Deliberate Miss

[AzureFlyer]

Hi Guys,

I was playing a frame last night and I had my opponent well tucked up in a snooker. There were a few remaining reds on the table. My opponent played a shot which had no chance of hitting any of the reds, playing away from them. After the game I asked him did he play the shot on purpose to which he admitted to missing on purpose.

What are the actual guidelines in amateur snooker? From what I have found out is that there is no "Miss Rule" at this level, but are there any other actions that can be taken? IE, Forfeit frame or something to that effect, as it is essentially cheating.

Thanks for reading.

[RoryM147]

Not sure about amateur snooker but in professional snooker that would be a miss. First I've heard that there is no miss rule in amateur snooker?

[Londonlad147]

Hi Guys,

I was playing a frame last night and I had my opponent well tucked up in a snooker. There were a few remaining reds on the table. My opponent played a shot which had no chance of hitting any of the reds, playing away from them. After the game I asked him did he play the shot on purpose to which he admitted to missing on purpose.

What are the actual guidelines in amateur snooker? From what I have found out is that there is no "Miss Rule" at this level, but are there any other actions that can be taken? IE, Forfeit frame or something to that effect, as it is essentially cheating.

Thanks for reading.

The 'foul and a miss' rule is in the standard rules of snooker (section 3 rule 14) which should apply to all games played under the WPBSA rules. However, certain leagues have voted that they will not play by this rule. So, unless you're playing in a league or competition where the rule has specifically been excluded then it is applicable to any other game.

If the referee is NOT satisfied that the miss was NOT deliberate then he can call a Miss regardless of the difference in scores. If a player is blatantly not trying to hit a ball on then he could be penalised under section 4, for ungentlemanly conduct or conduct which is wilfully or, persistently unfair. He could be warned or a frame could be awarded!

[Terry Davidson]

I would consider this ungentlemanly or unsportsmanlike conduct. If it was just a private match between you then I would yank his chain as soon as he did it and tell him a deliberate miss is not acceptable and I would re-set the cueball and tell him if he did it again he would forfeit the frame. However, I recognize this might be difficult in a friendly.

If it was a league match I would talk to whoever runs the rules committee and get it clarified that even if the MISS rule is not being played a player must make an honest attempt to hit a snooker or forfeit the frame. They are supposed to be gentlemen sportsmen, not trying to avoid the intent of the rules.

[AzureFlyer]

The biggest thing that annoyed me was that he didn't see anything wrong with what he did. I'll have a chat with the league and see what the story is.

[timcunnell]

I'm really interested in this. This is definitely a problem in the league that I play in locally. In the premier division they do play the miss rule I believe. But in the lower ranks where I am it obviously just isn't practical to use the miss rule. But I know that some better players (who clearly know what they're doing!) make no attempt to get out of snookers in certain situations, knowing they'll concede 4 points and no real harm done.
The whole point of the miss rule is to stop players trying to rest on/near one loose red, rather than going for the pack and leaving everything on.
I think that where the miss rule isn't being used (and no doubt in local leagues you can't really use it) there needs to be a rule about making a decent attempt to get out of a snooker.
Of course, the problem is that there will be so much grey-area, and with team players ref'ing games there would be arguments about interpretation of any rule. So I don't know if it could ever be resolved?
There must be loads of members on here who play in leagues. I'd really be interested to hear what others experiences are of this, and whether anything has been tried.

[The Statman]

I'm really interested in this. This is definitely a problem in the league that I play in locally. In the premier division they do play the miss rule I believe. But in the lower ranks where I am it obviously just isn't practical to use the miss rule. But I know that some better players (who clearly know what they're doing!) make no attempt to get out of snookers in certain situations, knowing they'll concede 4 points and no real harm done.
The whole point of the miss rule is to stop players trying to rest on/near one loose red, rather than going for the pack and leaving everything on.
I think that where the miss rule isn't being used (and no doubt in local leagues you can't really use it) there needs to be a rule about making a decent attempt to get out of a snooker.
Of course, the problem is that there will be so much grey-area, and with team players ref'ing games there would be arguments about interpretation of any rule. So I don't know if it could ever be resolved?
There must be loads of members on here who play in leagues. I'd really be interested to hear what others experiences are of this, and whether anything has been tried.

I am a former Grade 1 referee and also a League Secretary. With my referee's hat on I think the Miss Rule should be enforced in all decisions, but with my secretary's experience I appreciate that it is nowhere near as clear-cut.

Our League has found it necessary to modify the Miss rule NOT because of the different abilities of the players, but because of the proficiency of refereeing. It is not possible to expect a teammate from the home side to referee a game to the standard and impartiality that would allow the evenhanded and calm application of the Rules. It just causes more arguments than it solves.

We therefore voted, many years ago and with no complaints of any substance since, that the Miss is called when a player at least has full-ball contact available on a ball on, but not at other times. As a referee, that goes squarely against the grain but, all things considered, it is not possible to expect anything more without the great potential for arguments on what is supposed to be an enjoyable social Thursday night out.

We do have comments such as "we don't use the Miss rule at our standard" in lower divisions, but since the League's adopted standard is being able to hit a ball full-on, that doesn't really hold much water. I am sure lower-division matches go by without the Miss rule being implemented at all - with no complaints on either side.

The bottom line is that, without qualified impartial officials, this is the best we can come up with as a League and I must say, it works well and there is no appetite to change it.

[timcunnell]

Thanks very much Statman for this interesting reply! Its really interesting to hear this perspective from someone like yourself who obviously knows the rules extremely well, but also is involved in the running of a local league. I am sure this miss rule must be something that crops up occasionally in leagues everywhere. And I agree that it probably isn't worth the hassle of trying to apply the rule in what is supposed to be a social night out. The consistency of refereeing decisions is the biggest challenge I think.
The only thing with the miss rule that I think could be considered personally, is the interpretation of the difficulty of the snooker and the quality of the attempt at escaping from that snooker. Of course, I defer to your knowledge on the subject, which as a referee will be much better than mine! But as I understand it, a miss is not called IF the snooker was a really nasty one, AND the player has made a really good attempt at getting out of it. NB - by "making a really good attempt", that would mean that he/she was taking the most direct route and - where there are multiple reds on, he/she is trying to hit the easiest one.
This was evident in (I think) the UK Semi-final last year between Mark Selby and Ricky Walden. Walden had Selby in all sorts of trouble with a wicked snooker. Selby had a couple of goes at escaping (there was only one red on the table) and these failed attempts were called misses, then he got really close - but still missed - and the referee didn't call a miss because it was deemed a good enough attempt to escape.
I just wonder if the same principle could be applied in league snooker, where by any full-ball snooker would be considered difficult enough, and any attempt at the easiest escape would be deemed good enough for it not to be a miss. Probably would still be too complicated/unnecessary?
I suppose the part where I keep getting stuck is that - in my opinion - it is unsporting for a player who is snookered to make a half-hearted attempt at rolling up to a loose red, and ignore the pack, which would be risky to hit. Or. even worse, play a fairly deliberate foul and give away 4 points but leave everything safe. It just goes against the spirit of the game!

[timcunnell]

Just another thought with regards to the ruling your league has agreed on a miss being called where a full-ball hit is available (which I think sounds very sensible - it eliminates trying to hit balls extremely thin without any real punishment). In those circumstances, do you/would you apply the rule of loss of frame for 3 consecutive misses? I am thinking that you probably should?

[The Statman]

Just another thought with regards to the ruling your league has agreed on a miss being called where a full-ball hit is available (which I think sounds very sensible - it eliminates trying to hit balls extremely thin without any real punishment). In those circumstances, do you/would you apply the rule of loss of frame for 3 consecutive misses? I am thinking that you probably should?

Yes, we do warn for three misses.

All that you say above is correct. The Selby/Walden incident is a relevant one and, as you would expect of a local league, any condierations of difficulty and nearness of attempt will have more room for manoeuvre. But the essence is spot on- has he taken the most direct route and/or aimed for the biggest target? Has he hit it hard enough? No to either of those questions should result in a Miss (if you are using the rule for more than hitttable situations).

A couple of other things that I would add to the "Miss should be called" list:

- Has he gone straight into the first intervening ball? (If tight behind the yellow, say, I would in almost all circumstances call a Miss if the yellow is struck directly. Any player should be capable of avoiding this!)

- Has he put side/swerve on, and done too much? (In which case, put less side on for the next attempt.)

Food for thought: Here are a few texts I've written before:

Consider this scenario. You are snookered tight behind the yellow. You are trying to play off one cushion and have to judge the side correctly to find a smallish gap between, say, blue and pink which are close together – and then to come off two further cushions before reaching the red. It may be the easiest route available and the last red.

On the first attempt, you misjudge it badly and graze the yellow straight away. Now, no matter how difficult, you would expect a player to manage to at least avoid the ball that the white is laying against, so a Miss is called. On the second attempt, you judge the angle correctly but underhit it by a foot – a Miss would be justified in that case. Now, on the third attempt, you get past the yellow, through between blue and pink, off the second and third cushions and miss the reds by the diameter of a gnat's left testicle.

If the referee called a Miss on that third attempt, his own testicles may encounter a disadvantageous communincation from the player's cue!

This is an extreme example, but suggesting that one attempt is 'Miss-worthy' does not set a precedent for subsequent better attempts – only for subsequent poorer ones.

---and---

Perhaps a little artistic moment would be useful.

In this diagram, the player is snookered on the last red, behind the blue but with other colours awkwardly placed.

(Diagram appears as attachment below)

There are six possible escapes shown, and here is my verdict on each of them:

I am assuming that:
The scoreline is not close to either player needing snookers;
The player cannot hit the ball directly (otherwise it would be a Miss whatever);
The player is genuinely attempting to hit the red.

1 (one-cushion escape with side)
Verdict: Miss, assuming that the maximum possible left-hand side is being employed, even if other routes shown were not available.
Reason: Playing for a shot that is not available.
Player's remedy: Select different route.

2 (one-cushion escape with side)
Verdict: Miss, even if it were the easiest available route.
Reason: Too much left-hand side has been used.
Player's remedy: use less side.

3 (one-cushion escape)
Verdict: Miss.
Reason: Easiest route used, but underhit.
Player's remedy: Use same route but hit harder.

4 (one-cushion escape)
Verdict: No Miss.
Reason: Easiset route used; attempt was acceptable and passed close to the target. (NOTE: In the professional game, all failures-to-hit are called a Miss if one-cushion escape)

5 (two-cushion escape)
Verdict: Miss
Reason: Easier escape available (namely, route 4).
Player's remedy: Use alternative route.
(Verdict: No Miss, if one-cushion route were not available)

6 (attempted swerve around blue, but struck blue)
Verdict: Miss
Reason: Failed to avoid the snookering ball.
Player's remedy: Avoid blue.

[timcunnell]

Thanks Statman, this is some really interesting - and brilliantly explained! - insight. I must admit that in reading this I am inclined to think that applying the miss rule in any circumstances other that where a qualified referee is used, just isn't practical. (Except for where full-ball contact is available - as you've done in your league). It is a shame that this can/does result in some fairly ungentlemanly shots being played! But on the whole I can't see that there is any other option - at least not unless we send everyone on a refereeing course!
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge on the subject - I find stuff like this really interesting!

[timcunnell]

If the referee called a Miss on that third attempt, his own testicles may encounter a disadvantageous communincation from the player's cue!

This did cause me to spurt tea out over my keyboard in the middle of the office! Thanks for that!!

[The Statman]

Thanks Statman, this is some really interesting - and brilliantly explained! - insight. I must admit that in reading this I am inclined to think that applying the miss rule in any circumstances other that where a qualified referee is used, just isn't practical. (Except for where full-ball contact is available - as you've done in your league). It is a shame that this can/does result in some fairly ungentlemanly shots being played! But on the whole I can't see that there is any other option - at least not unless we send everyone on a refereeing course!
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge on the subject - I find stuff like this really interesting!

(reply to bold bit)

Yes it's easy to come to that conclusion.

Having said that, there is some mileage in exploring it further, with perhaps certain bullet-point guidelines, which it really ought to be possible to convey and use. Something along the lines of:

- Underhit? Miss
- Not easiest route? Miss
- Not easiest target? Miss
- Too much side? Miss
- Hit snookering ball directly? Miss
- None of the above? No Miss
That would be a workable version.

However, it is clearly not desirable that a home player refereeing a fixture should stop what he's doing, read through a list, and eventually come to a conclusion by which time he's forgotten where the cue-ball is anyway! And that's not a criticism of the player - why would he have any interest in memorising something just so that we try to remove all subjectivity? As a qualified referee, it is right that I should be able to instinctively consider all those points, but that doesn't mean that we should expect every Tom, Dick or Harriet to do the same, or have any inclination to do it.

As I said in another thread today, when playing between mates, it should be possible to incorporate the Miss rule - any real friends will know what was and what wasn't a valid attempt. I play regularly with some mates where we know straight away and offer it to our opponent if we know we should have done better.

But league snooker has that slightly more meaningful competitiveness which goes just beyond those friendly boundaries.

Also, there is a vast difference between the divisions, not just between playing standards but between the reasons for belonging to the league in the first place. The higher end of the top division comprises pretty good amateur-level players who take snooker pretty seriously and want to win. At the lower end of the spectrum there are many players whose main aim is to have a sociable evening out - where the result and the form are less important.

[AzureFlyer]

Thanks for the detailed feedback guys. Always knew others had similar issues with this in league snooker. As it is meant to be an enjoyable night out, its would be harsh to put the cue ball back.

[DeanH]

Deliberate Miss

but also is it not nice to possibly lose to a player that continually deliberately misses.
let us know what your league bosses say to your enquiry