Should frames end as soon as snookers are required? Or is playing for snookers an essential part of the game? Shaun Murphy, Neil Robertson, Mark Selby and Barry Hawkins share some interesting views...

No, it’s called snooker for a reason and I personally like the snookers required phase of the game. The clues in the name but also, I enjoy the strategy behind the snooker phase as it has a chess-like element to it. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

Barry Hawkins hit the nail on the head there, the others were talking nonsense

Didn't Shaun get up off his seat the other day requiring 5 snookers against Trump? 😆

I dont believe there needs to be a rule change. If it ain't broke 😀 Obviously it's the TV networks . The games called Snooker

Let’s just end the frame as soon as the first red is potted. That’ll quicken the game up. Why is speed the only metric by which people tend to measure enjoyment or success?

Remember when Murphy played on needing five snookers? If a leading player screws up on his break why not let the opponent punish that mistake by having a chance to win it himself? The rule is fine as is.

The only one talking any sense is barry rest of them talking rubbish I've won many frames needing 4 snookers in league matches and practise against someone if the ones moaning don't like it go and play pool next time Shaun neil selby carry on for snookers I hope lots reply

Erm the clue is in the name

Snookers are some of the hardest things to pull off in the game. Why shouldn’t this be rewarded. Speed of games should not be the only thing taken into account here

Nope. Take it one step further 'woah stop this free flowing break, there's not enough points left for the other guy to win, rack them up, we don't want to see a century, you're wasting time' - snookers are part of snooker, end of