
If you have a question on any aspect of the game, send it by email


|
What is the height to the top of the cushion from the slate bed playing surface on a full
size snooker table? I think it's about 37mm or 1 7/16 inch.
|
|
| Posted on 6th October 2008 by David Drielsma of Brussels, Belgium. |
Read the reply |
|
I have a question that came up the other day while chatting with snooker mates (purely
theoretical - it didn't all actually happen):
It's about commiting a fault by touching a ball with something else than the cue (usually the hand or arm, or the player's clothes).
Would it be considered as a fault to touch a ball extremely slightly, for instance with
one's hair or with a little wire coming out of the player's shirt? (so not with the actual
skin or cloth itself).
Also - and that one already happened to one of my mates (well, he said): what if the
ball is touched by some fluid (not to mention: blood - or anything else coming out of the
player's nose, sometimes at great pace)?
I know this sounds funny but quite interesting I guess...
|
|
| Posted on 15th June 2008 by Bob Haggarty of London, Ontario. |
Read the reply |
|
During our club's recent doubles tournament a disagreement arose over the
interpretation of what constitutes conferring under Section 3 Rule 17 (e).
The partner from one team encouraged his own partner (who was at the table)
by referring to the quality of his partner's shot making, e.g. "good shot" or
"well done", etc. The referee construed this as conferring and imposed a
penalty under Section 3 Rule 12 (x), "conferring with a partner contrary
to Section 3 Rule 17 (e)". The offending partners felt a penalty was
unfair as the one partner was only complimenting the other partner. The other team
felt the referee was perfectly correct as conferring could take the form of advice,
compliments (which could be advice disguised as compliments) etc., and
the best way to resolve the matter would be for a partner to remain silent while his
partner is at the table.
Would you please give me your comments on this matter and in particular
what does the word "confer" imply within Section 3 Rule 17(e)?
|
|
|
Suppose I have 70 points and my opponent has 20. I have just potted a red but have
snookered myself on all colours with 51 points (3 reds + blacks, etc.) possible remaining.
That means my opponent could win with 71 or more should I lose control of the cue ball.
Knowing that illegally potted reds are not returned to the table, what would keep me
from fouling, illegally potting a red, giving my opponent 4 points whilst leaving only 43
points (2 reds + blacks, etc.) possible? Now my opponent's maximum would
be 67 and would need a snooker to win. Is this possible?
|
|
| Posted on 20th January 2008 by Danny Nicholas of Cardiff. |
Read the reply |
|
In snooker has the 4 point minimum penalty always been the rule. I seem
to recall it used to be the value of object ball fouled on. Please confirm.
|
|
|
I was in discussion with a mate of mine who says that the pockets in televised
championships are wider than the ones at a standard snooker club so they can
get higher breaks. I disagreed saying that if anything it would be the other way
around with the championship tables having smaller more accurate pockets
because of the level of the players.
Snooker clubs tend to have one or two match tables which are obviously different
to the rest of the club table. Can you shed some light on this aspect?
|
|
More Questions

Top of Page
|