>I don't see why you guys can't send in the small amount and buy the rule
>books, it seems to me, yoiu spend a heck of a lot on the equipement...why
>not spend a few dollars to support the organizaztions that make the rules,
>organize events etc?.... I don't understand.
This is the same type of argument that comes up regarding ANSI programming
language standards (they are written in electronic form, but only
published in paper form). If rules are available in electronic form then
they can be distributed and revised more easily. The BCA has done this
for some of their rules, but not all of them. If some discussion
regarding the rules comes up, say here in r.s.b., then everyone can
cut-and-paste the appropriate exerpts. No need to do tedious retyping or
risk introducing new typo errors.
I like the way the BCA does it, although I wish they would put more of
their rules online. In their rulebook, they also include additional
information on various records, instructional play, some photographs of
the current champions and so on. So for the $5, you get more than just
>#Snooker "free-ball": For now, I cannot agree with Jari that the following
>#position is NOT a free ball.
>I would call a free ball depending on the offending players game play
>throughout the match.
>If there was an intentional foul made here, I may be tempted to call a
>free ball. The offending player may be very far ahead in points and just
>not want the position.... after that successful pot.
Why is it that snooker players are willing to have these kind of fouls
depend on the perceived intentions of the player? In pool, most players
believe that the less subjectivity that is required the better -- this
leads to fewer arguments, less bad feelings, and so on. This is not the
only snooker rule that is like this, is it; I think that there are several
that require the referee to make a judgement about the shooter's
intentions. What is a foul, or a free ball, in one situation would not be
one in another situation or perhaps even with a different referee making
I think that this is an interesting situation, but from a pool player's
point of view, the definition of a "snooker" needs to be refined so that
either the cue ball position is included in the definition or it isn't
(i.e. some "infinite cue ball distance" limit is used). I don't know
which would be best. But it makes for a strange discussion in r.s.b. when
one person says that the snooker depends on where the cue ball is placed,
another says that it doesn't depend on the cue ball position, and yet
another says that it depends on the previous shooter's intentions. And as
Mark pointed out, whether there is a free ball or not, the incoming player
has a reasonable shot at the yellow in the corner, or a lock sure snooker
if that is what he decides to play, so even if the preceeding foul was
intentional it still gives the incoming player a great advantage.
$.02 -Ron Shepard