12 feet in length. If possible can you also direct me to a
web site stating table sizes to confirm or dispute this minor wager ?
|
I'm sure you are mistaken in believing the table you played on exceeded the normal
12 ft by 6ft. I have searched through many books and the web and found nothing on
any table measuring more than the standard size. Tables which are in any way unusual
are well known and well documented and if any table over 12ft by 6ft existed it would
be so unusual it too would be very well known, and proof of it easily found.
What is believed to be the largest billiards table known measured 18ft by 10½,
giving it a playing area over 2½ times that of a 12ft table. It's fairly modern,
and dates from around 1986. I found no website confirming this, but it is found,
and more details are given, in, "The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards".
I hope this will win you your wager.
Table sizes can be found from most manufacturer's websites, but this
link takes you to a site selling second hand tables of various sizes.
|
| Posted on 11th October by Matt Corran of Sydney, Australia |
Is there a "rule" you can apply to determine what angle the cue-ball will take
after hitting the object ball, or is it just a matter of experience ? I suspect
there must be some sort of rule, judging by the way that billiards players can
make long in-offs with such accuracy.
|
Apart from the "half-ball" angle it's really just
a matter of experience.
The majority of long in-offs played by billiard players would
be based on the half-ball angle, and there are three positions
on the table where these can be played as a "set piece". The
diagram shows these positions which a billiard-player would be
very familiar with.
Each of them gives an in-off as shown by aiming through the
centre of the cue-ball to the outside edge of the object-ball.
In each case, if the cue-ball was just slightly away from
the positions shown, the player would compensate either
by aiming for a thinner or thicker contact, or more likely,
by applying a little top, bottom, or side.
|
| Posted on 5th October by Ian Cartledge of Sydney, Australia |
Would you be able to point me in the right direction on where I can obtain
a book or visit a website that will teach me how to make a snooker cue. I
have been playing this game for 25 years and am interested in making cues.
|
I know of no books or magazines, or any website which give instruction
on cue making. If anyone can help please make contact. There must be
information out there somewhere.
These two links offer no practical advice, but may be of some interest.
www.cuemakers.org www.schulercue.com
|
| Posted on 5th October by Dave Lewis of Wainuiomata, New Zealand |
A player pots the green ball in the bottom corner pocket. When the green is replaced
on its spot a full ball snooker occurs with reds remaining on the table. He attempts to
come off the bottom cushion with side but makes contact with the green ball. Is this
a foul and a miss ?
|
It would be a foul but not necessarily a miss.
The wording of the "Foul & a Miss" rule makes it clear that the referee must consider
the difficulty of the stroke and the ability of the player before deciding if the player
had made a reasonable attempt to strike the ball "on".
A "Foul & a Miss" would therefore ONLY be called if the referee believed the player
could have made a better attempt.
|
| Posted on 22nd September by Phil Ditum of Woking |
Is there a rule about which part of the cue must strike the cue ball ? If the answer
is "only the tip may" are you allowed to add more than one tip to a cue ?
|
The rules state that a "legal" stroke is made when the tip of the cue strikes the
cue-ball. If any other part of the cue struck the cue-ball then a foul would be called.
But there is no rule saying only one tip is allowed so another could be placed on the
butt and then the cue could be used the "wrong way round", maybe to play a simple
shot without using the rest.
The cue can be used the wrong way round as such if the butt of the cue is placed
away from you on the table, and the cue is then held just down from the tip and
pulled towards you to contact the cue-ball. But there is little control and it is far
better to use the rest on these occasions.
There is also no rule preventing anyone placing something between the tip and the
cue. Some have experimented with a thin piece of rubber between the two to give
extra power but the results were unpredictable and could not be controlled.
|
| Posted on 16th August by Phil Briggs of Welwyn Garden City |
Which player made the first live televised 147 - I repeat LIVE 147 ?
|
All I've found on the web regarding "live" 147's relates to one made by Marco Fu
during the Regal Masters in October 2000, which had the distinction of being the
first to be screened live on the Internet.
This information can be found on several sites including one from the BBC.
If anyone can add to this reply please email and include the source of your information.
Added 19th October 2002 by Kris Wauters:-
According to the calendar on your site the first televised maximum 147 break was on
January 11th 1982. Steve Davis compiled the first televised maximum 147 break in a
match against John Spencer in the Lada Classic, at Oldham Civic Centre, Lancashire.
It was broadcasted live by the BBC, so that answers all requirements of the question
asked by Phil Brigs on August 16th. I checked and this is indeed confirmed by the World
Association.
|
