Foul and Miss Disagreement between Ali Carter & Ricky Walden

[SnkrRef]

and while I is on one stop the roll up

What's the name of the game again?

[DeanH]

and while I is on one stop the roll up

What's the name of the game again?

I have been waiting for 15mins...
what is the answer please?

[vmax4steve]

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

No it isn't, it's written like this so that refrees don't have to court controversy when making decisions.






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

And so could the miss, but referees simply didn't have the balls to implement it.

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!

If he misses by a touch then it's a good attempt, if he misses by a foot or so then it's not and the referee calls a deliberate miss under the ungentlemanly conduct rule. If he misses by a touch he could leave a snooker behind a baulk colour, free ball and either take it or put the bloke back in. If he leaves an easy safety then he could play it himself, spread the reds a little more and open up the frame and then play continues, rather than the referee having to replace balls while needing a tv screen review of just where they all where before the foul and maybe needing to do this four or five times.
Even if the scenario is as you describe then at least play is continuing rather than the referee just replacing balls. You could see some good safety rather than watch the referee replacing balls, you could see a bit of controversy from a referees decision rather than just watch balls being replaced by someone without the guts to call it as they see it.

..........

[vmax4steve]

What's the name of the game again?

Snooker of course but that isn't really an argument is it, just word play. Rolling up behind a colour to get twenty points from misses is now a deliberate tactic just because the miss rule is in place. The player knows that his opponent will get out of the snooker in the end, the player snookered knows that he will get to have several attempts at it. If he knew he was only getting one, and that playing a foul stroke that looked like it was deliberate would mean a deliberate foul being called, and maybe cue ball in the D or in hand would be the penalty, he would make a damned good attempt.
To counter this a rule could be in place to stop the roll up behind a colour, like ball must be potted or any ball made to hit a cushion on every stroke for it to be legal
Snookers and safeties could still be played under such a rule but the players will have to have a bit more imagination and skill to do so, once again cutting out negative play.

[SnkrRef]

To counter this a rule could be in place to stop the roll up behind a colour, like ball must be potted or any ball made to hit a cushion on every stroke for it to be legal.

I think you should be playing World Rules pool.

[vmax4steve]

I think you should be playing World Rules pool.

I have no idea about world rules pool. When I used to play inter league pool, players would roll up behind their own colours all the time in order to gain two visits, frames would sometimes last a hour with all pockets blocked and no one attempting any kind of clearance without having two visits for every ball they attempted to pot.
That's why I quit the game. If the rules have now changed to stop this then good, as it was the rules that allowed it to happen in the first place.
Players will always utilise bad rules to their own advantage, and this is happening with the miss rule in snooker.

[DeanH]

To counter this a rule could be in place to stop the roll up behind a colour, like ball must be potted or any ball made to hit a cushion on every stroke for it to be legal

As SnkrRef says, this is precisely what you have to do in World Rules UK Pool

[vmax4steve]

As SnkrRef says, this is precisely what you have to do in World Rules UK Pool

So it's not cushion after contact or a pot as in the USA rules then. That's good and should be applied to snooker. It works fine in the snooker shoot out with a shot clock, so should work even better with no shot clock to force rash decisions.

That along with a player can take a break between every frame as long as he returns before the referee has racked and spotted all the balls, failure to do so forty point penalty at the start of the next frame. That would speed Selby and co up.
And no taking the cue ball with you

[DeanH]

So it's not cushion after contact or a pot as in the USA rules then.

Not sure about US rules, but in World Rules you have to pot or any ball hit a cushion.

That's good and should be applied to snooker. It works fine in the snooker shoot out with a shot clock, so should work even better with no shot clock to force rash decisions.

I believe the ShootOut rules are you can hit a cushion before or after contact, this is what got Dave Harold annoyed as the ref said Foul for not hitting after contact but he had hit one or two cushions before contact which is ok.

That along with a player can take a break between every frame as long as he returns before the referee has racked and spotted all the balls, failure to do so forty point penalty at the start of the next frame. That would speed Selby and co up.
And no taking the cue ball with you

brilliant

[vmax4steve]

I believe the ShootOut rules are you can hit a cushion before or after contact

This is exactly what I'm advocating.

[lk8]

No it isn't, it's written like this so that refrees don't have to court controversy when making decisions.

If he misses by a touch then it's a good attempt,

talk about controversy when some guy's family and living and retirement depends on the outcome of some match which can be easily determined by a single referee?

miss by a touch? I'm sure most of the professionals can come off 2 cushions and miss by a "touch" and get back to baulk safely all day if the rule doesn't exist, haven't you heard enough times the commentators saying the player will always allow to miss on the thin side everytime they come off the cushions as they rather miss the shot than hit it thick, then surely enough they will compensate on the next shot and catch it perfect in the second or third attempt? That's how good they are, and they're more than capable of hitting the shot first go anyway, but why don't they do it? Why don't they do it if it's within their capability? Isn't this a sportsmanship / gentleman-ship conduct problem? Why shouldn't the rule enforce the player to reasonably hit the ball on instead of missing it so they can get the ball safe and gain an advantage?

The only reason why they miss is because they want to snick these shots as thin as possible so they won't stick it up, the rule is there to stop people gaining an advantage from a foul shot, what's wrong with the miss rules when every player comes in fully expecting how the game are to be played knowing full well how the rules are to be interpreted? Which match, and what percentage of frames have been turned around unfairly upon by a bad miss rule? How much more matches could be turned around if we factor in bad decisions of referees? Or are you just one of these miss rule haters who uses every opportunity to have your opinion heard?

How about we change snooker rules to be more similar to pool, so everytime someone misses, it becomes automatic ball in hand anywhere on the table, this way when someone is snookered, instead of trying to skillfully navigate the cue ball off a few cushion, to hit the ball and get safe, we could instead have the player play a "hit & hope" shot @ 300 miles/hour so he could try and fluke one of the reds, instead of sticking a red up or conceding ball in hand, as hit & hope shot is a better percentage shot in such scenario, this way we could take away the skills of getting out of snooker all together and base the game around flukes and run of the balls instead

[vmax4steve]

Or are you just one of these miss rule haters who uses every opportunity to have your opinion heard?

No, I just don't like dishonesty in any form. It's dishonest for a referee not to call a deliberate foul when he sees one and the need to have a stupid rule in place so that his/her cowardice isn't shown is wrong.

How about we change snooker rules to be more similar to pool, so everytime someone misses, it becomes automatic ball in hand anywhere on the table, this way when someone is snookered, instead of trying to skillfully navigate the cue ball off a few cushion, to hit the ball and get safe, we could instead have the player play a "hit & hope" shot @ 300 miles/hour so he could try and fluke one of the reds, instead of sticking a red up or conceding ball in hand, as hit & hope shot is a better percentage shot in such scenario, this way we could take away the skills of getting out of snooker all together and base the game around flukes and run of the balls instead

Now that is just childish and has no bearing at all on the cushion before or after contact or a pot for every stroke played rule that is used in the snooker shoot out, and you know it. Or are you one of those players who rely on potting a red and rolling up behind a colour to protect your 50 handicap in your local league ?

..........

[lk8]

No, I just don't like dishonesty in any form. It's dishonest for a referee not to call a deliberate foul when he sees one and the need to have a stupid rule in place so that his/her cowardice isn't shown is wrong.

In this case you want to go back in time, where the ego of the referee takes over just so they can prove a point that they're "right" and they have the absolute "power" to determine the outcome just because they don't get along with a certain player? The current rules as it is written is working very well to prevent a player from gaining an advantage from a foul shot, and the professionals knows very well what are to be expected of them, the way it is interpreted provides some form of consistency over decisions and prevents controversy, I can see you are a lover of controversy, but that will come at a cost to someone else's paycheck...

Now that is just childish and has no bearing at all on the cushion before or after contact or a pot for every stroke played rule that is used in the snooker shoot out, and you know it. Or are you one of those players who rely on potting a red and rolling up behind a colour to protect your 50 handicap in your local league ?

Now see your true colours reveal as you tries to get personal and the discussions becomes attacks? I would have to point out the "miss" rule does not apply in any local leagues, and unfortunately where I play my handicap is closer around the -40 to -50 mark, most of the time I see myself 50-80 points behind before the game even starts, the miss rule would help here, although it's not applied... I was merely highlighting the implication if snooker rules are to be based on some pool rules, what you will actually be missing, the skills are taken away, game will be based on luck...

So what if you apply the cushion rules, some guy will attempt a shot to nothing to pot a red, but this time they won't roll up behind the colours, the percentage shot now is they'll play the baulk colours down to the black end all the time and try to land on the baulk cushion, this is not a good enough safety shot, but only containing negative shots will follow, the frame will get bogged down even more, colours will be off their spots, balls will be everywhere and on cushions, frames will last 45 minutes plus easily, now does your suggestion of rule change actually make the game more interesting? Now you spur my interest, what's your local handicap and what's your highest break? Since you try to imply I have a 50 point lead in my local leagues... Not that I really care, I'm just thinking to myself...

[golferson123]

Seems to me that this miss rule was drawn up by high end refs, no way will they complain about it just look at the camera time they get. I cannot like a rule that has only two outcomes, either hit the ball or leave a pot

[vmax4steve]

Now see your true colours reveal as you tries to get personal and the discussions becomes attacks? I would have to point out the "miss" rule does not apply in any local leagues, and unfortunately where I play my handicap is closer around the -40 to -50 mark, most of the time I see myself 50-80 points behind before the game even starts, the miss rule would help here, although it's not applied... I was merely highlighting the implication if snooker rules are to be based on some pool rules, what you will actually be missing, the skills are taken away, game will be based on luck...

OOooh, so sorry I hurt your precious feelings. Lets' cut to the chase, you roll out your scenarios where you think the rule will make the game more negative and I bet your arse I could find an alternative that's more inventive and open OK ?

In my local league I have to give up to 50 points start as that is the maximum allowed between any two players.
And I didn't imply that you are a 50+ handicapper, I implied you were behaving as if you were as if the straight roll up behind a colour was your main weapon of defending a big start in a local league match, much as it is in my local league.

You were not highlighting the implications of some pool rules coming into snooker at all, you were being very juvenile about it and comparing snooker to pool based on a US pool rule instead of just one World UK rule that is used very successfully in the Snooker Shoot that prevents the straight roll up behind a colour.

Outlaw that shot in snooker and the miss rule wouldn't be so bad. Take the miss rule out as well and the game will be a better game to play and to watch as the more inventive players will work out shots that keep the colours in play when playing safe or even make them go for it a bit more often.

The problem with snooker referees is that they have a rule in place that doesn't court controversy, so they hide behind it rather than do their job properly. I watched Tony Drago play the other day and he forced a foul out of Rob Hull and was left an easy starter and took it, the referee BTW called a foul and a miss so Drago could have had the cue ball replaced until snookers were needed by Hull, even if that easy starter was left every time.
Now if the referee had the nous to see that Rob Hull didn't mean to leave an easy starter, so in fact didn't deliberately leave it safe after a foul, and the miss then didn't need to be called then he really shouldn't have called it.

But under the way the rule is written the referee thinks he has to call a miss if the ball on isn't hit if he believes that the attempt should have been successful, no matter what the situation of the balls are after the foul is made.
I have seen players left easy starters after a miss has been called and had the cue ball replaced because they didn't like the angle of the shot left them, even though it was practically a sitter.

Now I don't know the state of snooker down under, but in the UK it's dying on its arse and the miss rule isn't helping to gain new fans when they switch on only to watch Selby creep up behind a colour and then the referee proceeds to replace the cue ball over and over again for the next ten minutes with the help of a tv moniter, and/or Hawkeye with both players also putting in their twopence worth.
If my first taste of snooker was that I would switch off for good.