Snooker Question

[grimpixie]

I’m sitting here watching Ronnie O’Sullivan weave his magic and wondering:

1. What is the lowest possible winning score in a frame of snooker?

2. What is the lowest actually achieved winning score in a frame of snooker?

Anyone know?

Grim

[GorillaMan]

Surely the first answer is 1? If every ball were potted during a foul shot, other than one red?

[GorillaMan]

Yes, I have immediately realised how stupid that answer is…

[pulykamell]

According to this discussion, the lowest possible is 16.

[grimpixie]

Scoring 16 requires you to sink all 15 reds and go in off in a single stroke… unlikely

This seems to be the best offered explanation:

> Sam is right though - the lowest possible score would be 22 (in a
> non-conceded frame). Balls potted:
> player 1: 9 reds, yellow, brown, deciding black
> player 2: 6 reds, green, blue, pink

[GorillaMan]

Although it’s unlikely to the point of impossible, couldn’t somebody pot everything except the pink and black, and then foul?

[grimpixie]

Found the answer to my second question here

@Clive Everton (BBC Comentator)

There have been a couple of frames that have been won with a score of 38 or 39 - those sorts of frames where a succession of single reds have been potted. I remember on semi-final at the Masters at Wembley between Ronnie O’Sullivan and Nigel Bond, and in the deciding frame the highest break was eight.

[Colophon]

@GorillaMan

Although it’s unlikely to the point of impossible, couldn’t somebody pot everything except the pink and black, and then foul?

Not sure I see what you mean here. Do you mean on a single (foul) shot? If so (very unlikely, of course), then all the colours would be respotted, so there would still be more points to be scored.

[ticker]

It is surely possible to win with a score of zero. In certain situations three consecutive misses will lead to the frame being awarded to the other player.

[don_t_ask]

@ticker

It is surely possible to win with a score of zero. In certain situations three consecutive misses will lead to the frame being awarded to the other player.

I’ve only ever heard of that rule in 9 ball. Late in snooker games it is pretty easy to make an opponent foul repeatedly if you are trailing and are engineering snookers.

[Ponster]

@ticker

It is surely possible to win with a score of zero. In certain situations three consecutive misses will lead to the frame being awarded to the other player.

I think the rule is that if you can see and hit a ball without fouling but do so, then the other player can make you retake the shot. 3 times and your out.

The winner would have 12 points from the fouls though.

[Ponster]

Miss: The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and a “miss.” The incoming player (1) may play the ball(s) as they lie, or (2) may request that the ball(s) be returned to the original position and have the offending player play the stroke again.

http://www.titansports.co.uk/rules/snooker.htm
I’m sure that you can only try 3 times though (seen Steve Davis lose because of this circ. 1988)

[ticker]

@don't ask

I’ve only ever heard of that rule in 9 ball. Late in snooker games it is pretty easy to make an opponent foul repeatedly if you are trailing and are engineering snookers.

From here

And when a player is not snookered and fails to hit the target-ball(s), a foul stroke and a miss will automatically be called by the referee. Three misses of this kind will result in the automatic forfeiture of the frame – this section of rules however is much more stringently enforced in professional and top amateur level snooker.

[ticker]

The winner would have 12 points from the fouls though.
[/QUOTE]

Ooops! I missed that obvious point.

Ronnie O’Sullivan was just warned for swearing. If he had repeated the offence he could forfeit the current frame - possible with no score.

[don_t_ask]

I am pretty sure the three fouls rule does not apply in snooker. I have seen trailing players lay snooker after snooker trying to catch up, Stve Davis conceded 33 points in fouls in a single frame when he lost the UK Championship to Ding Junhui in 2005.

[don_t_ask]

@ticker

From here

I see your link now and must admit I have never heard of this. It is a nonsense apparently, it requires a player who is not snookered to three times miss the ball he is attempting to play. I can’t imagine a drunk doing that.

[SentientMeat]

@don't ask

I am pretty sure the three fouls rule does not apply in snooker. I have seen trailing players lay snooker after snooker trying to catch up, Stve Davis conceded 33 points in fouls in a single frame when he lost the UK Championship to Ding Junhui in 2005.

Three misses, not three fouls - the ref calls “foul, and a miss” in these instances. However, they’re rather equivalent to conceding the frame, which we’re not interested in here.

[ticker]

@don't ask

I see your link now and must admit I have never heard of this. It is a nonsense apparently, it requires a player who is not snookered to three times miss the ball he is attempting to play. I can’t imagine a drunk doing that.

It may occur if the straightforward shot leaves the balls open for your opponent whereas the risky shot may leave them safe.

[Ponster]

@ticker

It may occur if the straightforward shot leaves the balls open for your opponent whereas the risky shot may leave them safe.

Exactly. I’ve seen Davis try the risky shot off 2 cushions 3 times and forfit the frame rather than attempting the easy 1-cushion shot.

[hammos1]

@don't ask

It is a nonsense apparently, it requires a player who is not snookered to three times miss the ball he is attempting to play. I can’t imagine a drunk doing that.

It nearly happened a few days ago- Steve Davis, in his first round match, attempted a safety shot which involved an extremely fine contact on a red ball, when he was not snookered. He missed twice, the referee warned him that a third miss would forfeit the frame, and he chose to play a different shot.