Amatuer league miss rule

[jonny66]

Another good post Acesinc

[acesinc]

Thanks, Jonny. Positive feedback means a lot to me. I run a tiny club, just a dozen guys or so, most of whom only come in once every several months. Most are American pool players by nature but a few are foreign nationals from various countries. All know the GAME of Snooker, mainly from watching YouTube and internet streams of the pro tournaments. I am the only one in the club who has actually lived the CULTURE of Snooker, immersed in club level play for the few years I lived your side of the pond. If my club members don't see it done by Ronnie O'Sullivan, then it is not "real" snooker as far as they are concerned, heresy, and they simply will not even try it. Consequently, I am unable to implement these things that I have spoken of even within my own club. I truly believe these things would make the game much more interesting and enjoyable at the amateur level. Using my handicap system in matches with my kid is the BEST snooker I have ever been involved in, bar none. It makes the game so much deeper than simply knocking balls about. Even though my kid only hears me talk about my time in England, he is by far the most "English" of my club members. He plays the right shots, and he plays with the right attitude. With the other club members, it is like a simple, social game is a test of manhood and the World Championship is riding on every stroke. The "sharking" is shameful. Poor etiquette throughout, and as I said, me being the only one who understands the culture of snooker, if I try to advise or gently correct, it falls on deaf ears so I don't.

[itsnoteasy]

It wasn't enforced in the pro game because at the time we thought they were gentlemen and wouldn't deliberately miss, but of course like all society their values had been weakened and some did start to do it. Why it was introduced in leagues where thirty is a good break is way beyond me and I don't agree with the person who committed the foul having any say in what his punishment for the foul is.
If leagues insist on playing it ,the basic rules of ,if you can see a ball, it's a miss, if there are loads of reds on the table it's a miss, if you are a foot away it's a miss, it's not hard to judge it fairly and to someone's ability.

[Cue crafty]

I like that idea a lot - thanks acesinc. New territory for me having to do a bit of reffing so want to make a decent job of it. I think that sounds very fair and supports possibly the BETTER player of the two who should win by his scoring ability, which I am very much in favour of.

[acesinc]

I like that idea a lot - thanks acesinc. New territory for me having to do a bit of reffing so want to make a decent job of it. I think that sounds very fair and supports possibly the BETTER player of the two who should win by his scoring ability, which I am very much in favour of.

To be clear, this "ball in hand" is NOT the normal "in the 'D'" variety. Instead, it is the American version, anywhere on the table, just like they play in the one frame Snooker Shootout. Of course, with a very good, especially professional player that is such a huge advantage that it should never be taken lightly. In my (admittedly limited) experience, I would think that most club players probably won't run more than 4, perhaps 6 balls most times even given ball in hand. So that would equate to giving away four or five misses. So if you think you can escape the snooker in two or three tries, go for it, don't give away the ball in hand if you F&M. But if the scoring balls are tied up, give the guy ball in hand instead...he probably can't go too far with it.

[Londonlad147]

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

Yes, at some point the rules said that if the referee considered the striker had played a miss then he would automatically replace the balls, not giving the non-offender any option. Not sure when it was changed, but it was certainly well before the 'new' rule book of 1995 (and before 1990 when I did my first exam).

[Londonlad147]

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.

Yes, ALL miss calls (when attempting to escape from a snooker) should be based on the ability of the player and the difficulty of the snooker. There will be a much larger margin of error for a difficult snooker and a poor player. Conversely a reasonably good amateur would nearly always be expected to get out of a simply one-cushion escape.

[Londonlad147]

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.

Absolutely, that's why there can never be a limit to the number of misses that can be called.

[Cue crafty]

Absolutely, that's why there can never be a limit to the number of misses that can be called.

League match chaos tonight, heckling over the miss rule again etc. The level of seriousness does not reflect in any way the talent in these matches.

I'm much more in favour of smacky wacky as oppose to tippy tappy! I think if you are confident you should make at least 30 if you get your Chance, don't try to play like a pro with safety after safety hoping to win the frame from misses when you can't score 9!

Sorry all, letting a bit of steam off.

Up the TSF!

[Big Splash!]

It wasn't enforced in the pro game because at the time we thought they were gentlemen and wouldn't deliberately miss, but of course like all society their values had been weakened and some did start to do it. Why it was introduced in leagues where thirty is a good break is way beyond me and I don't agree with the person who committed the foul having any say in what his punishment for the foul is.
If leagues insist on playing it ,the basic rules of ,if you can see a ball, it's a miss, if there are loads of reds on the table it's a miss, if you are a foot away it's a miss, it's not hard to judge it fairly and to someone's ability.

The miss rule was introduced because players like Willie with the 'flick' escape off two angles kept just missing the reds and leaving the CB in baulk but no free ball; magic!

Today, they wouldn't even attempt that shot because firstly, a miss is called and secondly, most players pot out of baulk. So the miss rule has done some good. Where it does seem cruel is when a pro is tucked up behind a colour in a dreadful position. But both players can snooker each other and gain this advantage, alls fair in love and war.

The local leagues; ya 30 breakers are even worse and even more competitive. Their single frame is the highlight of the week and the smaller the prize, the nastier the play. The miss rule is needed because half of em would cheat without it. We dropped the miss rule, then had to re-instate it because guys were rolling up to the yellow cush, from behind the yellow, making no attempt to get out of the snooker or leave a free ball. Or they'd sail past the red and come back to baulk or they'd go past the red and land on the top cush; consistently. When you've seen em get much closer or hit the reds in practice, you know they up to no good. Then you have whackers who really don't care if they miss and just pump the CB round the table.

3 shys at the red and leave the CB where it is on the final miss is a great rule for league players (non-fouling player then decides to play the red if he can see it or take a free ball, make the offending player play the red he can now see). Min foul points 12, max foul points 18. Not a huge penalty to kill a frame but a good one to swing a frame. A good reward for the snooker.

In short, the miss rule is needed because half the players don't abide by gents conduct.

[tomwalker147]

The miss rule was introduced because players like Willie with the 'flick' escape off two angles kept just missing the reds and leaving the CB in baulk but no free ball; magic!

Today, they wouldn't even attempt that shot because firstly, a miss is called and secondly, most players pot out of baulk. So the miss rule has done some good. Where it does seem cruel is when a pro is tucked up behind a colour in a dreadful position. But both players can snooker each other and gain this advantage, alls fair in love and war.

The local leagues; ya 30 breakers are even worse and even more competitive. Their single frame is the highlight of the week and the smaller the prize, the nastier the play. The miss rule is needed because half of em would cheat without it. We dropped the miss rule, then had to re-instate it because guys were rolling up to the yellow cush, from behind the yellow, making no attempt to get out of the snooker or leave a free ball. Or they'd sail past the red and come back to baulk or they'd go past the red and land on the top cush; consistently. When you've seen em get much closer or hit the reds in practice, you know they up to no good. Then you have whackers who really don't care if they miss and just pump the CB round the table.

3 shys at the red and leave the CB where it is on the final miss is a great rule for league players (non-fouling player then decides to play the red if he can see it or take a free ball, make the offending player play the red he can now see). Min foul points 12, max foul points 18. Not a huge penalty to kill a frame but a good one to swing a frame. A good reward for the snooker.

In short, the miss rule is needed because half the players don't abide by gents conduct.

Big Splash this a great post completely agree.

[Cue crafty]

In short, the miss rule is needed because half the players don't abide by gents conduct.[/QUOTE]

I do agree Splasher, especially with the above line. I joined the league to play a game I love on a Monday night, dullest night of the week! Even makes Sunday night feel ok because you are playing snooker again the next day! This is a low point however...

[acesinc]

League match chaos tonight, heckling over the miss rule again etc. The level of seriousness does not reflect in any way the talent in these matches.

I'm much more in favour of smacky wacky as oppose to tippy tappy! I think if you are confident you should make at least 30 if you get your Chance, don't try to play like a pro with safety after safety hoping to win the frame from misses when you can't score 9!

Sorry all, letting a bit of steam off.

Up the TSF!

I can sympathize, Crafty. "The level of seriousness does not reflect in any way the talent in these matches."! I had to clench my teeth to hold my coffee in! It's the same as what I said earlier about players treating every shot as if the WC is riding on it. And this from players who have a hard time stringing two balls together!

As to my proposal earlier about a Miss to be always called for which the punishment may be either to "put it back" or the offender can deflect that and instead concede "ball in hand", some have said that they do not favour allowing the offender a say in his punishment. Well, I would submit that this actually offers the offender the choice between "death by hanging" or "death by firing squad". It certainty does not offer "freedom" as one of the choices!

The biggest problem with F&M is it is completely subjective.....players will almost never agree that a shot should be called as F&M or should not be called as such. So a referee is REQUIRED. And if we can be honest here for a moment, I submit that the majority of league players are probably not qualified to act as a proper referee, and as such, most league player "referee's" subjective decisions will be questionable at best. So the ONLY way to resolve the F&M problem is to find a way by which it is no longer the subjective opinion of a third party (who may not even be well qualified and, it should be said, may not even be impartial as the referee duty may well fall on the players of the "home" team).

To digress a moment, there is an old adage about the fair reconciliation of a dispute. Imagine there are two siblings, say a brother and a sister, a mother, and one large slice of cake left over from dessert last night. So how to decide which sibling gets the cake? Obviously, it needs to be divvied up and split between the siblings so let's proceed....obviously, Mum, as an impartial referee, can cut the slice into two pieces and dish up for the kids. Do you really think that brother and sister are not going to fight over who gets the larger piece even though Mum did her absolute best to be fair and cut equal sizes? This is what happens even when a referee has the best of intentions.

Instead, the most equitable way to divide the cake is what is known as "cut and choose". Mum is not required at all; the siblings will automatically come to the most equitable decision neither of them can have any viable complaint about. It works like this: one of the kids is the "cutter" (non-offender on the Snooker table), the other is the "chooser". So the first kid cuts the cake into what he or she believes to be the most absolutely equal size pieces possible. Well, then...what is to keep the cutter from taking a larger slice for himself/herself? That is where the "chooser" comes in...of the two slices, the NON-cutter (chooser) now has the first choice of which slice to take. If the cutter purposely made a larger slice, the chooser will obviously take it. It is in the cutter's best interest to offer two apparently equal options and let the chooser decide.

Fantastically simple and it keeps both players absolutely honest by necessity. So on the Snooker table, this means that the NON-offender after a Miss offers two choices and will be content with whichever option is chosen by the offender. The non-offender says, "Put it back," which really means, "Either you can reset the balls and have another go, or you can give me ball in hand with the table as it is." Then the offender can decide which of these two punishments is less severe to his situation. To be clear, the offender is not being let off without punishment...the non-offender certainly must feel that the foul was properly punished no matter which choice is made by the offender.

And a referee need never be involved, except maybe to be the most impartial observer to put balls back if a lot of them moved around on the shot.....the players would very likely bicker over this as well.

[Cue crafty]

[QUOTE=acesinc;906545]I can sympathize, Crafty. "The level of seriousness does not reflect in any way the talent in these matches."! I had to clench my teeth to hold my coffee in! It's the same as what I said earlier about players treating every shot as if the WC is riding on it. And this from players who have a hard time stringing two balls together!

Thanks again acesinc, I think the way forward is to bring some class to the proceedings and lead by example! Obviously whilst at the same time, beating the pants off them... : )

[tomwalker147]

I was in an impossible snooker once and gave 40odd away from one snooker. My opponent only potted 2 reds and won that frame, I was fuming!
Another player gave in excess of 70 away from a difficult position and the season after they limited the number of times the cue ball could be replaced to just 3 (4 attempts max in total)