Talk:Snooker/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pool picture

Resolved

 – Long since replaced.

The first picture shouldn't go here, it is a picture of standard pool and not Snooker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disposableninja (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? I can't see a single pool picture in the entire article. Ged UK (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Disposableninja's just confused, as some others might be, by the fact that it's an under-sized home/pub snooker table and not the "real", 12 ft. thing. A better pic surely could be found that impressed upon the reader the raw scope and difficulty of the game. To most it probably looks just like pool but played with different balls from that picture. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Over 2 years later, this still hasn't been fixed. The picture does look like a pool table shot, and should be replaced with something showing a full-size snooker table, not a pub/home table. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Watch where the pockets are. Probably a full-size table after all. Low camera angle (and/or camera lense) gives false impression, though? No better pics found on Commons. Or?--Paracel63 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I chose the picture originally when I rewrote this article from the ground up two or three years ago. I chose the picture because it is visually striking (and freely licensed) - two variables that are hard to get together, especially on more obscure topics. I take it as some measure of agreement as to the visually striking nature of the picture that I spotted it in a national magazine in the UK representing snooker (the magazine was nothing to do with sport but had an article on sports) - ultimately the photoeditor could have gotten a bog standard shot through their stock provider if they had wished, but didn't. Though I did find it amusing/annoying that the photographer from flickr wasn't given credit as they should have been (though they may have contacted them personally, but I doubt it). As for the photo and its perspective, the flickr caption states that it is a snooker tournament (probably amateur), and the other photo in the stream [1] shows pretty clearly that it is a full size (or near full size) table. SFC9394 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseball player nickname

Resolved

 – No dispute materialized.

I reverted an edit that added a disambiguation note about a minor nickname applied ephemerally to a long-forgotten baseball player, which I do not consider is worthy of note in the article. The person who added it disputes this, so I'm taking it to Talk to see what others think. bigpad (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Something else

Resolved

 – WP:FORUM. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The game is completely unheard of in America. That absolute was totally cool. I'm getting the distinct impression that this article is rarely visited by peeps who would edit it-- Anyway someone should edit up the bit with the Commonwealth countries, and include that. Yeah-yeah, I just don't feel like it- Hamiltøn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

Faulty video should be replaced

Resolved

 – No such rule after all.

The video "Video of a snooker break-off shot" shows a faulty break-off shot. According to the snooker rules at least two red balls must hit the cushions. (This rule is there to hinder a player from touching the reds so little that the next player has to break up the group of red balls. If both players were allowed to just touch a red so little that it moves just a millimeter it could take many shots before any player can start potting balls.) In this video the player uses too little power or aimed badly, so only one red ball hits a cushion. The video should be replaced with a video which shows a correct break-off shot. Roger491127 (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote the text above I was very sure I was right. The rule book I have says so, and thousands of hours watching snooker matches confirm that this is the rule. But after I wrote it I tried to find a reference and to my surprise most snooker rules on the web do not mention how to make a correct break-off shot. I even found an example which specifically states the opposite: http://www.play89.com/Snooker.html#BG_Lnk_4

"Opening Break: The first player who breaks is chosen randomly. The starting player gets the cue ball in hand within the Half Circle. He must cause the cue ball to contact a red ball.(It is not necessary to send a ball to a rail or into a pocket)." So now I don't know which is correct. I think we should consult a real expert about this. Roger491127 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I found another set of rules at http://www.billiardworld.com/snooker.html which also says I was wrong: "Starting player has cue ball in hand within the Half Circle. He must cause the cue ball to contact a red ball. It is not necessary to send a ball to a rail or into a pocket." Okay, it seems I was wrong, and I have been wrong for 30 years. I now consider if I should delete this whole section or leave it. For now I decide to leave it. At least I investigated the issue and maybe somebody can learn something from it. Or maybe there was such a rule once but it has been changed. Roger491127 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have untangled the thought without any help! As the author of the video I could have rendered a new one if required, but as you have found, the rule isn't there. I know that there can be specific break-off rules for 9-ball, but have never heard of it for snooker. It may just be that the traditional standard break ends up with two reds going off the cushion almost all the time - the physics engine in my render doesn't quite mirror reality! Ultimately if you just nestled into the pack then you are handing the advantage to your opponent, who would either get a touching ball or a safe flick back to baulk. Indeed rather than rules for balls touching cushions, it was (only informally by commentators) floated that there should be a rule on quite the reverse when Quentin Hann used to occasionally smash the pack up on the break, which some felt was unsportsmanlike behaviour. SFC9394 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Snooker pronunciation

Resolved

 – The International Phonetical Alphabet character in question does not represent the sound the complainant thought it did.

I'm just checking whether SNUCK-er is actually an accepted pronunciation, and whether it is more prevalent than SNOOK-er? Is it a US variant> 150.237.85.229 (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The OED doesn't list SNUCK-er as a pronunciation, only listing /ˈsnuːkə(r)/ 150.237.85.247 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't list SNUCK-er either 150.237.85.247 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was astonished to see the alternative American pronunciation when I first saw this article, especially in the opening sentence. I live in Texas (UK ex-pat) and have never heard anyone pronounce it as 'snucker'.Bonza9683 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonza9683 (talk • contribs)

I too was surprised at the supposed American pronunciation, but the vowel sound indicated is not that of 'luck', it's that of 'look', rhyming with 'looker' (British pronunciation rhymes with 'lucre'). Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)