“Two snooker rules should be scrapped”: Ronnie O’Sullivan and three others are willing to see them abolished while they are still playing.

“Two snooker rules should be scrapped”: Ronnie O’Sullivan and three others are willing to see them abolished while they are still playing.

 

 

 

 

In a sport steeped in tradition, calls for reform are rarely made lightly. Yet Ronnie O’Sullivan has never been one to shy away from challenging convention. The seven-time world champion has suggested that two long-standing snooker rules should be scrapped, arguing that modern audiences deserve a faster, clearer and more engaging spectacle. Crucially, he believes the changes should be introduced while the current generation is still competing — not left for future eras.

Although O’Sullivan did not submit a formal proposal, discussion within the game has centred on two specific regulations: the miss rule and the frame-restart rule following a stalemate.

The first is the controversial miss rule. Under current regulations, if a player fails to hit the ball “on” and the referee deems that a genuine attempt was not made, a miss can be called. The opponent then has the option to have the balls replaced and the shot retaken. While the rule was introduced to prevent deliberate negative play, critics argue that it can lead to overly long exchanges, particularly when a player is snookered and repeatedly fails to escape. Frames can become drawn-out affairs, frustrating spectators and disrupting momentum. O’Sullivan has hinted that the rule, though well-intentioned, can sometimes punish players too harshly and create confusion for casual viewers.

The second issue concerns the rule that allows a frame to be restarted if a stalemate is reached and neither player can make progress. Though relatively rare, such situations can feel anticlimactic. Traditionalists defend the restart as fair and logical; reformists argue that alternative tie-break mechanisms — such as a single-black shoot-out or time-limited conclusion — might provide a more dramatic finish suited to modern broadcasting.

O’Sullivan is unlikely to be alone in his thinking. Three other leading figures who might share sympathy for reform are Judd Trump, Mark Selby and Neil Robertson.

Trump, known for his attacking flair, has previously spoken about making snooker more entertaining and accessible. A streamlined miss rule could encourage more positive play. Selby, though often associated with tactical battles, is a student of the game’s finer points and may welcome clarity and consistency in officiating. Robertson, an advocate for global growth, has frequently discussed adapting the sport for new audiences and markets.

The debate ultimately reflects a broader tension within professional snooker: how to honour its heritage while ensuring its future. The sport’s enduring appeal lies in its balance of precision, patience and psychological warfare. However, in an era of shortened attention spans and expanding international competition, administrators face increasing pressure to modernise.

Whether these two rules will indeed be scrapped remains uncertain. What is clear is that when a figure of O’Sullivan’s stature raises concerns, the conversation resonates. Reform in snooker has often come gradually rather than radically. Yet if leading players are willing to see change enacted during their own careers, the governing bodies may soon be compelled to listen.