Amatuer league miss rule

[Cannonball]

Says to me, it's practice ,he's not really trying, and stop playing snookers in practice.

Oh, so when do you get to practice your safety game then for a match? I'm a pretty attacking player in practice but if there are no good pots on, there's no choice but to play safety. He's trying all right, trying not to leave anything on by missing and leaving the CB awkward because he knows we don't play the miss rule in practice so he can get away with it. We all know when someone has tried properly or is faking it.

[itsnoteasy]

If he's left nowt,why not just put him back in.

[dottcom]

Oh, so when do you get to practice your safety game then for a match? I'm a pretty attacking player in practice but if there are no good pots on, there's no choice but to play safety. He's trying all right, trying not to leave anything on by missing and leaving the CB awkward because he knows we don't play the miss rule in practice so he can get away with it. We all know when someone has tried properly or is faking it.

If he's honest he shouldn't have a problem with you putting it back.

[Cannonball]

If he's honest he shouldn't have a problem with you putting it back.

True, I don't say much because it's practice but if it's only practice why play to miss and leave nothing on, hardly in the spirit of friendship, when the guy can always get within an inch of the ball. I've chuckled at his two flukes a frame and he gets offended. But it's ok for the phone to be constantly going off when I'm at the table and of course, constant chalking and the ice-shaker drink. Last time out, I just kept getting up. Whole session was a waste of time. Swerve!

[Londonlad147]

Got a mate who is good at getting out of snookers, knows his angles. He'll get very close or hit the OB in a league match where the miss rule is applied. In practice, he may miss by a foot and leave nothing on. What does that say about human nature. It says to me, the miss rule is essential.

Hear! Hear!

[Londonlad147]

IMO - Miss rule should be abolished!
--
Miss rule should NEVER be played at amateur level. Their skill set does not allow this rule to enforced.
--
At pro level - Free ball should be awarded or the incoming player has the right to play or not play next shot from where the cue ball lies, rather than using the miss rule.
This will allow the game to be played and won on its own merit :snooker:

If there was no miss rule then that would positively encourage cheating! I've witnessed it first hand. At the Ladies World Championships last year the miss rule was only being enforced when matches were being individually refereed, but not when there were roving refs and the player5s were effectively reffing themselves. One very experienced player knew she couldn't be called for a miss, and played a very feeble attempt at getting out of a snooker, falling short by about 4 feet on a simple one-cushion get out, and keeping the cue ball out of harm's way.

If you're not playing the miss rule what's to stop a blatant ly deliberate foul? For example, you're stuck tight to a baulk colour, red being ball on, and simply playing the cue ball to the bottom cushion? Ok, you can be made to play again, but you're probably got a much better chance of getting safe than if you'd been forced to play out of the snooker.

[vmax4steve]

The BBC showed the final of the 82 WSC recently in their Crucible Classics series. Alex Higgins played a very poor shot attempting to get out of a snooker and referee John Smyth picked up the cue ball and put it back where Higgins then hit the ball on and left Reardon the winning clearance.
The rule was already there but too many refs didn't have the balls to use it, now it's become ridiculous with so many points gained from misses it's become a tactic in the modern game to pot a long red and roll up behind a baulk colour to gain points. Crap rule and needs to go, we don't use it in our league, too much discrepancy in abilities, and as our matches aren't filmed what happens when the position of the balls replaced is disputed.

Cheats need to be outed, it's up to the referee to do that not to introduce a law that hammers everyone, that's simply gutless and leads to poor referees.

[Shockerz]

Our league doesn't have a miss rule which has always been a bone of contention.

It relies on people acting like sportsmen and making a proper attempt at getting our of the snooker and that's it.

Does it work? Mostly.

The year before last there was a big falling out as one of the more unscrupulous players was in a decent snooker so just blasted the cueball at the balls he was snookered behind, knocked the balls everywhere and said he was happy just to give the 4 points away. The league overlooked it as a one off and those two guys haven't spoke since!

Needs something in the amateur game....

[Cannonball]

If there was no miss rule then that would positively encourage cheating! I've witnessed it first hand. At the Ladies World Championships last year the miss rule was only being enforced when matches were being individually refereed, but not when there were roving refs and the player5s were effectively reffing themselves. One very experienced player knew she couldn't be called for a miss, and played a very feeble attempt at getting out of a snooker, falling short by about 4 feet on a simple one-cushion get out, and keeping the cue ball out of harm's way.

If you're not playing the miss rule what's to stop a blatant ly deliberate foul? For example, you're stuck tight to a baulk colour, red being ball on, and simply playing the cue ball to the bottom cushion? Ok, you can be made to play again, but you're probably got a much better chance of getting safe than if you'd been forced to play out of the snooker.

Spot on. That's what the players did in the 80s. They'd play the so called 'glancing blow' and just miss the pack time after time. Only rarely did they make the mistake, ahem of actually contacting a ball. Invariably, the ball would end up near the baulk line. The snookerer then had a relatively easy safety or it was the same for the chap who had just missed. The snookerer didn't get full value for the snooker laid IMO. These days, players wouldn't do that glancing shot, not because of the miss rule but because Judd or Robbo would simply sink a long red. These are pro players and there is no excuse in most cases for them to not get out of a snooker. They simply wish to leave it safe which is ok, if they take 6 attempts to do that and give away 24pts, that's their decision. No miss rule = tactical miss.

[Terry Davidson]

What's missing in this discussion is the rule the pro referees are forced to use at the insistence of the WPBSA, which is what I call the 'MUST HIT' rule. Unfortunately as this is how it's shown on TV every referee in the world now enforces the Must Hit rule, rather than how the rule is actually written which takes into account a valid attempt even it the object ball is not hit as long as the cueball passes the object ball or there is a group of reds on the table, or if in the referee's opinion there was an easier way to hit the object ball or else is was an easy snooker.

I have been on the giving end where I had what I felt was an impossible hit using 5 cushions and on around my 4th attempt I juggled the cueball and missed the object red by about 1/2" but the ref still called a Miss. I ended up not ever hitting the object ball and forfeited the frame because I required a snooker.

What peed me off is on most of those attempts my opponent had an easy red to start a 3-black clearance but chose to put the cueball back as he knew the snooker was impossible to hit.

Then the next match I snookered my opponent who had a good chance at a hit via 2 cushions around the yellow and with the same referee there was no miss call even though the cueball never passed the object ball and didn't come within a foot. What we need is better refs I think.

[Cannonball]

What's missing in this discussion is the rule the pro referees are forced to use at the insistence of the WPBSA, which is what I call the 'MUST HIT' rule. Unfortunately as this is how it's shown on TV every referee in the world now enforces the Must Hit rule, rather than how the rule is actually written which takes into account a valid attempt even it the object ball is not hit as long as the cueball passes the object ball or there is a group of reds on the table, or if in the referee's opinion there was an easier way to hit the object ball or else is was an easy snooker.

I have been on the giving end where I had what I felt was an impossible hit using 5 cushions and on around my 4th attempt I juggled the cueball and missed the object red by about 1/2" but the ref still called a Miss. I ended up not ever hitting the object ball and forfeited the frame because I required a snooker.

What peed me off is on most of those attempts my opponent had an easy red to start a 3-black clearance but chose to put the cueball back as he knew the snooker was impossible to hit.

Then the next match I snookered my opponent who had a good chance at a hit via 2 cushions around the yellow and with the same referee there was no miss call even though the cueball never passed the object ball and didn't come within a foot. What we need is better refs I think.

Why did you forfeit if you only needed one snooker? I thought that a miss couldn't be called if one needs snookers? Also, was the 3-red clearance easy? Sounds like it was the ref at fault rather than the rule. I wouldn't have called a miss in that situation, even on a pro because cushions slide and sometimes a lot. To be within 1/2" off 5 cushions is near enough to be a proper attempt. I guess in a strange way it could have been a compliment off the ref, as he expected you to be able to get out of snookers but not others of less ability? Cheers.

[Cue crafty]

Bringing this thread back to life after a recent league match which I was the ref in. Player A on his second attempt at hitting a red from a snooker was closer than the first time, I decided he had made a decent attempt to hit the red and didn't call another miss, just foul 4 with the option for player B to put his opponent in again. Sadly player B wasn't overwhelmed with my decision and said "he still wasn't that close". Sadly in League matches people are desperate to win, but personally I'd rather win by scoring more from potting balls! As said in an earlier thread its all about sportsmanship, I'm pretty sure 99% of us love Jimmy White for those moments when he has called a foul on himself! In another league game the ref didn't call a miss when I tried a thin cut safety and missed altogether but later called a miss on my opponent when he failed to get out of a snooker I had laid, he complained that wasn't consistent, the ref had already picked the ball up! I decided he was right and asked the ref to just put the ball back and I played it from there ( and won the match still, good Karma! )

There must be a better way to use this rule in league matches - I would be for the 3 attempts and then play on so a player gets a reward for the snooker but probably not enough to win the frame from.

[itsnoteasy]

Bringing this thread back to life after a recent league match which I was the ref in. Player A on his second attempt at hitting a red from a snooker was closer than the first time, I decided he had made a decent attempt to hit the red and didn't call another miss, just foul 4 with the option for player B to put his opponent in again. Sadly player B wasn't overwhelmed with my decision and said "he still wasn't that close". Sadly in League matches people are desperate to win, but personally I'd rather win by scoring more from potting balls! As said in an earlier thread its all about sportsmanship, I'm pretty sure 99% of us love Jimmy White for those moments when he has called a foul on himself! In another league game the ref didn't call a miss when I tried a thin cut safety and missed altogether but later called a miss on my opponent when he failed to get out of a snooker I had laid, he complained that wasn't consistent, the ref had already picked the ball up! I decided he was right and asked the ref to just put the ball back and I played it from there ( and won the match still, good Karma! )

There must be a better way to use this rule in league matches - I would be for the 3 attempts and then play on so a player gets a reward for the snooker but probably not enough to win the frame from.

The only thing I have against the so many attempts then play on, is on the last attempt they could play a half hearted ,if not deliberate miss ,shot to leave nothing but a not so good safety shot, yes you can make them play from there but they are still in a much better place for just four extra points than where they were.

[Cue crafty]

Our main ref, Glen Sullivan Bisset advised us to make a decision based on what you personally think a players ability/level. This can be tough because you may only see them play a few shots before a situation arises. It does seem harsh to call miss after miss. If you can tell a player is taking the correct route with the cue ball and misses but on his second attempt gets closer that should not then be a miss at amateur level.

[acesinc]

The BBC showed the final of the 82 WSC recently in their Crucible Classics series. Alex Higgins played a very poor shot attempting to get out of a snooker and referee John Smyth picked up the cue ball and put it back where Higgins then hit the ball on and left Reardon the winning clearance.
The rule was already there but too many refs didn't have the balls to use it, now it's become ridiculous with so many points gained from misses it's become a tactic in the modern game to pot a long red and roll up behind a baulk colour to gain points. Crap rule and needs to go, we don't use it in our league, too much discrepancy in abilities, and as our matches aren't filmed what happens when the position of the balls replaced is disputed.

Cheats need to be outed, it's up to the referee to do that not to introduce a law that hammers everyone, that's simply gutless and leads to poor referees.

This is another pet topic of mine. I would like to personally reply to nearly every post on this thread, but I am choosing this one to say kudos to vmax4steve for being one of the few to know that the F&M rule has ALWAYS been there, it was just a matter of non-enforcement so the pros got away with not giving it their best go as the rules have ALWAYS required. So the problem is not with the rule, but with the fact that it used to require the referee to make a judgement call which the ref was generally not inclined to do.

Bringing this thread back to life after a recent league match which I was the ref in. Player A on his second attempt at hitting a red from a snooker was closer than the first time, I decided he had made a decent attempt to hit the red and didn't call another miss, just foul 4 with the option for player B to put his opponent in again. Sadly player B wasn't overwhelmed with my decision and said "he still wasn't that close". Sadly in League matches people are desperate to win, but personally I'd rather win by scoring more from potting balls! As said in an earlier thread its all about sportsmanship, I'm pretty sure 99% of us love Jimmy White for those moments when he has called a foul on himself! In another league game the ref didn't call a miss when I tried a thin cut safety and missed altogether but later called a miss on my opponent when he failed to get out of a snooker I had laid, he complained that wasn't consistent, the ref had already picked the ball up! I decided he was right and asked the ref to just put the ball back and I played it from there ( and won the match still, good Karma! )

There must be a better way to use this rule in league matches - I would be for the 3 attempts and then play on so a player gets a reward for the snooker but probably not enough to win the frame from.

Fortunately, there is a better way and it was posited by a poster, not myself, on another forum I visit on occasion. This proposed solution I believe would work at both professional and amateur levels (but for different reasons), it completely takes the subjective opinion of the referee out of the equation, can be easily implemented even in an unrefereed match, even eliminates the awkward guesswork of whether an escape was truly "impossible" or not (because the Rules states that an effort will not be called as a Miss if the escape was deemed "impossible") and instead, leaves the resulting penalty decision in the hands of first, the non-offending player, but then that decision may instead be overridden by the fouling player if he disagrees.

That likely sounds complicated, but it is actually very simple to implement. Imagine this....

ANY time there is a Miss of any sort (from snookered position, or could see full ball, or miscued, or ANY Miss whatsoever), then "Foul and a Miss" will be declared (so no referee is required to make the decision about it). From there the non-offending player has the usual three options as current: play it as is, give it back to the fouler as is, or (even if it is tricky to put back), reset the ball positions and put the fouling player back in. Let's say the decision is to reset and put the fouler back in. That is the first decision. But from there, BEFORE resetting the table position, the fouling player thinks to himself, "That was an extremely difficult escape; I might miss ten times before I hit it. Besides that, the Pink and Black are tight to the cushion anyway so there isn't much of a break on. And anyway, this guy is really not that good so he probably won't make but one or two balls...." So now the FOULING player can reverse that decision; he can say, "No, we will leave the table as is. You can have ball in hand."

And there it is. From a PROFESSIONAL viewpoint, they will ALMOST NEVER give the ball in hand decision, much rather take ten attempts at escape, so things will stay basically unchanged for the pros. But realistically, at normal amateur levels, how many opponents do you fear will run the table out on you even if you give them ball in hand? And if you are in an amateur match against a known century potter, then you probably will go ahead and take the 3, 4, 5, 10 fouls or whatever rather than give the guy ball in hand. It all depends on how the table lies and how good a player you believe your opponent to be.

Completely takes the referee out of the equation and leaves the resolution of penalty to the choice of the players.