Miss rule app

[focus]

depends how good you are? why would you want to call a miss on someone who cant string two balls together

Very unusual for folk to call miss in practice though one stupidly competitive player I know does. I've seen mates who sail with past the OB and the CB goes safe! Personally, I will always attempt to get out of a snooker in practice because it's a useful thing to practice for matches. Top division has the miss rule in League because when they dropped it for a season or two, divots would roll from behind the yellow to the edge of the baulk line on the yellow cushion, not leaving a free ball but also leaving it so that playing a safety if back in would't be too onerous but not too easy either; leave your opponent in a quandry situation. This was interpreted as a deliberate foul and the offenders should have ceded the frame automatically IMO but the refs were weak. They play the DF in pool but this is snooker, we're shouldn't be cheats. They reinstated the full miss rule with a clever proviso, miss three times and the ball cannot be put back. The player can put the opponent (offender) back in from where the ball lands on the third attempt or play a safety (incl. a snooker) or pot if he wishes, or a free ball should he be obscured. Not everyone is Angles so this was a smart thing to come up with.

In the pro game, you've got to have the miss rule or players will miss the OB by a fraction and get safe but no free ball. We could all do this if we practised it and that's what pros were doing before the miss rule came in, hence why it came in. Thorne was very good at it. These pros are all brilliant players, there's no reason why they can't escape from snookers when we know they can. The one exception is a rolling table, that occured on Smurf's 3 shots that cost him a frame; I wasn't happy with the fitters for that.

[the lone wolf]

My only criticism of the miss rule is that it is difficult to apply it in games without a referee.
Away from that, the rule itself keeps the pro's on their toes.

[Erwan_BZH]

We have that issue in France as well. Some leagues are using it, others don't. When we used it in mine, there was a lot of abuse, players played it every time just to get easy point. Happened to me once: I was snookered, tried to escape, failed miserably.....technically, it's foul & a miss....however, the white ball landed just between pink and black with four or five reds available. There was a 60 break on the table. Guess what? Opponent called for the miss.....Needless to say I was about to knock its head off as this is so disrespectful.
Now, we have banned the miss rule at the league level but of course, the cheaters keep cheating by doing a deliberate foul. Two weeks ago, I play a bloke in my league ( a known cheater tbh). I snookered him behind the green, with brown close to block a escape...but it was free on the other side and there were still 14 reds on....the fella, not wanting to waste any time thinking, didn't try the least to escape and just pushed the white out towards the yellow cushion, without touching anything......Had the miss been in opreation, it would have been, technically a foul & a miss but here......we can just call it a foul! Though, ethically, it's plain horsesh*te and disrespectful to the other player . But what can we do without a referee? Can we consider it as a frame conceded ??

[nst]

technically you can consider it as disrespectful to the game but your league would probably have to put it down in writing as part of the league rules that players who do not make a genuine attempt are likely to incur a penalty. Although having said that, it would probably create more problems as adjudicating what is a genuine effort and what isn't is another can of worms.

I don't really see the issue with your first example though... If you were snookered and you committed a foul and a miss trying to escape, it's the referee's choice if he judges that as a miss and generally, that has nothing to do with where the white lands. if its a foul and a miss, that's what it is. If the opponent chooses to play on, that's his choice but he's well within reason to put you back in the snookered position. I would too especially if trailing and snookers were needed. After all, he presumably went through the effort of setting you up in that position to begin with. so I don't see how this example is one of disrespect.

of course, part of the issue is could be a self-refereed game (?) and maybe that's where the confusion begins.

Used to see it from your perspective sometimes before I became a referee but as a ref now... have to remind myself that if the scenario occurs, i have to call foul and a miss if it technically exists, even if the other player probably will choose to play on.

[Londonlad147]

The thing that irks me most about the miss rule in the amateur game, and particularly the junior game, is that players will repeatedly ask for the balls to be replaced just to accumulate penalty points, even though they've been left with an easy opening pot.

When WPBSA trialled the many versions of the miss rule, before what finally came to the rule books in 1995, was a proviso that 'a miss cannot be called if there is an easy pot on'. It would be great to see something like that in the rules again to stop those who want to accumulate points the easy way. However, it is a VERY subjective call, and not at all practical to implement, hence it was soon dropped from the guidance to referees, well before the new rule was published. Each referee will have their own interpretation of what's an easy pot, and, of course, that will also vary from play to player.

[nst]

this returns again to the full text of the foul and a miss rule highlighted earlier in the thread. the ref is the one in a position to decide whether or not to call miss. where i referee at least, there are guidelines on what should be typically expected of players at a certain level of the game.

perhaps, to mitigate, one method could be to limit the number of foul and a miss respots to say, 2, at lower levels or self refereed games.

[Londonlad147]

With the EASB juniors and WLBS (Ladies) games, where there are roving referees (which is say for any round robin stages, or early rounds of a KO), then it is required that players get a referee or the TD involved before a third attempt is made. This is to ensure that the miss rule is being correctly applied, vis-a-vis difference in scores etc, and that frames aren't awarded inappropriately. Seems to work quite well.

[s1ivv3r]

Personally.. and this is just MY opinion.. they should remove the miss rule and play "ball in hand".. worked great in the shootout and it works across all levels of snooker from Pro to Amateur to league level!

[Cue_147]

In the top division of the league i play in we use the simple miss rule.

If you can see part of the OB on it can be called a miss..
If you can see all of the OB on it can be called a miss and 3 misses is loss of frame...
If you are snookered no miss can be called.

[nst]

In the top division of the league i play in we use the simple miss rule.

If you can see part of the OB on it can be called a miss..
If you can see all of the OB on it can be called a miss and 3 misses is loss of frame...
If you are snookered no miss can be called.

seems workable for self-refereed games. good food for thought this one.

[Erwan_BZH]

I don't really see the issue with your first example though... If you were snookered and you committed a foul and a miss trying to escape, it's the referee's choice if he judges that as a miss and generally, that has nothing to do with where the white lands. if its a foul and a miss, that's what it is. If the opponent chooses to play on, that's his choice but he's well within reason to put you back in the snookered position. I would too especially if trailing and snookers were needed. After all, he presumably went through the effort of setting you up in that position to begin with. so I don't see how this example is one of disrespect.

I agree, as said, technically, it was a foul and a miss. So according to the rules, he was in his own right to put me back on. What I don't like is when you fail to escape and white lands in the perfect place to knock in a significant break and finish you off, and you just don't take it. If you want to beat me, do it fair and square, not trying to gain as many points as possible from the miss. Taking the miss again is just used to enrage the opponent. This is what I find disrespectful.

At the pro level, you can't imagine a top player doing this to another, he'll get slaughtered by his peers....and the fans as well I guess.

The thing that irks me most about the miss rule in the amateur game, and particularly the junior game, is that players will repeatedly ask for the balls to be replaced just to accumulate penalty points, even though they've been left with an easy opening pot.

That's it. To me, it's a cancer for snooker...People are note trying to win from a nice break, they try to put you out of reach using the points gained by the miss rule. It has become somewhat automatic for some players in my league, as soon as they have the miss in action. You can be 100% certain they will not try to go for a break and refuse a pot (sometimes a very simple one) just because the perspective of landing a snooker and stockpile many easy points is too appealing.

[Londonlad147]

In the top division of the league i play in we use the simple miss rule.

If you can see part of the OB on it can be called a miss..
If you can see all of the OB on it can be called a miss and 3 misses is loss of frame...
If you are snookered no miss can be called.

But there needs to be something in place to stop players playing a deliberate miss when trying to get out of a snooker. I was at last year's Ladies World Championships. At the time they did not play the miss rule unless the match was properly refereed. They had a round robin stage where there were only roving referees. One player, who is very experienced, played a one-cushion escape from a snooker and left the ball in the middle of the table, missing the red by about two feet, and still safe on the cushion. I'm 99% certain that she knew exactly what she was doing.

Just how do you handle situations where the miss is obviously intentional? If you're not playing the miss rule in full, you can't expect the other player to invoke s4 and warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct.

[Cue_147]

But there needs to be something in place to stop players playing a deliberate miss when trying to get out of a snooker. I was at last year's Ladies World Championships. At the time they did not play the miss rule unless the match was properly refereed. They had a round robin stage where there were only roving referees. One player, who is very experienced, played a one-cushion escape from a snooker and left the ball in the middle of the table, missing the red by about two feet, and still safe on the cushion. I'm 99% certain that she knew exactly what she was doing.

Just how do you handle situations where the miss is obviously intentional? If you're not playing the miss rule in full, you can't expect the other player to invoke s4 and warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct.

If someone is deliberately not trying to get out the snooker then i would say something when playing the match... if that person continues he/she should be reported to the committee.

I've had people in snookers and they've came off the side cushion, top cushion and left me in bulk while getting nowhere near hitting the ball thinking that's OK... but then I've had people in the same position and they call a miss on themselves because they think it was a bad attempt.

You'll never get the perfect answer because some people are honest and some aren't.

[nst]

exactly london. which is why i personally favour the rule being left where it is.

I'm a much better referee than I am a player Erwan and I do rely on snookers... I prefer to play a safe shot aiming for a snooker than take what most people would consider a 60/40 shot. I might pot a reasonably easy red but I'm not confident of going on a significant break, even at the best of times. If I play a tactical game, why should I be penalized for having better positional estimation than potting competency? I started by playing 4-ball, not snooker, so yes, I am able to judge cannons better than pots.

[tetricky]

exactly london. which is why i personally favour the rule being left where it is.

I'm a much better referee than I am a player Erwan and I do rely on snookers... I prefer to play a safe shot aiming for a snooker than take what most people would consider a 60/40 shot. I might pot a reasonably easy red but I'm not confident of going on a significant break, even at the best of times. If I play a tactical game, why should I be penalized for having better positional estimation than potting competency? I started by playing 4-ball, not snooker, so yes, I am able to judge cannons better than pots.

I absolutely agree. After all, the game is called 'snooker'...not 'potting'. It is absolutely part of the game to gain advantage by playing good safety, and laying snookers. It's not easy, and a good player can get out of most of them. If they can't, getting rewarded for an excellent snooker is entirely reasonable. The big issue for me is that a player should make their best attempt to hit a ball, not their best attempt at getting safe after being snookered.

If a player plays a harder escape in an attempt to leave the balls safer after a snooker, then in missing it's reasonable that should be called a miss. If a player makes their best attempt to hit the easiest ball, but doesn't, then that shouldn't be called. If a player doesn't attempt to make a reasonable attempt at escaping then it should be called an intentional foul.

There's nothing wrong with the rule....just the refereeing of it. At my level I can miss a ball on (thin cut safety, for example), or occasionally miscue and be nowhere near anything. I see absolutely no reason that these should not be called misses, and choice and advantage handed to my opponent. Why should I get away with being crap (intentionally, or unintentionally)?