Should a break be allowed to continue after a foul and miss?

[Bruce]

In a match during the recent UK championship, a player was on a break when he snookered himself on the colours. He nominated the yellow, which was over a pocket. He missed on the first attempt and his opponent (probably unwisely as it turned out) opted to have the balls replaced. On the second attempt, he hit the yellow and potted it! His break then continued as if nothing had happened.

This seems a slightly strange one to me. Although his opponent chose to put him back in, is it right that a break should be allowed to continue in this situation after playing a foul stroke?

Bruce

[davis_greatest]

Yes, it is right, in my opinion. The opponent does not have to take the "miss" and put the offender in again.

What could be the alternative? Say to the offender "Play again - and if you play a bad shot again you will keep being penalised, but if you play a good shot* you won't be allowed the reward"?


* the "good shot" may be a fluke, but we rightly allow players to continue in snooker if they fluke a pot also

[Sarmu]

so technically a player can make a 147 maximum break even thou he foul somewhere during the break?

I remember this question was asked in this forum sometime ago, and someone said that it wouldn't count as a maximum as the break would restart

[davis_greatest]

The break would re-start. A maximum cannot be made if fouling on the way!

For example, suppose I pot the opening red, then I nominate blue and miss it and the referee calls "foul and a miss" - assuming that I made no other (higher valued) infringement, the penalty would be 5. If my opponent then takes the option of the miss and has the balls replaced and puts me back in, I am on a colour again, at the start of my new visit. If I wish, I can change my choice of colour. If I now nominate green and pot it, my break starts at 3 and I continue with the next red.

[Sarmu]

Oh sorry, I miss understood what the op was saying, I interpreted the words "His break then continued as if nothing had happened" as the points was continued instead of the actual break

[missneworleans]

He will start a new break anyway

[rambon]

Oh sorry, I miss understood what the op was saying, I interpreted the words "His break then continued as if nothing had happened" as the points was continued instead of the actual break

We had a massive discussion on this on the BBC website about this time last year. I think The Statman has written a dissertation on the subject and can probably round this off nicely.

I believe I'm right in saying that this is the only situation where a red ball can be legally potted with the second shot of a visit to the table...

[The Statman]

We had a massive discussion on this on the BBC website about this time last year. I think The Statman has written a dissertation on the subject and can probably round this off nicely.

I believe I'm right in saying that this is the only situation where a red ball can be legally potted with the second shot of a visit to the table...

Indeed, that is the case.

The 'break' continues in that the player has, second time, legally potted the ball he was going for so there is no reason that he shouldn't score for it. But it is not the same break; it starts again, even though that may mean starting the break on a colour when reds are on the table.

However, the break does not 'continue' in that as soon as he fouled his turn ended. The opponent putting him back in meant that this was a new 'turn' so it was a new break which started with 2 points for the yellow, and he was then on a red.

Therefore, they are two separate breaks, made in two separate turns.

[c_jaen]

well it definitly should start over which i thought it always did.its fine to keep getting ur points. that only makes sense but. but braek shoudl be restarted

[TWorth]

The break has ended but he continues to accumulate points i.e. he has started a new "break".

[DawRef]

This thread is adequately answered in the definition of a break (Section 2, Rule 8).

A break is a number of pots in successive strokes in any one turn by a player during a frame.

In John Street's book on pages 32 and 33, he quotes, "A foul cannot be part of a run of successive pots. If the player who has been put back in pots a ball with his next stroke it is the start of a new break. It is not considered part of his previous turn as that break finished when he made the foul stroke."

The third sentence is covered in Section 3, Rule 11(e) & (f).