Has anyone else been watching the snooker this past week? I’ve been greatly enjoying it, what with plenty of tactical matches, plenty of big breaks, and two 147s.
But on several occasions I’ve noticed that when a player has been faced with a difficult shot, they’ve played it and gone in off leaving the balls such that they’re reasonably safe when the white is put back in the D. The loss of 4 points for a foul is small beer compared to setting your opponent up for a big break. Regrettably, I can’t bring any particular match to mind - it’s just something that has built up. Has anyone else noticed it?
I’ve watched snooker a fair bit (Steve Davis was my hero!).
I have certainly seen players concede three or four foul shots in a row (the referee keeps resetting the ball saying ‘foul and a miss’), rather than open the pack and risk a large break.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but that’s exactly what was happening in my example.
Player A fouls, the referee resets the cue ball, announces ‘foul and a miss’, gives Player B some points (depending what ball Player A fouled on) and Player B decides he wants Player A to try again.
Player A fouls several times, because he’d rather take a few penalty points than open the pack for Player B.
That doesn’t seem to be the case when going in-off. You’ve played a valid shot, so it’s not a foul. You just happen to have gone in-off. And now, because the white is up the other end of the table, your opponent’s shot is that much more difficult.
I’m not sure if it was this sort of situation, but I remember in the Parrott Davis game last year Parrott did something to do with a foul shot that was of questionable sportsmanship. Snooker’s such a closed shop that it seems that certain potential moves are still rejected by players on the grounds that their peers will disapprove.
There was a very good example of this in the penultimate frame of last night’s Perry-Carter match. Perry went in-off and was not significantly disadvantaged. He lost the subsequent safety play.
There might be something to it Quartz. They are all amazingly skilled players at the Crucible level so they will certainly be aware of the possibility of an in-off. A ‘shot to nothing’ is a common thing in these games, I can see a player approaching such a shot knowing that the in-off is likely, but it doesn’t really matter either way given the position of the balls.
I don’t think it would ever be completely deliberate - if you sink the object ball on such a shot to nothing, it often sets you up for an evil safety shot, which can win the frame for you.
I stand corrected and educated. However, this makes my observation even more valid: it would not be a disadvantage for the player going in-off to be forced to play again.
I think it’s extremely rare happening, if not non-existent, that a player would deliberately go in-off. The only time it would be sufficiently beneficial would be when it is too difficult to get back to the safe end of the table, and it is not possible to “rest on” a red leaving everything safe. Even then, the player attempting to go in-off would have to be sure that the outcome of the shot would not leave an easy pot from the “D”, and also that they did not miss the pocket with the white by a small amount, leaving the cue ball in an unitended position.
In other words, there’s always a better option available. Am I making sense?
I submit that that can be small price to pay. Consider that if your opponent were to put you in again, you might be on for a snooker yourself. It’s a question of giving your opponent the opportunity to make a mistake instead of leaving him on the next red: long pots are not easy and snookers are hard to get.
How? If your opponent asks you to replay the balls are all placed back where they were before your foul shot. If the opportunity to set up a snooker wasn’t there the first time, it’s not going to be there the second time you play the shot. You’ll just keep playing foul shots, giving the opponent the points and being asked to play again until the frame becomes unwinnable.
The balls are only replaced if the referee calls a miss. This cannot happen when going in-off; only when the cue-ball has failed to hit a ball will a miss be called. If your opponent puts you in to play again after an in-off (as is his right after any foul), the cue-ball is replaced in the D but all other balls stay where they came to rest.
Just to clarify; if the ball ‘on’ (i.e. the ball you are meant to hit) is blue, pink, or black, and you go in-off, the penalty is 5, 6, or 7 points. If you hit a red, then the black, then go in-off, the penalty is the usual 4 points.
Quartz - because the opponent has the choice of whether to play or put you back in after any foul, it is rare that you can foul to your advantage. This is because if you foul and leave an easy pot/opportunity for a goof safety or snooker, your opponent will just play it, and if you foul and there is no easy shot on, your opponent will simply put you in again. The only time you could gain an advantage would be if (for example) your opponent decides a pot is too difficult and puts you in, and you make it. This is very, very rare between top players, though not unheard of. Even if you do make a difficult pot, it could still have been the correct tactical decision by the opponent to make you play - you just got lucky.
You mistake me: I’m not saying that this is a foul to your advantage, I’m saying this is a foul to prevent your disadvantage. It’s a subtle difference.
I see - sorry if I appeared patronising, I wasn’t sure how much you watched the pro matches. My main point still stands, however - it is very rare that a deliberate in-off would result in less disadvantage than trying to avoid it. But I’m not saying it never happens.