Never thought of that to be honest.

I see what you mean by consequences though. In a game type like arcade for instance, It could determine the end of the game. For the player in a snookered position may have to play his/her shot many times.

I think it would be a bad idea for beginners though, considering virtuoso's would just make them play it over and over again.

Interesting, effectively making every foul a 'Miss' (like referees seem to in professional tournaments). Of course if that were the case you would have to take into account whether the game is at the ''Snookers Required' stage as well.

I see Ryan's point that it might disadvantage beginners, but then again maybe not as much as you might think because it would give them the opportunity to adjust their angle and therefore perhaps actually learn to escape snookers better (I include myself in this of course).

I am one of the players who never hesitate to hit a deliberate foul when feeling the need, but only because the current game allows it. The game has to be played as it is, and what it allows you to hit is to be considered as being allowed, independently from official snooker rules.

However I think Nick's proposition would be a very good improvement to the game, but with 2 remarks:
- (as buddytobud already pointed out) when either player is in need of snookers, a miss should never be called
- in some very extreme cases, escaping from a snooker could be completely impossible. For example imagine that you need to hit a red, while the cue ball is completely surrounded by colors. A solution should be found for such cases.

In your last case Blutch it would be once more impossible for the game to determine if a situation is impossible so to prevent it would require a comprimise on the official rules. Maybe something like after 5 unsucessful attempts the game then only gives the current options - put back in from where the white is now, or play on.

Of course that wouldn't stop somebody tapping up, but a 20 point forfit might make people think twice about it.

That however would have to work with your 1st point, where after 3 (for example) unsuccessful attempts, a snooker is required, the re-take option can not be availiable.

I think on your first point alone, the game already knows when 12 points or more is needed in tournaments so it should be able to determine when snookers are required - and therefore a forced retake should not be avaliable

Seems alot of effort though and am not sure about the 5 unsuccessful attempts myself

Edited at 11:50 Mon 6/04/09 (BST)

Some interesting responses to my original post whereby the general consensus of opinion (even by mods)is that a deliberate foul is acceptable.

I would just pose this question for the sake of integrity.

In any other game be it sport or otherwise, when is a deliberate foul an acceptable nonpunishable practice? Just one example would do.

It is acceptable on funkysnooker, so whilst it's acceptable ill continue to deliberate foul (when needed). I don't see why i should basically risk a game because a certain member is complaining.

1 example ?

in football when a foul is committed but an advantage is played and the game carrys on... same thing here

You can't compare funkysnooker to real sports.

In sports you have a human referee, who has an developed brain and can make sensible decisions when needed; on funkysnooker there's no human referee, all you have is the set of rules implemented by the server, which acts as the referee.

Therefore, just as you would follow the referee's decisions in sports, you have to follow the server's rules. What the server considers illegal is not, and what it considers legal is legal.


Everyone here is usually very open to any rule change that helps getting closer to the real rules, as long as it doesn't break the gameplay. However, the problem in this rule is that it would be very hard to design a good enough artificial intelligence.

If you have some experience in developing artificial intelligence, and want to share it with us, I'm sure it will be welcomed very well by everyone, especially by Nick.

To cite another footy analogy...

Your through on the keeper one on one with a goalscoring possibly match winning opportunity but are then tripped up from behind (deliberate foul) just on the edge of the box. Ok, so you get your free kick (4 points) which you may or may not score from.

I suspect most would prefer their one on one opportunity.

My original post merely posed a question.
It did not state "heads up, I have a solution."

I hope this clears up your AI issues.

but in this case a concequence would be taken because the ofending player would be sent off

Before the AI discussion, I think I did my best to answer your question.

You answered my original question perfectly.

I trust in not posting a step by step guide to artificial intelligence, I have answered your question just as succinctly.

We don't need to bring other sports into it, just snooker, otherwise we are going wayyyy off topic.

Snooker rules are in favour of oliver, common sense is in favour of leaving it how it is, unless there is a comprehensive solution - which really, there is not.

Absolutely hit the nail on the head there blutch! As he said it is so hard for an online game (the game server's AI) to compare so much to real life situations. The site would be called Realisticsnooker instead of Funkysnooker, would'nt it?

Il give an example on this website where i feel it is acceptable. well it isnt fouling, but in killer where you have 3 lives and you ropponent has 1, so you roll the ball onto the cushion so they cant pot it. you can only play the game as it is put in front of you, not the game as you feel it should be. unless it somehow becomes possible to put in the miss rule, thne i dont consider it unsporting, i consider it correct good play. If you opponent flukes a snooker that is iompossible to get out of, are you required to give them upwards of 20 points aimlessly pushing the ball around the table hitting fouls all the time, just because it would be considered un-sporting to just roll out and make your next shot possible?

Wrong thread...

Deliberate fouls are allowed (in that they only carry the normal foul penalty) in US 9 ball. I can't think of any others.

Going back to the original point, my view is that there's a loophole on the game now, and this reduces the importance of a successful snooker.

Why should the game differentiate between when snookers are required or not? Is that an official rule?

Yup it certainly is an official rule.

Well actually, this is the official ruling:

A miss will be called if a player does not hit the ball "on" first and is deemed by the referee to not have made a good enough attempt at the shot. This gives his opponent the option to have the balls replaced as they were and have the fouling player take his shot again. A miss would not normally be called should the offending player require snookers, but there are exceptions to this scenario. Firstly, it may be possible to make full central contact on the ball "on" with a plain straight stroke, in which case a miss would be called every time an unsuccessful attempt at hitting it was produced. Secondly, it is still up to the referee's discretion whether an adequate attempt at hitting the object ball was made. If the referee deems that the snookered player has made no genuine effort to hit the ball, a miss can still be called despite snookers being required.

But I have never seen a miss called when an opponent requires, or indeed you yourself require a snooker.