c4countdown

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Why can't you refreeze stuff that's defrosted?

IIRC from GCSE Biology, once the bacteria start growing, they can emit toxins which won't be destroyed by freezing/heating.

What about refried beans

Just blast it to furnace temperatures and eat it. The occasional bit of bacteria makes you more hardy, I'm sure.

Sue Sanders wrote:Just blast it to furnace temperatures and eat it. The occasional bit of bacteria makes you more hardy, I'm sure.

As Charlie said, it's the toxins that some bacteria produce (which aren't all denatured by cooking) that are the problem, not necessarily the bacteria themselves. Sorry, Sue.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Just blast it to furnace temperatures and eat it. The occasional bit of bacteria makes you more hardy, I'm sure.

As Charlie said, it's the toxins that some bacteria produce (which aren't all denatured by cooking) that are the problem, not necessarily the bacteria themselves. Sorry, Sue.

Toxins can eat my wake. I've eaten hundreds of things that I've thawed and refrozen and I'm very robust!

Alec Rivers wrote:Charlie said

Haha. That reminded me of these. Interesting bit of trivia: did you know that the voice of Charlie the Cat was provided by Kenny Everett? Oh - you did.

Marc Meakin wrote:What about refried beans

Yeah, it's only in as "refried beans", so "refried" isn't valid on its own as a word.

Wait, what was the question?

How do you know when croutons are stale?
Also how can you tell if a Chinese baby has Jaundice?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:Charlie said

Haha. That reminded me of these. Interesting bit of trivia: did you know that the voice of Charlie the Cat was provided by Kenny Everett? Oh - you did.

Ha Ha - sometimes we seem to share a braincell, Phil...I had already enunciated 'Charlie says' in Charlie's owner's voice reading that post earlier....and not for the first time on this forum. I was also fond of 'meet Mike, he swims like a fish' (Didn't know the K.E. triv bit)

Sue Sanders wrote:meet Mike, he swims like a fish

...and bears an uncanny resemblance to Innis Carson (or is it Julian Fell?).

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Just blast it to furnace temperatures and eat it. The occasional bit of bacteria makes you more hardy, I'm sure.

As Charlie said, it's the toxins that some bacteria produce (which aren't all denatured by cooking) that are the problem, not necessarily the bacteria themselves. Sorry, Sue.

But presumably the toxin level will still take longer to build up and reach the no eat zone if it is defrosted and refrozen than if it is defrosted and left defrosted. I wonder if this is more about how it would be difficult to calculate how long you could keep it for the second time you freeze it. But I may be wrong.

What would happen if you had a wire with a plug on each end and plugged them both into the mains?

Gavin Chipper wrote:What would happen if you had a wire with a plug on each end and plugged them both into the mains?

Fzzzzt.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Just blast it to furnace temperatures and eat it. The occasional bit of bacteria makes you more hardy, I'm sure.

As Charlie said, it's the toxins that some bacteria produce (which aren't all denatured by cooking) that are the problem, not necessarily the bacteria themselves. Sorry, Sue.

But presumably the toxin level will still take longer to build up and reach the no eat zone if it is defrosted and refrozen than if it is defrosted and left defrosted. I wonder if this is more about how it would be difficult to calculate how long you could keep it for the second time you freeze it. But I may be wrong.

Ice cream gets ice crystals in it if it defrosts and then is frozen again without churning so the texture is spoiled. So the advice not to refreeze....is it a genuine health warning or is that a manufacturers warning intended to avoid having the quality of their product compromised? I think the textures of many frozen foods get compromised by what happens to the water content during defrosting and refreezing. If refrozen food was deadly - well, a lot more of us would be dead. Can't help feeling your average packet of frozen peas contains a fair few peas that haven't stayed constantly frozen from the 'moment that the pod went pop.'

Sue Sanders wrote:Ice cream gets ice crystals in it if it defrosts and then is frozen again without churning so the texture is spoiled. So the advice not to refreeze....is it a genuine health warning or is that a manufacturers warning intended to avoid having the quality of their product compromised? I think the textures of many frozen foods get compromised by what happens to the water content during defrosting and refreezing. If refrozen food was deadly - well, a lot more of us would be dead. Can't help feeling your average packet of frozen peas contains a fair few peas that haven't stayed constantly frozen from the 'moment that the pod went pop.'

I'm sure that must be right. Although some foods rapidly become positively dangerous (mince!) most begin to look and smell unappetising long before they will do you any serious harm. Bearing in mind that "poisonous" these days covers "might upset your stomach a bit".
It's probably good advice to cook and then refreeze anything that has defrosted. Except for ice cream, where the best solution is to eat it. Even if the freezer has not broken down.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Ice cream gets ice crystals in it if it defrosts and then is frozen again without churning so the texture is spoiled. So the advice not to refreeze....is it a genuine health warning or is that a manufacturers warning intended to avoid having the quality of their product compromised? I think the textures of many frozen foods get compromised by what happens to the water content during defrosting and refreezing. If refrozen food was deadly - well, a lot more of us would be dead. Can't help feeling your average packet of frozen peas contains a fair few peas that haven't stayed constantly frozen from the 'moment that the pod went pop.'

I'm sure that must be right. Although some foods rapidly become positively dangerous (mince!) most begin to look and smell unappetising long before they will do you any serious harm. Bearing in mind that "poisonous" these days covers "might upset your stomach a bit".
It's probably good advice to cook and then refreeze anything that has defrosted. Except for ice cream, where the best solution is to eat it. Even if the freezer has not broken down.

I make it. That way you can make sure it's packed with dairy cream goodness - none of this vegetable fat nonsense!

Sue Sanders wrote:dairy cream goodness

How that takes me back - to the long-lost days when "good healthy food" meant lots of real butter and eggs and fresh meat.

And I agree with your rejection of "vegetable fat nonsense"! The only vegetable fat I permit in my kitchen is olive oil. My brother favours "non-dairy spreads", but he has to bring his own (and take the remainder away with him!).

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:dairy cream goodness

How that takes me back - to the long-lost days when "good healthy food" meant lots of real butter and eggs and fresh meat.

And I agree with your rejection of "vegetable fat nonsense"! The only vegetable fat I permit in my kitchen is olive oil. My brother favours "non-dairy spreads", but he has to bring his own (and take the remainder away with him!).

Nice to hear food sense, and low-fat foods, as well as generally being utterly pointless are pretty nasty.

I don't see the problem with a lunch of corned beef and dripping sarnies followed by home-made ice-cream, especially on wash day where I can burn it off with an afternoon at the washboard.

I asked my dad a while ago if he had the family ice-cream recipe, but it seems to have been lost. Twas made in this house, what I've just found online, my great-grandad's place. Ooh I could cope with some Iti ice-cream right now...

When someone says that people rule the world, some smart-arse will always chip in with the fact that there are far more ants or crabs or whatever. But obviously ants are far smaller than people, so it's easy for there to be loads of them. So I'd like to know the ranking order for species with the most if you do it by total mass, or total energy.

Gavin Chipper wrote:When someone says that people rule the world, some smart-arse will always chip in with the fact that there are far more ants or crabs or whatever.

And that smart-arse is usually you.

Gavin Chipper wrote:When someone says that people rule the world, some smart-arse will always chip in with the fact that there are far more ants or crabs or whatever. But obviously ants are far smaller than people, so it's easy for there to be loads of them. So I'd like to know the ranking order for species with the most if you do it by total mass, or total energy.

This table suggests that ants are way ahead of us by biomass. Would be nice to see this data for wider taxa (e.g. mammals) but I suppose these estimates are difficult to come up with.

A brandnew question-I've-always-wanted-answered:
When swallowing a pill, I put the pill on my tongue, take a mouthful of water and - throw my head back. It seems to help. Does it really, and if so, how?

Sue Sanders wrote:meet Mike, he swims like a fish

Breast stroke, back stroke, butterfly and crawl
Doggy paddle belly flop, you can do them all
LEARN TO SWIM!

Rosemary Roberts wrote:A brandnew question-I've-always-wanted-answered:
When swallowing a pill, I put the pill on my tongue, take a mouthful of water and - throw my head back. It seems to help. Does it really, and if so, how?

Momentum and gravity play a part, I suppose, and putting your head back opens your throat (it's why you tilt a casualty's head back for CPR).

Alec Rivers wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:A brandnew question-I've-always-wanted-answered:
When swallowing a pill, I put the pill on my tongue, take a mouthful of water and - throw my head back. It seems to help. Does it really, and if so, how?

Momentum and gravity play a part, I suppose, and putting your head back opens your throat (it's why you tilt a casualty's head back for CPR).

Opening the passage to the lungs sounds rather counterproductive to me, though I've never had one go down the wrong way. But I can't believe that tossing my head back causes the pill to jump off my tongue and down my throat, particularly not when it is generally stuck there with saliva. Does it perhaps cock the tongue up so that "down the throat" becomes a simple downhill slide?

There must be a PhD or two in pill dynamics!

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:A brandnew question-I've-always-wanted-answered:
When swallowing a pill, I put the pill on my tongue, take a mouthful of water and - throw my head back. It seems to help. Does it really, and if so, how?

Momentum and gravity play a part, I suppose, and putting your head back opens your throat (it's why you tilt a casualty's head back for CPR).

Opening the passage to the lungs sounds rather counterproductive to me, though I've never had one go down the wrong way. But I can't believe that tossing my head back causes the pill to jump off my tongue and down my throat, particularly not when it is generally stuck there with saliva. Does it perhaps cock the tongue up so that "down the throat" becomes a simple downhill slide?

There must be a PhD or two in pill dynamics!

You tilt a casualty's head back for CPR to stop the tongue from blocking the airways - your trachea's always kept open by the cartilage rings anyway. Opening the oesophagus to swallow is a muscular reflex caused when stuff's moved to the back of the mouth, and the epiglottis seals off the trachea (usually!) in the process. Peristaltic action then moves the liquid / food bolus to the stomach, so you don't even need gravity. It helps though, if you don't want heartburn

I think tipping your head back for tablets is just psychological tbh. I used to do it, but now I take loads of drugs I just throw them into my mouth and they all go down anyway. I think the record I took in one go was about 28 tablets (from 7 different drugs, so there was a range of sizes and shapes in there).

It's the same action as when you have a drink in your mouth so it's almost certainly the drink that provides the momentum rather than anything else. I should think putting it on your tongue just puts it in the optimal place to minimise other friction, keeping it in the centre of the liquid flow.

Lesley Hines wrote:I think tipping your head back for tablets is just psychological tbh. I used to do it, but now I take loads of drugs I just throw them into my mouth and they all go down anyway. I think the record I took in one go was about 28 tablets (from 7 different drugs, so there was a range of sizes and shapes in there).

Blimey! I thought it was pretty impressive that I did about 12 once, but 28 is insane! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you give a much better blowjob than me, too.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:I think tipping your head back for tablets is just psychological tbh. I used to do it, but now I take loads of drugs I just throw them into my mouth and they all go down anyway. I think the record I took in one go was about 28 tablets (from 7 different drugs, so there was a range of sizes and shapes in there).

Blimey! I thought it was pretty impressive that I did about 12 once, but 28 is insane! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you give a much better blowjob than me, too.

Well, I don't like to brag

Matt Morrison wrote:Blimey! I thought it was pretty impressive that I did about 12 once, but 28 is insane! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you give a much better blowjob than me, too.

That's a thought. Perhaps tossing my head back is where I've been going wrong.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Blimey! I thought it was pretty impressive that I did about 12 once, but 28 is insane! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you give a much better blowjob than me, too.

That's a thought. Perhaps tossing my head back is where I've been going wrong.

No, it's just that's not one of Matt's greater talents

Lesley Hines wrote:I think tipping your head back for tablets is just psychological tbh.

That'll be me!

Lesley Hines wrote:I used to do it, but now I take loads of drugs I just throw them into my mouth and they all go down anyway. I think the record I took in one go was about 28 tablets (from 7 different drugs, so there was a range of sizes and shapes in there).

I'm glad not to be in your shoes - I've never managed to swallow more than one at a time. I tried once and the peanut reflex took over and I crunched them up. Everything tasted bitter for days!

Lesley Hines wrote: It's the same action as when you have a drink in your mouth so it's almost certainly the drink that provides the momentum rather than anything else. I should think putting it on your tongue just puts it in the optimal place to minimise other friction, keeping it in the centre of the liquid flow.

And that really does answer my question. Thanks

Lesley Hines wrote: it's just that's not one of Matt's greater talents

How do they crack walnuts without breaking the nut?

Why, when somebody has something that belongs to them taken, do they always shout "come back" after the perpetrator?

Why do you feel really tired after you eat a big meal at lunchtime, but you don't if you eat a big meal at night?

Derek Hazell wrote:Why do you feel really tired after you eat a big meal at lunchtime, but you don't if you eat a big meal at night?

Been guzzling Dez?

Our natural circadian rhythms, being diurnal creatures, mean we have a dip in our energy levels at around 2pm ish (on average). Add to that the soporific effect of high blood sugar levels and chances are you'll feel tired after a large lunch. In the evening you still have the effects of the blood sugar but, unless you eat really late, you won't have the added effect of the circadian rhythm.

Lesley Hines wrote:Been guzzling Dez?

Our natural circadian rhythms, being diurnal creatures, mean we have a dip in our energy levels at around 2pm ish (on average). Add to that the soporific effect of high blood sugar levels and chances are you'll feel tired after a large lunch. In the evening you still have the effects of the blood sugar but, unless you eat really late, you won't have the added effect of the circadian rhythm.

That's why we love Lesley so much. She can mess around and talk rubbish with the best of us, but then comes out with a deep scientific answer which absolutely blows you away!

Thanks Lesley!
And yes, staff Christmas meal this lunchtime . . .

OK, can someone please help me out with these:
How do dribbles get on the skirting boards behind furniture with no obvious stains above them? (Spring cleaning - can you tell? )
Why is the missing Lego piece not only the smallest, but also the one that's integral to make it do whatever the kit says? (in this case making a dumper truck tip, but the principle always seems to be the same).
Why does cooking leftovers just leave you with more leftover food that then has to be chucked?

I'm starting to think that there's more credence to holes in the space-time continuum, thus swallowing possessions, secretly multiplying food, and creating mysterious stains from parallel universes than previously considered.

Lesley Hines wrote:OK, can someone please help me out with these:
How do dribbles get on the skirting boards behind furniture with no obvious stains above them?

Corollary: how did my (ancient matrix) printer acquire dribbles all along one side - nowhere near where anybody could stand, nowhere near any other emissions?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:OK, can someone please help me out with these:
How do dribbles get on the skirting boards behind furniture with no obvious stains above them?

Corollary: how did my (ancient matrix) printer acquire dribbles all along one side - nowhere near where anybody could stand, nowhere near any other emissions?

I'm guessing that this is something to do with water vapour in the air combining with small particles of dirt, then condensing on surfaces when the temperature falls. Either that or ghosts.

Or mice coming out at night to play football.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I always wondered why girl's leg lengths were longer than boy's leg lengths in trouser sizes, when boys are much taller. I worked it out last week. Amazing feeling.

This makes me laugh, even though I'm not sure whether that was your primary intention or not your intention in the slightest. What was the answer?

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I always wondered why girl's leg lengths were longer than boy's leg lengths in trouser sizes, when boys are much taller. I worked it out last week. Amazing feeling.

This makes me laugh, even though I'm not sure whether that was your primary intention or not your intention in the slightest. What was the answer?

It's because the bit where the legs join of girls' jeans is right at the crotch, whereas in boys' jeans there's (generally) a few inches of space in which one's balls (generally) dangle. I wonder how the sizing of boys' skinny jeans compare.

Snooker:

What happens when the cue ball comes to rest in the jaws of a pocket, and is prevented from being played into the open table by two or more other balls, none of which can be played legally as the next shot?

I've never seen this happen, but it must be perfectly possible.

I'm not sure I understand the question Clive, why is that different to being similarly snookered while not in the jaws of a pocket? Surely it's possible to be trapped anywhere on the table?

My answer would be that you foul the shot

Clive Brooker wrote:Snooker:

What happens when the cue ball comes to rest in the jaws of a pocket, and is prevented from being played into the open table by two or more other balls, none of which can be played legally as the next shot?

I've never seen this happen, but it must be perfectly possible.

This is from Wikipedia from the 'fouls' section, so not quite what we're talking about here, but could shed some light: "A free ball scenario does not occur when the ball gets stuck at the edge of a pocket jaw in such a manner that the player is unable to hit any legitimate ball. This is because according to the official snooker rules a ball is snookered only if its way is obstructed by balls not on. In this scenario, the referee calls an 'angled ball' and the player may choose to either take the shot from the current position or place the cueball where he likes in the 'D'."

So a foul snooker is only when blocked by balls 'not on', e.g. colours when you have to hit a red, and it's NOT a foul snooker when a foul leads to the ball being blocked by the jaws. Going by that fact, it seems the snooker rules don't seem to look favourably on players blighted by a nasty bit of luck. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the situation you describe, the player coming to the table would have no choice, like Jon suggested, but to foul. Although god knows what the referee would do next, as professional fouls (deliberate ones) are looked down on in snooker even if they make tactical sense. Genuinely not sure how a referee would sort all this out, but I think they might be able to exercise some kind of initiative too.

Re-rack was the first thing that came to mind, but this would very likely be an unfair resolution for one player.

Interestingly, there's a rule in pool (I can't remember if this applies to the 'old rules' or 'new rules', or both) that says you are not allowed to leave the table in a situation where your opponent can physically not play a legal shot, and for you to do so would actually be considered a foul even if you'd done so with a non-foul shot.

One that I've wondered about is that a frame appears to be considered over when one player is more than seven points ahead and only the black ball remains. Is this a rule, or just a convention? If the white and black were in the jaws of the corner pockets on the same side of the table it would be a very difficult shot. You have to aim one side or the other of the opposite centre pocket, with a fair amount of spin, and even if you hit the black you risk following it into the pocket.

David Williams wrote:One that I've wondered about is that a frame appears to be considered over when one player is more than seven points ahead and only the black ball remains. Is this a rule, or just a convention? If the white and black were in the jaws of the corner pockets on the same side of the table it would be a very difficult shot. You have to aim one side or the other of the opposite centre pocket, with a fair amount of spin, and even if you hit the black you risk following it into the pocket.

I think it's conventional that professional players will never miss the one remaining ball, and a scenario as you describe is almost impossible to achieve without collusion of both players.

David Williams wrote:One that I've wondered about is that a frame appears to be considered over when one player is more than seven points ahead and only the black ball remains. Is this a rule, or just a convention? If the white and black were in the jaws of the corner pockets on the same side of the table it would be a very difficult shot. You have to aim one side or the other of the opposite centre pocket, with a fair amount of spin, and even if you hit the black you risk following it into the pocket.

I remember it being said that when only the black ball is left, the frame ends either when the black is potted or a foul is committed. So there are only 7 points left in the frame come what may. Am I right?

To my surprise, worldsnooker.com seems to answer my original question explicitly

"14. Foul and a Miss
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but (for) the obstructing ball or balls."

I've inserted "for" in the final sentence.

Ian Volante wrote:

David Williams wrote:One that I've wondered about is that a frame appears to be considered over when one player is more than seven points ahead and only the black ball remains. Is this a rule, or just a convention? If the white and black were in the jaws of the corner pockets on the same side of the table it would be a very difficult shot. You have to aim one side or the other of the opposite centre pocket, with a fair amount of spin, and even if you hit the black you risk following it into the pocket.

I think it's conventional that professional players will never miss the one remaining ball, and a scenario as you describe is almost impossible to achieve without collusion of both players.

It's unlikely, granted, but not "almost impossible". The black will have arrived at its position some time back as a result of a narrowly-missed shot after an earlier red. And the white gets there after a misplayed pink.

And on the earlier case of the impossible snooker, I have seen occasions when this has almost happened. It can come about when a player goes into the pack, pots a red, and is then surrounded by reds with no escape route to any of the colours.

Clive Brooker wrote:

David Williams wrote:One that I've wondered about is that a frame appears to be considered over when one player is more than seven points ahead and only the black ball remains. Is this a rule, or just a convention? If the white and black were in the jaws of the corner pockets on the same side of the table it would be a very difficult shot. You have to aim one side or the other of the opposite centre pocket, with a fair amount of spin, and even if you hit the black you risk following it into the pocket.

I remember it being said that when only the black ball is left, the frame ends either when the black is potted or a foul is committed. So there are only 7 points left in the frame come what may. Am I right?

Aye, as I've always understood it, only seven points can be scored from the final black. So if Player A is six points ahead, pots the final black and goes in-off, Player B gets seven points for the foul and wins the frame by one point - the black is not re-spotted like other colours would be.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Snooker:

What happens when the cue ball comes to rest in the jaws of a pocket, and is prevented from being played into the open table by two or more other balls, none of which can be played legally as the next shot?

I've never seen this happen, but it must be perfectly possible.

This is from Wikipedia from the 'fouls' section, so not quite what we're talking about here, but could shed some light: "A free ball scenario does not occur when the ball gets stuck at the edge of a pocket jaw in such a manner that the player is unable to hit any legitimate ball. This is because according to the official snooker rules a ball is snookered only if its way is obstructed by balls not on. In this scenario, the referee calls an 'angled ball' and the player may choose to either take the shot from the current position or place the cueball where he likes in the 'D'."

So a foul snooker is only when blocked by balls 'not on', e.g. colours when you have to hit a red, and it's NOT a foul snooker when a foul leads to the ball being blocked by the jaws. Going by that fact, it seems the snooker rules don't seem to look favourably on players blighted by a nasty bit of luck. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the situation you describe, the player coming to the table would have no choice, like Jon suggested, but to foul.

Isn't that angled ball situation applied here? Isn't that what it's saying?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:What happens when the cue ball comes to rest in the jaws of a pocket, and is prevented from being played into the open table by two or more other balls, none of which can be played legally as the next shot?

This is from Wikipedia from the 'fouls' section, so not quite what we're talking about here, but could shed some light: "A free ball scenario does not occur when the ball gets stuck at the edge of a pocket jaw in such a manner that the player is unable to hit any legitimate ball. This is because according to the official snooker rules a ball is snookered only if its way is obstructed by balls not on. In this scenario, the referee calls an 'angled ball' and the player may choose to either take the shot from the current position or place the cueball where he likes in the 'D'."

Isn't that angled ball situation applied here? Isn't that what it's saying?

Well, that was concerning Player A playing a FOUL shot and leaving Player B unable to play a legal shot in any way, whereas Clive's question was about Player A playing a LEGAL shot to put Player B in that same situation.

Referring to the quote above then, there's no way that Player B would be allowed to "either take the shot from the current position or place the cueball where he likes in the 'D'" if Player A's shot was legal, as this would basically be a punishment for Player A playing The Ultimate Snooker. Anyway, I'm sure you've read Clive's worldsnooker.com quotery above for what should actually happen anyway.

Matt Morrison wrote:Anyway, I'm sure you've read Clive's worldsnooker.com quotery above for what should actually happen anyway.

Yep, but I read yours first.

Matt Morrison wrote:Interestingly, there's a rule in pool (I can't remember if this applies to the 'old rules' or 'new rules', or both) that says you are not allowed to leave the table in a situation where your opponent can physically not play a legal shot, and for you to do so would actually be considered a foul even if you'd done so with a non-foul shot.

That's old rules; it's now tactically trendy to play a deliberate foul. However, you have to be aware that if you foul an opponent can request a foul snooker if he cannot hit a legal ball, which then allows him to either nominate (and/or pot) his opponent's ball or respot the white behind the baulk line.

A frame is considered over when the losing player is more than 7 points behind, and the winning player is under no obligation to make any attempt to pot the remaining black. This happens regularly.

JimBentley wrote:Aye, as I've always understood it, only seven points can be scored from the final black. So if Player A is six points ahead, pots the final black and goes in-off, Player B gets seven points for the foul and wins the frame by one point - the black is not re-spotted like other colours would be.

So are you saying that if A goes in-off without potting the black, or just misses the black altogether, the frame is over?

Lesley Hines wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Interestingly, there's a rule in pool (I can't remember if this applies to the 'old rules' or 'new rules', or both) that says you are not allowed to leave the table in a situation where your opponent can physically not play a legal shot, and for you to do so would actually be considered a foul even if you'd done so with a non-foul shot.

That's old rules; it's now tactically trendy to play a deliberate foul. However, you have to be aware that if you foul an opponent can request a foul snooker if he cannot hit a legal ball, which then allows him to either nominate (and/or pot) his opponent's ball or respot the white behind the baulk line.

Not talking about deliberate fouls, Les, this was related to the above snooker problem, where you leave the table to the other player in such a way as it's absolutely physically entirely impossible to play a legal shot. It happened to me once in a pool league match. Obviously with a foul snooker then there are repercussions that benefit the snookered player, as you say - just like snooker itself.

David Williams wrote:

JimBentley wrote:Aye, as I've always understood it, only seven points can be scored from the final black. So if Player A is six points ahead, pots the final black and goes in-off, Player B gets seven points for the foul and wins the frame by one point - the black is not re-spotted like other colours would be.

So are you saying that if A goes in-off without potting the black, or just misses the black altogether, the frame is over?

Yep

Also, if player A fouls to leave player B in an unplayable position, player B can put player A back to the table. If he doesn't foul player B has to play the shot, but a miss wouldn't be called as it's illegal to jump balls and there isn't an easier route to a legal ball.

Edit: ^That was sloblock, sorry. It's a free ball.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Interestingly, there's a rule in pool (I can't remember if this applies to the 'old rules' or 'new rules', or both) that says you are not allowed to leave the table in a situation where your opponent can physically not play a legal shot, and for you to do so would actually be considered a foul even if you'd done so with a non-foul shot.

That's old rules; it's now tactically trendy to play a deliberate foul. However, you have to be aware that if you foul an opponent can request a foul snooker if he cannot hit a legal ball, which then allows him to either nominate (and/or pot) his opponent's ball or respot the white behind the baulk line.

Not talking about deliberate fouls, Les, this was related to the above snooker problem, where you leave the table to the other player in such a way as it's absolutely physically entirely impossible to play a legal shot. It happened to me once in a pool league match. Obviously with a foul snooker then there are repercussions that benefit the snookered player, as you say - just like snooker itself.

Then again, in pool you're allowed jump shots, so can technically be said to never be unable to legally play a shot.

Ian Volante wrote:Then again, in pool you're allowed jump shots, so can technically be said to never be unable to legally play a shot.

Only 9-ball, never 8-ball. Jumping balls is a foul in 8-ball.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Interestingly, there's a rule in pool (I can't remember if this applies to the 'old rules' or 'new rules', or both) that says you are not allowed to leave the table in a situation where your opponent can physically not play a legal shot, and for you to do so would actually be considered a foul even if you'd done so with a non-foul shot.

That's old rules; it's now tactically trendy to play a deliberate foul. However, you have to be aware that if you foul an opponent can request a foul snooker if he cannot hit a legal ball, which then allows him to either nominate (and/or pot) his opponent's ball or respot the white behind the baulk line.

Not talking about deliberate fouls, Les, this was related to the above snooker problem, where you leave the table to the other player in such a way as it's absolutely physically entirely impossible to play a legal shot. It happened to me once in a pool league match. Obviously with a foul snooker then there are repercussions that benefit the snookered player, as you say - just like snooker itself.

Sorry - my bad In 8-ball if it's impossible to play a legal shot it's a re-rack, but there's no penalty to either player.