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.

The 4 point minimum penalty has been the rule for many years, at least since 1920. I have a small rule book published in that year which clearly states this, and that may have been introduced when the rules were standardised 1n 1901.

In the history section, you will find a set of rules dated 1896 that were published in "Pyramids & Pool Games" by J.P. Buchanan. Rules 25, 26, and 27 clearly state that it is the value of the ball played at which is the penalty; so that would be 1 point for a red, 2 points for yellow, and 3 points for green.

"The Billiards and Snooker Referee's Handbook" by John Street and Peter Rook (now sadly out of print), includes a brief history of the rules which state that in the early days the penalties were "one away for missing a red" and also "two away for missing any colour from a snookered position after potting a red."

But as they say, in another club over the road a completely different set of rules might have been in force.

As the game became more popular the need to create a standardised set of rules became increasingly necessary, and as stated above this was done in 1901. So if you can recall those days I must congratulate you on your memory!

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 tables. Can you shed some light on this aspect?

You are quite correct in disagreeing that the pockets on tables used for professional tournaments are wider than those usually found in snooker clubs. Snooker clubs tend to have larger pockets (or rather larger pocket openings) as the face of the cushion is often undercut. The average club player could become disheartened if the pockets were too tight.

On the professional tournament tables the pockets have to conform to the official templates which measure the width of the pocket opening at the top of the cushion, as well as the fall of the slate.

Some snooker clubs obviously take the game more seriously than others, and those that regularly have members only and/or open tournaments are much more likely to have a "match" table or two (which they usually charge a higher rate for) and these would probably conform to the pocket templates.

You say in your mail that these pockets are more accurate, I think you mean that once the ball is within the jaws of the pocket it is more likely to go down than on the average club table, and I agree.

On most club tables, the leather at the back of the pocket is donkey's years old, as hard as can be, and so less resilient to absorb the impact of the cue-ball. Hence they can sometimes be forced back out when they wouldn't be in the professional game.

In a recent match between two players (challenge tour standard) the following occurred.

Player "A" was at the table and had potted red, brown, red, and then went in off the blue. As the referee I awarded 6 points to player "A" and 5 points for the foul to player "B" At this point there was a discussion with the board marker who was unsure of the score and in the confusion I neglected to replace the blue ball.

I gave the white ball to player "B" and he played his shot. Player "A" then returned to the table and was just about to take his shot when a member of the audience pointed out that the blue ball was missing. I replaced the blue ball and after a short spell of embarrassment, player "A" played his shot and the frame continued without any further foul awarded to either player.

After the match finished there were several points of view about what I (the referee) should have done. I took the position that the error was mine (the referees) and that if the member of the audience had not pointed out the error player "A" would have played a shot without the blue on the table just as player "B" had done.

Was I right or wrong? What would be the correct decision under the current rules?

You made the right decision, and you are also correct in assuming that as the missing blue was a result of your mistake, the player should not be penalised. This change to the rules took place in September 1995.

So when someone in the audience pointed out that the blue was missing, you did the right thing by replacing the blue, and correctly allowed the game to proceed without any further penalty.

But there is one other little oddity that could have occurred when you replaced the blue. Imagine that Player "A" was then snookered. How would the rule apply then?

Quite simply, it is considered to be the "rub of the green" or just plain "bad luck".

Player "A" would have had to play the shot, just as he would have if Player "B" had left him in that position. Player "A" could not have been awarded a "free ball" or asked Player "B" to play again as no foul had been committed.

A friend and I have just purchased a full size snooker table. It has E.J.Riley ACCRINGTON and the serial number:122368 wood stamped on each leg. I have been told it would have been built around 1927 and is made of West African mahogany and 2" welsh slate. It has large 10" turned legs with vertical grooves around the circumference of them, it also has lock and key locks in each of the legs. I am led to believe the model name is the Riley "Perfection".

I would be interested to know if it is relatively rare, who or what would have purchased it at that time i.e wealthy person (tried to trace the serial number but records have been lost), and what i should insure it for so it could be replaced by something of the same quality should it get damaged. It is in fantastic condition, in full working order and will soon take pride of place in my home!!! So I really would appreciate any help in finding out about any of the above.

With reference to Rules Section 2 Rule 12 & Section 3 12d(v), can you tell me what would happen in the following situation:

A player pots a red and is then snookered by the remaining reds on all colours. He does not nominate a colour (Sec. 2 Rule 12) and before the referee has time to ask (Sec. 3 Rule 12d(v)) plays his stroke. The cue ball misses a red, misses the yellow & blue by a millimeter and ends up touching the black.

Is this a foul and what is the penalty? What would have happened if the cue ball had come to rest not touching any colour?

It seems this reply needs further clarification. There is a belief that no foul was committed in the stroke given in the question, as the official rules give no clear instruction for such an incident.

However, the non-striker obviously needs to be protected from such an obviously unfair stroke being made by his opponent, whether it was made in the heat of the moment or as a cleverly planned and devious attempt to gain an advantage.

Imagine your opponent did this to you in the last frame of a semi-final and you had needed a snooker at that point in the game. Had your opponent played this shot as described above, how would you feel if the referee did not call a foul, when your opponent had obviously given himself such a massive advantage?

Those of you who have not read the rules thoroughly may be surprised to learn that the official rules also cover the referee's duties, and these include being the sole judge of fair and unfair play, and being responsible for the proper conduct of the game. The referee is also free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately in the rules.

Had I been refereeing such an incident, I would have a called a foul, and awarded seven points to the non-striker, as the stroke was, in my opinion, completely unfair and beyond the spirit of the game.

A foul shot has occurred with one red left on the table, the cue ball is touching the red. Is it a free ball or can you see both sides of the red?

No free ball would be awarded by a referee and the reasoning is quite straightforward. The rules clearly state that for a free ball to be awarded you must be snookered after the foul stroke.

In your example you are not snookered, any more than you would be if the cue-ball had come to rest touching the cushion in the jaws of a pocket. You cannot be snookered by the cushion or by the ball "on" - so no free ball.

But you would have the options of playing yourself or putting your opponent back in.

Whilst watching a frame of snooker in my local league a player nominated the brown as a free ball. He took his shot, missed potting it, and the brown then snookered his opponent.

I thought this was a foul shot with a penalty of 4 points. The ref said although it was a foul he did not award the 4 points as he had hit the ball he nomimated!

Can you explain the rule covering this situation please as he is adamant he is right.

The referee was wrong - the foul did carry a penalty of four points.

The rules cover this situation very clearly. They state that the penalty for playing a snooker behind a free ball is the value of the ball "on" - so in your example it should indeed have carried a penalty of four points.

Is it possible to pot all 15 reds in one legal shot from any position of reds & white (with all colours on their spots). This is given the maximum amount of force that can be applied to a cue ball with a cue, without it leaving the table (or shattering, cue breaking, etc...).

Or is it simply that given the maximum input of force, and distances travelled, and transferred force to reds, that the momentum would run out before all the reds could find pockets.

The momentum would surely run out too quickly as so much is lost through friction with the cloth. There would also be too many collisions for this to be possible. It would only take one full-ball collision between any two reds to make them stop dead and the chance would be lost. Even if enough force could be generated and no balls left the table (or disintegrated) I'm sure at least one colour would be potted, leading to the cry of Foul!