Foul and Miss Disagreement between Ali Carter & Ricky Walden

[DeanH]

...but in the UK it's dying on its arse...

oh I would not say that
My social club has three tables that take over £3,000 a year at £2/hr and I heard on Tuesday night that a group of 6 young lads have recently joined to purely play snooker
Small fry I am sure but a nice indicator that there is still interest out there.

[vmax4steve]

oh I would not say that
My social club has three tables that take over £3,000 a year at £2/hr and I heard on Tuesday night that a group of 6 young lads have recently joined to purely play snooker
Small fry I am sure but a nice indicator that there is still interest out there.

Yet Ronnie can't get a mention for Sports Personality Of The Year despite turning his life and attitude around.
Snooker in my area is dying on its arse, had to stop our leagues under 21 comp about ten years ago as not enough players in the league to start it even at the semi finals stage, and nothings changed.

[lk8]

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.

your true colours shows right away because all the way we could tell the reason why you hate the rule is because you seem to think a certain player that you hate dearly seems to take advantage of it, that's the only way a person will be so emotionally attached without any type of logical thinking...

Obviously the only reason why you would roll up behind a colour is because you must have potted a red and ended up behind the baulk without getting on a colour, because clearly for anybody to have gotten on a colour will choose to continue the break, especially at the professional level, and this happens because 80% of the time they must have attempted a shot to nothing on a red, so we should analyse this shot... When a player gets a 60-70% shot on a red from the baulk end, he will not play for a baulk colour, instead he takes a shot to nothing to come back behind baulk in case he misses, now if such a cushion rule exists due to your imagination, what would the player choose to do? 1) Give up the shot, kill off the red, and make the frame negative (high percentage shot), 2) Break up more reds, risking leaving balls over corner if a player does not get a good white (high risk shot when the white is at a distance) 3) Go for the pot.... Now that the player pots the red, and ends up behind the baulk line without a shot on the colour, what does he do? 1) As above, play a colour to the black end and get negative safety, 2) If the player have a good angle, he can choose to play a baulk colour bounce that colour off a cushion and lands behind another baulk colour, now what difference does that make to the rest of this frame whether you have your new cushion rule or not??? Except the only difference is now you have an extra baulk colour on the wrong end of table, that's all...

And what's wrong with being allowed to put back a player to play off a miss shot, what if you were 42 behind with 3 reds on table, you potted a red, didn't get on a colour, laid a good snooker, your opponent went down and played the shot and miss delibrately by 1/2 an inch, but leaves you a sitter but without any angle to get to any colours, what other rule in the snooker rule book is going to prevent your opponent from gaining an advantage by playing a foul shot?

I think this is the third time I said it, but the miss rule is there to prevent any player from gaining an advantage from player a foul shot, and it's working VERY WELL, if you think Selby is the only one to gain advantage from playing such a shot, show me the statistics where Selby rolls behind a baulk colour and gains an advantage more than any other top professionals like Ronnie or Higgins or Ding or Robertson or anybody else, and show me more than a couple of times where a player rolls behind a baulk colour and the next player misses the pack more than 3 times? That would be unbelievable, the professionals are only missing it because it's a calculated miss, and why should anyone be let off by missing with intention? Or are you naive enough to believe otherwise? But I wouldn't be surprised since you're naive enough to think that more people aren't watching snooker just because it's something as simple as a miss rule and a cushion rule!

[vmax4steve]

your true colours shows right away because all the way we could tell the reason why you hate the rule is because you seem to think a certain player that you hate dearly seems to take advantage of it, that's the only way a person will be so emotionally attached without any type of logical thinking...

Crap, don't hate Selby at all, he's a great player, I mention him as he does (as do others) take advantage of the miss rule to play negative snooker as part of his gamesmanship. Not just rolling up behind colours but also rolling into the pack of reds to kill frames for re-racks when alternative positive shots are available to him. It's not entirely his fault, he's taking advantage of a stupid rule that wasn't thought out as to how it would shape the future tactics of the game.


Obviously the only reason why you would roll up behind a colour is because you must have potted a red and ended up behind the baulk without getting on a colour, because clearly for anybody to have gotten on a colour will choose to continue the break, especially at the professional level, and this happens because 80% of the time they must have attempted a shot to nothing on a red, so we should analyse this shot...

Analyse this shot, a player pots a shot to nothing red and ends up with a good angle on the brown into the middle to take him down to the top of the table. The reds however are tightly bunched with nothing in the open. Rather than pot the brown and play a safety off the reds thus continuing the play and hopefully splitting the reds and getting the cue ball safe on the baulk cushion, he instead takes advantage of the miss rule and rolls up behind the brown for a snooker and his opponent then has to play a dead weight escape into the pack from off three cushions.
The balls are replaced every time he misses as the target is quite large. He is only missing by an inch or so each time though and that extra inch will leave it just as safe as it is when it's an inch short. The referee replaces the balls four or five times before the reds are hit and then the player who laid the snooker simply plays a thin or thick snick off the reds to put the cue ball onto the baulk cushion.

I have seen this happen many, many times and I would rather see the player pot the brown into the middle (the cushion rule would make this practically a given) and play a positive safety off the reds with play going on rather than endlessly watching a referee replace balls.


When a player gets a 60-70% shot on a red from the baulk end, he will not play for a baulk colour, instead he takes a shot to nothing to come back behind baulk in case he misses, now if such a cushion rule exists due to your imagination, what would the player choose to do? 1) Give up the shot, kill off the red, and make the frame negative (high percentage shot), 2) Break up more reds, risking leaving balls over corner if a player does not get a good white (high risk shot when the white is at a distance) 3) Go for the pot.... Now that the player pots the red, and ends up behind the baulk line without a shot on the colour, what does he do? 1) As above, play a colour to the black end and get negative safety, 2) If the player have a good angle, he can choose to play a baulk colour bounce that colour off a cushion and lands behind another baulk colour, now what difference does that make to the rest of this frame whether you have your new cushion rule or not??? Except the only difference is now you have an extra baulk colour on the wrong end of table, that's all...

He could play a more positive positional shot in the first place, but if lacking in confidence for the pot he could also play a safety. At least then play is happening and going on instead of balls being replaced over and over again.
He has the option of the shot to nothing position behind the baulk colours as you stated. If successfull he has the option of potting a baulk colour and continuing the break, playing off one baulk colour, off a cushion to hide behind another, a more skillful shot. He could play a baulk colour into the reds and hide the cue ball behind another baulk colour.
The chances are that the baulk colour played down to the top of the table or into the reds, would be potted when either player gets in around the black spot, thus putting it back on its own spot ready for the colours clearance. It doesn' mean an automatic killing of the frame if a baulk colour goes to the top of the table.

I will say it again, the miss rule is in place to prevent what you indeed state it does, but the fact remains that a rule was already in place for that and the miss rule as currently written simply allows referees to call miss after miss in total disregard to the situation of how the balls lie after the foul has been played.
The rule as written states that a referee must call a miss if he believes that a poor attempt was made to hit the ball on, regardless of what is left on to the aggrieved player and players are taking advantage of that, playing negative snooker and having the balls replaced over and over again to not only gain points but to practise the most difficult escapes they can as they know they can have many attempts.

This is slowing the action down and bringing more negativity into snooker. A cushion rule would force players to be more positive and inventive when laying and escaping from snookers, and getting rid of the miss rule would force referees to make real decisions on what they perceive to be genuine deliberate fouls.

Now I quite like three attempt rule when a ball on can be hit full ball, but the forfeit of the frame is too severe a penalty, cue ball in hand would be fairer, and I think that referees should have that option if he/she believes a deliberate foul has been played to leave the balls safe. If not safe, ie: a reasonable chance for a pot is available then no miss should be called and the aggrieved player has the option of accepting the balls as they lie, putting the other player back in or taking a free ball if left one.

The referee has to know the game and not just the rules to make that decision. He has to be able to see the lay of the table and know what a reasonable chance is and not allow any player to argue that a reasonable chance hasn't been left to him, after all if he thinks the chance left isn't reasonable he can put his opponent back in. This is how it used to be in pro snooker and it was great to see a player being put back in, taking a difficult chance left to them and going on to make a good break.

Bravery and risk is those situations have been legislated out of the game as balls are simply replaced instead.

[SnkrRef]

The whole premise behind your stance on how the miss rule should be is that all referees are of a consistent high quality. Sadly they're not. Even within the professional ranks they're not, and we saw only last week in China, that some referees don't even know the miss rule properly and made wrong calls.

Back in the early 90s, in the couple of seasons or so before the pale blue rule book was published in September 1995, WPBSA came up with umpteen missives about how referees should apply the miss rule (as it was published in the old book, which I've already quoted on this thread). At one point referees were told that a miss should not be called if an easy pot had been left. But what is an easy pot? This was an entirely judgemental call by the referee, and different referees had wildly different opinions, so there was no consistency. And what is easy for a top pro may well not be easy for a local league player. That version of the instructions didn't last long, largely because of the inconsistencies it created, so what you're suggesting has been tried and it didn't work.

World Snooker frown upon any referee exercising any judgement in calling misses, although some still do on occasions, but away from the professional game, and certainly in English amateur snooker, by and large the experienced referees do make very sensible calls, depending on the ability of the player and the difficulty of the snooker.

[lk8]

Analyse this shot, a player pots a shot to nothing red and ends up with a good angle on the brown into the middle to take him down to the top of the table. The reds however are tightly bunched with nothing in the open. Rather than pot the brown and play a safety off the reds thus continuing the play and hopefully splitting the reds and getting the cue ball safe on the baulk cushion, he instead takes advantage of the miss rule and rolls up behind the brown for a snooker and his opponent then has to play a dead weight escape into the pack from off three cushions.
The balls are replaced every time he misses as the target is quite large. He is only missing by an inch or so each time though and that extra inch will leave it just as safe as it is when it's an inch short. The referee replaces the balls four or five times before the reds are hit and then the player who laid the snooker simply plays a thin or thick snick off the reds to put the cue ball onto the baulk cushion.

There is clearly no tactical advantage if a player pots a percentage red with a tight red pack and he rolls behind a baulk colour, for a professional player to miss the pack more than 4-5 times playing off 3 cushion while the pack is tight sounds pretty dumb to me and if you said you've seen it many many times, I'd want to know who that player is!

Potting the brown to gain extra 4 points and risk pushing a red over corner off the next safety is low percentage stuff, that 4 points would make absolutely no difference in professional snooker early on in the frame! No player will be foolish enough to attempt it... Playing a baulk colour into the pack without decent cover would be pretty stupid and very low percentage shot at the professional level too, unless the player is very desperate and/or running out of patience, most likely if the cushion rule exists the player will choose to chip the baulk colour away and try to land on baulk, again it does not make the game more positive one bit

He has the option of the shot to nothing position behind the baulk colours as you stated. If successfull he has the option of potting a baulk colour and continuing the break, playing off one baulk colour, off a cushion to hide behind another, a more skillful shot. He could play a baulk colour into the reds and hide the cue ball behind another baulk colour.

This is the exact situation that I've described above, and is the exact situation that it will make no difference what-so-ever whether you have your cushion rule or not as the outcome is exactly the same, are you confused?



Good luck trying to even get 30-40 highly experienced referee which knows snooker inside out at the professional level, when you have so many matches going on, all these PTCs and qualifiers who hosts many match at the same time throughout the day, who can make up their own decisions based on different scenarios, perfect recipe for disaster, lucky you're not the one running the game...

[itsnoteasy]

I haven't read this whole thread but just have a quick comment about the last couple of posts. I do think if a player comes up short it should be called a miss and it's for this reason, it has been stated it's only an inch short and that extra inch wouldn't make any difference , but what if he was an inch too heavy? He might just nick one out the pack and leave a chance, that's why in that situation I feel a miss is justified.

[vmax4steve]

There is clearly no tactical advantage if a player pots a percentage red with a tight red pack and he rolls behind a baulk colour,

The advantage is gaining points from the miss rule, why can't you see that ?

for a professional player to miss the pack more than 4-5 times playing off 3 cushion while the pack is tight sounds pretty dumb to me and if you said you've seen it many many times, I'd want to know who that player is!

Not any particular player, the situation!

Potting the brown to gain extra 4 points and risk pushing a red over corner off the next safety is low percentage stuff, that 4 points would make absolutely no difference in professional snooker early on in the frame! No player will be foolish enough to attempt it...

Foolish, why foolish, what risk is there in attempting a basic brown into the middle with the intent to play a safety off the remaining pack of reds ?

Playing a baulk colour into the pack without decent cover would be pretty stupid and very low percentage shot at the professional level too, unless the player is very desperate and/or running out of patience,

I didn't say without cover, read it again !


most likely if the cushion rule exists the player will choose to chip the baulk colour away and try to land on baulk, again it does not make the game more positive one bit

The cushion rule stops the easy straight roll up behind a colour, which is negative.


This is the exact situation that I've described above, and is the exact situation that it will make no difference what-so-ever whether you have your cushion rule or not as the outcome is exactly the same, are you confused?

The cushion rule stops the easy straight roll up behind a colour, which is negative. Now just how confusing is that.


Good luck trying to even get 30-40 highly experienced referee which knows snooker inside out at the professional level, when you have so many matches going on, all these PTCs and qualifiers who hosts many match at the same time throughout the day, who can make up their own decisions based on different scenarios, perfect recipe for disaster, lucky you're not the one running the game..

I don't see any reason why an experienced referee can't make a decision based on his experience of refereeing pro snooker and knowing the standards of the players and the shots they can play and are capable of and of what he's seen of the many situations he has had to make judgements on. This is how people learn
.

..........

[SnkrRef]

I don't see any reason why an experienced referee can't make a decision based on his experience of refereeing pro snooker and knowing the standards of the players and the shots they can play and are capable of and of what he's seen of the many situations he has had to make judgements on. This is how people learn

Have you not read my last post?

[vmax4steve]

Have you not read my last post?

Yes. End of this argument as far as I'm concerned as neither you or lk8 can see past having a rule in place that grinds out frames unneccessarily through replacing balls all the time rather than accepting human frailty for what it is instead of labelling every mistake as cheating.
There is not now, or has there ever been, wholescale cheating in snooker by player/s deliberately not attempting to get out of snookers. Any such incidents were few and isolated and should've been, and sometimes were, dealt with by the referee present at the time using the rules as they were.
If there is cheating then deal with the cheating, don't bring in a rule that labels everyone as a cheat. That's a cop out.

[lk8]

I'll try to make this my last post, no offense there but you don't seem to be at that skill level to understand, and we're just wasting time here...

The advantage is gaining points from the miss rule, why can't you see that ?

4 or 8 points when the pack is tight early on in the frame will make absolutely no difference what so ever to the rest of the frame, the only reason why someone would roll the white behind the colour in this instance, is because they have absolutely no other viable options, if you take away their right to do so, their next option is to chip the baulk colour away and land safe on the bottom cushion as a negative safety, which doesn't make the game any less negative!

Foolish, why foolish, what risk is there in attempting a basic brown into the middle with the intent to play a safety off the remaining pack of reds ?

Foolish because potting the brown on the wrong side of baulk without angle to go up the table means you end up behind the baulk line, playing a aggressive shot from here half of the time will push reds over the corner which means easy chance for your opponent if you don't get the white perfectly right, these professionals are good enough to knock a red in and clear up even if the white is tight on the cushion, unless you're playing a noob, professionals just doesn't play the game this way, 4 extra point doesn't mean anything early on in the frame

I didn't say without cover, read it again !

unless you have a perfect angle, otherwise playing one baulk colour at pace to open up the pack and to try and hide behind another baulk colour on these super fine cloth means you will not get the shot right 90% of the time therefore giving an easy opportunity for your opponent with the reds split up and hand on the table, who's stupid enough to do that?

The cushion rule stops the easy straight roll up behind a colour, which is negative.

as explained, the alternative shot doesn't make the game any less negative either!

The cushion rule stops the easy straight roll up behind a colour, which is negative. Now just how confusing is that.

I asked if you are confused, because you have tried to suggest a shot and I have already explain above your post why a player would never go for such particular shot, so...

I don't see any reason why an experienced referee can't make a decision based on his experience of refereeing pro snooker and knowing the standards of the players and the shots they can play and are capable of and of what he's seen of the many situations he has had to make judgements on. This is how people learn

This is your problem isn't it? Is that you can't see the actual problem of being able to get all referees to make the right decisions without arguments and controversies?

I haven't read this whole thread but just have a quick comment about the last couple of posts. I do think if a player comes up short it should be called a miss and it's for this reason, it has been stated it's only an inch short and that extra inch wouldn't make any difference , but what if he was an inch too heavy? He might just nick one out the pack and leave a chance, that's why in that situation I feel a miss is justified.

Unfortuately a snooker player at the professional standard can play to miss the pack an inch short all day everyday if they wanted to, so it's only fair to have a rule which makes it reasonable for a player to hit it, if the player can get the line right but just misses by an inch, why don't they make sure they hit the ball on? Since it's well within their capability to do so? Why don't they just hit it at pace to make sure they hit the damn thing? Why would you support a rule to let them get the line right, but to be able to get away not actually hitting the ball on, just so this particular player is the one gaining an advantage by actually missing the shot? If they hit the shot and got away with it by landing safe, then no one can complain, but play a foul shot and get away trouble free is against all expectations of justice...

[thelongbomber]

Unfortuately a snooker player at the professional standard can play to miss the pack an inch short all day everyday if they wanted to

Absolutely. Just think about the last red in many frames where the player in a snooker doesn't want to leave a free ball so he ensures that the path chosen goes towards the last red with just enough or slightly short of pace ensuring no free ball can be called. This is very easy to do at pro level.

[itsnoteasy]

[





Unfortuately a snooker player at the professional standard can play to miss the pack an inch short all day everyday if they wanted to, so it's only fair to have a rule which makes it reasonable for a player to hit it, if the player can get the line right but just misses by an inch, why don't they make sure they hit the ball on? Since it's well within their capability to do so? Why don't they just hit it at pace to make sure they hit the damn thing? Why would you support a rule to let them get the line right, but to be able to get away not actually hitting the ball on, just so this particular player is the one gaining an advantage by actually missing the shot? If they hit the shot and got away with it by landing safe, then no one can complain, but play a foul shot and get away trouble free is against all expectations of justice... [/QUOTE]

Have I missed something here , are you arguing with something we agree on ? Most bizarre .

[lk8]

Have I missed something here , are you arguing with something we agree on ? Most bizarre .

my apologies, somehow I had read your post to say it "shouldn't" be called a miss, since it "wouldn't make any difference"... lol...

[itsnoteasy]

Cheers LK8, I'm worse than most for getting the wrong end of the stick on these threads.