Foul and Miss Disagreement between Ali Carter & Ricky Walden

[SnkrRef]

Why isn't the first shot a miss ? As he didn't need snookers on that shot, if put back and he misses again ,no miss, as he then needs snookers, wouldn't that be fairer.

Are you referring to the first of the eight scenarios listed by vmax4steve?

The rules quite clearly state that if either player needed penalty points to be able to win the frame either before the stroke or as a result of it, then no miss shall be called. The striker was 42 down with 43 on the table before he played his shot. After his shot, he became 46 points (or more) down with just 43 on the table, thus now needing penalty points to win, hence no miss can be called.

The fact that the points difference refers to both the striker and the non-striker is perhaps a little bit odd, but that's what the rules say.

[cantpotforshíte]

Here's the Selby - Dunn incident from the same day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9mKBlGuMqY It happens at about 16.40

[SnkrRef]

Here's the Selby - Dunn incident from the same day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9mKBlGuMqY It happens at about 16.40

OK, so my assumption was wrong: it was a cock-up by the referee, pure and simple. After the failed attempt at getting out of the snooker there were just 43 points on and 43 difference, so he couldn't win, and therefore a Miss cannot be called. The commentators were right (for once) - although the rule was actually changed in the 2011 rule book, not "this year".

[jrc750]

OK, so my assumption was wrong: it was a cock-up by the referee, pure and simple. After the failed attempt at getting out of the snooker there were just 43 points on and 43 difference, so he couldn't win, and therefore a Miss cannot be called. The commentators were right (for once) - although the rule was actually changed in the 2011 rule book, not "this year".

When a mistake such as this is made, does anybody have a talk with the referees at some later point and mention the mistake ?? otherwise the Ref might keep on thinking he is right ??

[cantpotforshíte]

OK, so my assumption was wrong: it was a cock-up by the referee, pure and simple. After the failed attempt at getting out of the snooker there were just 43 points on and 43 difference, so he couldn't win, and therefore a Miss cannot be called. The commentators were right (for once) - although the rule was actually changed in the 2011 rule book, not "this year".

I think that your assumption was about the incident in the Walden - Carter Match. This was a separate incident that happened on the same day; different match...

[SnkrRef]

When a mistake such as this is made, does anybody have a talk with the referees at some later point and mention the mistake ?? otherwise the Ref might keep on thinking he is right ??

Most certainly the senior referee and/or assessors would have 'words' with him after the match!

[SnkrRef]

I think that your assumption was about the incident in the Walden - Carter Match. This was a separate incident that happened on the same day; different match...

Actually I think I was referring to my assumptions on the White/Morris match. Far too many incidents happening!

[DeanH]

I have noticed the Eurosport commentators now say "you don't call miss if in snookers required stage"
I just knew that at least one of them is on TSF

[vmax4steve]

(1)
So I'm 42 down on the last two reds and committ a foul to go 46 down, it cannot be called a miss as the foul immediately comes into effect on the actual foul stroke and the miss cannot be called as I now need a snooker on my next stroke even though I didn't need one on the last stroke, until I fouled, and didn't need one before the foul stroke was made.

(2)
Yet when I'm 44 down on the last two reds and force a foul out of my opponent to go 40 down, the foul doesn't immediately come into effect on the actual foul stroke so that a miss can be called as I no longer need a snooker on my next stroke even though my opponent also didn't need a snooker on the foul stroke he just played, a position where a miss can be called according to the rules, but then the rule changes as soon as the foul is made.

No, it's not quite right to refer to the foul coming immediately into effect in determining whether a miss can be called. The rules clearly refer simply to whether penalty points were required by either player either before or after the stroke.

Ok so not immediately into effect but applies straight away to the next stroke even though no snooker was required on the actual foul stroke.

In your second scenario, NO miss can can be called as you needed snookers before the stroke was played. It is as simple as that.

Yet the general rule of a miss can be called when not at the snookers required stage changes as soon as the foul is made and snookers are required.

I am not disputing the way the miss rule is written, I understand it very well, I just wonder why it needs to change from one stroke to another depending on when snookers are required or not.

After the break off stroke, if the player coming to the table finds himself tight behind the green and snookered on all reds he will be called for a miss every single time he fails to hit a red from that position, and could in fact have 36 attempts, giving four points each time, before a miss cannot be called and the cue ball replaced.

Yet in a situation where just one miss leads to a snookers required situation the miss then cannot be called at all.

Just another reason why the miss rule is an ass and we need to return to the old rule of accepting the situation of the balls as they lie after any foul, putting the other bloke back in or taking a free ball if awarded one.

[SnkrRef]

Just another reason why the miss rule is an ass and we need to return to the old rule of accepting the situation of the balls as they lie after any foul, putting the other bloke back in or taking a free ball if awarded one.

Sorry, I really cannot agree with that. How far back are you going when you refer to the 'old rule'? The concept of a Miss and replacing the balls has been in the rule book since at least 1987!

From the March 1987 edition of the rule book:

S2.20 MISS
A miss is when the referee considers the striker has not endeavoured to hit the ball on.

S3.3(l) MODE OF PLAY
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 miss.

S3.10(c)(iii)
If a breach of Section 3.3(l) occurs, the offending player has to play again from the original position, if requested by the next player.

[vmax4steve]

Sorry, I really cannot agree with that. How far back are you going when you refer to the 'old rule'? The concept of a Miss and replacing the balls has been in the rule book since at least 1987![/I]

Doesn't matter to me if you agree or not, I find the concept of the miss rule to be against the spirit that 99% of snooker players play the game, that of total honesty, and a rule was already in place for the deliberate foul before this stupid miss rule was introduced but very few referees have the balls to enforce it, then and now.

Nearly all referees now enforce the miss rule without thought, giving no consideration at all to the difficulty of the shot in question and where the balls come to rest after the foul is made and the options open to the aggrieved player.
I have seen many times a player left a reasonable free ball pot after a miss has been awarded only to choose to have the cue ball replaced. In that situation surely the referee has to take into account that the player who fouled didn't deliberately leave a reasonable free ball pot from which he could very well lose the frame, therefore it was not a deliberate miss and shouldn't be called as such.

I know that the rules state that the player shall to the best of his ability endeavour to hit the ball on, but if he can miss a straight black off its spot then he can also miss a one cushion escape snooker.
What the referee has to decide IMO is whether the player has deliberately fouled in order to leave it safe and the rule needs to be re-written to state that very thing.
Miss after miss being called simply to roll up to the pack of reds when that extra inch to actually hit the pack leaves it just as safe as leaving it an inch short only grinds out the frame by constantly replacing the cue ball.
It's boring and unneccessary and is being used by players simply to gain points from negative play as they know that rolling up behind a colour can possibly gain them twenty points in misses before the ball on is hit.

[Gazzac5]

Doesn't matter to me if you agree or not, I find the concept of the miss rule to be against the spirit that 99% of snooker players play the game, that of total honesty, and a rule was already in place for the deliberate foul before this stupid miss rule was introduced but very few referees have the balls to enforce it, then and now.

Nearly all referees now enforce the miss rule without thought, giving no consideration at all to the difficulty of the shot in question and where the balls come to rest after the foul is made and the options open to the aggrieved player.
I have seen many times a player left a reasonable free ball pot after a miss has been awarded only to choose to have the cue ball replaced. In that situation surely the referee has to take into account that the player who fouled didn't deliberately leave a reasonable free ball pot from which he could very well lose the frame, therefore it was not a deliberate miss and shouldn't be called as such.

I know that the rules state that the player shall to the best of his ability endeavour to hit the ball on, but if he can miss a straight black off its spot then he can also miss a one cushion escape snooker.
What the referee has to decide IMO is whether the player has deliberately fouled in order to leave it safe and the rule needs to be re-written to state that very thing.
Miss after miss being called simply to roll up to the pack of reds when that extra inch to actually hit the pack leaves it just as safe as leaving it an inch short only grinds out the frame by constantly replacing the cue ball.
It's boring and unneccessary and is being used by players simply to gain points from negative play as they know that rolling up behind a colour can possibly gain them twenty points in misses before the ball on is hit.

Ahmen to that ! a truly excellent reply. Totally agree !

[lk8]

I am not disputing the way the miss rule is written, I understand it very well, I just wonder why it needs to change from one stroke to another depending on when snookers are required or not.

After the break off stroke, if the player coming to the table finds himself tight behind the green and snookered on all reds he will be called for a miss every single time he fails to hit a red from that position, and could in fact have 36 attempts, giving four points each time, before a miss cannot be called and the cue ball replaced.

Yet in a situation where just one miss leads to a snookers required situation the miss then cannot be called at all.

it is written like this to stop players from playing for snookers when they're 256 points behind with 22 on the table...

Doesn't matter to me if you agree or not, I find the concept of the miss rule to be against the spirit that 99% of snooker players play the game, that of total honesty, and a rule was already in place for the deliberate foul before this stupid miss rule was introduced but very few referees have the balls to enforce it, then and now.

Nearly all referees now enforce the miss rule without thought, giving no consideration at all to the difficulty of the shot in question and where the balls come to rest after the foul is made and the options open to the aggrieved player.
I have seen many times a player left a reasonable free ball pot after a miss has been awarded only to choose to have the cue ball replaced. In that situation surely the referee has to take into account that the player who fouled didn't deliberately leave a reasonable free ball pot from which he could very well lose the frame, therefore it was not a deliberate miss and shouldn't be called as such.

I know that the rules state that the player shall to the best of his ability endeavour to hit the ball on, but if he can miss a straight black off its spot then he can also miss a one cushion escape snooker.
What the referee has to decide IMO is whether the player has deliberately fouled in order to leave it safe and the rule needs to be re-written to state that very thing.
Miss after miss being called simply to roll up to the pack of reds when that extra inch to actually hit the pack leaves it just as safe as leaving it an inch short only grinds out the frame by constantly replacing the cue ball.
It's boring and unneccessary and is being used by players simply to gain points from negative play as they know that rolling up behind a colour can possibly gain them twenty points in misses before the ball on is hit.

the miss rule have nothing to do with "deliberate fouls" that would be taken care of under "bad sportsmanship"

if the player can miss 20 times trying to roll to the pack but just misses by half an inch, wouldn't it be fair for this same player to just hit the shot firmer? But why doesn't he do it? It's because he's afraid of spliting the reds enough to leave a shot on! This rule is to stop players from gaining an advantage from a foul shot, and I think at this moment it's working VERY WELL, there was never any doubt these people can hit the ball-on, not for these professional players anyway, they are only missing because they're trying to hit the ball AND leave it safe...

The missing straight black scenario is not a good example, say if some Ronnie misses the black off the spot, and you give him another chance of potting the straight black off the spot, would he misses it again? Twice in a row? If a professional snooker player misses a snooker off a single cushion, he loses 4 points and are put back in, who is he to blame if he misses the same shot again off a single cushion?

If you do not have the miss rule and a player is snookered in baulk, this happens all the time, he comes off 2 cushions just misses clipping a red but gets safe back in baulk, he's not snookered anymore, there's no shot on for his opponent, although he leaves an easy negative safety shot, he's no longer in trouble, who's to say he didn't "delibrately" miss? These professional snooker players could easily hit the red on if they wanted to if there's no risk of leaving a chance, but if there is no rule to stop a player from gaining an advantage from a foul, do you honestly actually think this will make the game less "boring"???

Say if the miss rule doesn't exist, what would happen after this player misses the red by a touch and gets safe in baulk? If the miss rule doesn't exist, he will be sent in to play from the new position, he would have no choice then to play a negative shot to roll up into the pack, or drop on the cushion, the next player would then try to play thin off some red and hopes to get another snooker, and the cycles continues for another 45 minutes and we still have 15 reds on the table!

[SnkrRef]

If you do not have the miss rule and a player is snookered in baulk, this happens all the time, he comes off 2 cushions just misses clipping a red but gets safe back in baulk, he's not snookered anymore, there's no shot on for his opponent, although he leaves an easy negative safety shot, he's no longer in trouble, who's to say he didn't "delibrately" miss? These professional snooker players could easily hit the red on if they wanted to if there's no risk of leaving a chance...

That's EXACTLY why the stricter interpretation of the Miss rule came in during the mid-90s! There were a number of professional players who were almost deliberately trying to miss the pack of two cushions so that they could leave the cue ball safe in baulk.

The pros tried umpteen different variations of wording and instructions on how it should be interpreted before the September 1995 book was published, and by and large I think it works very well now. It is a rare occurrence for more than three or four consecutive misses to be called, which goes to show that the players CAN hit the ball if they try hard enough, or tweak their angles sufficiently.

I admit that what doesn't always happen is for referees to stop calling misses when it becomes apparent that it probably isn't as easy to get out of the snooker as they first though.

[golferson123]

Sorry but for me any sport where the mulligan rule is applied looses its creditabilaty ,play it from where it is or put your opp back in.and while I is on one stop the roll up