"3 miss rule"

[zipdogso]

I seem to not understand something about this rule or there is some "double standards".....

Ok so Poomjaeng is a bit of a controversy but he fell by the "3 miss rule" and forfeited a frame.

Murphyin his game against Dott had to play away from the green on the cushion in frame 20 I think it was, and I am sure he did 4 misses, I thought perhaps it was because he was playing away instead of being snookered.

But then today in the Fu / Trump match in frame 16, Fu was snookered behind the yellow and I thought he did 3 misses but didn't forfeit the frame....

I keep thinking I have got it wrong somewhere but I also have a sneaky feeling there is "double standards" on here with Poomjaeng being who he is.

If it down to the referees to enforce then I think it is a shame Poomjaeng had to play with a referee that picks up the white from table and tries to spot it on the Pink spot !!!!!

[DeanH]

It is because they (Murphy/Fu)were snookered on the ball(s) on that the 3 miss and forfeit does not come into affect.
Poomjaeng was not snookered and could hit at least one Red full ball contact, so the 3 miss rule applies.
clear as mud

[cesard]

Is it possible to watch this? I didn´t find in youtube

[Billy]

Is it possible to watch this? I didn´t find in youtube

Possible to watch what? Poomjaeng throwing a frame away or Murphy/Fu failing to get out of snookers several times? I'll assume you mean the former, as the latter happens all the time so of no real interest.

This is worth watching again for the commentator's reaction when he misses on the third attempt (2:30)

'Scuse my ignorance, but what language is this?

[DeanH]

This is worth watching again for the commentator's reaction when he misses on the third attempt (2:30)

Also, see Michaela's reaction as well standing behind Poomjaeng.

[motorhead]

'Scuse my ignorance, but what language is this?

danish or norwegian.

very funny video indeed. 'YESSS'

[david16]

Snooker should never return to the old plain foul where players found that not hitting the object ball gave them more of an advantage than hitting it, even if they were then put back in in baulk.

[vmax4steve]

Snooker should never return to the old plain foul where players found that not hitting the object ball gave them more of an advantage than hitting it, even if they were then put back in in baulk.

I disagree completely. Players were as honest then as they are now and frames were never held up time after time for the ref to replace balls just because a certain player wants to gain some extra points or doesn't like the pot along the cushion he has been left with.
The old rule was fine as it was and if a referee believed that a player had played a deliberate foul there was, and still is, a rule for that scenario as well. The referee simply needs to have the balls to implement it.

BTW
they weren't put back in baulk if they didn't like the situation they were left with, they had three choices. They could take a free ball (if left one), play themselves from where the balls lay or make the offender play from where the balls lay, a decision that usually took about 30 seconds at the most.