one question about miss rule

[davis_greatest]

This is how I have seen it:
1. You are 28 points behind with only the green left;
2. You lay a snooker which your opponent fails to get out of (now 24 points behind, the referee will call FOUL - Section 3 Rule 14(b) - the balls ARE NOT replaced.
3. You ask your opponent to play again
4. He misses the ball (green). Referee calls FOUL AND A MISS (Opening sentence of Section 3 Rule 14) You are now 20 points behind and can have the balls replaced.

I hope that makes things clear.

Thanks. Re point 2 above, I think that the point that dao is making is that Section 3 Rule 14(b) (copied below) seems to apply only "when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on" - and, hence, if there were no such path, why should it be applied here?

"(b) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless either player needed snookers before, or as a result of, the stroke played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional."

[double_kiss]

@ davis_greatest:

Rule 3.14 (b) does not apply directly. You`re right so far with your doubts. Here we have a regulatory gap, which is unintentional. These gaps can be filled by use of anology when there are comparable conditions to the regulated case. The conclusion by anology is permissible in our situation based on the “a fortiori” argument. If, according to 3.14 (b), no miss can be called when snookers are required, while there is a clear path in a straight line to a part of at least one ball on, then all the more a miss cannot be called without the benefit of such clear path.
So the answer was right: No miss - not according to 3.14 (b) directly, but analogical.

[dao]

@ davis_greatest:

Rule 3.14 (b) does not apply directly. You`re right so far with your doubts. Here we have a regulatory gap, which is unintentional. These gaps can be filled by use of anology when there are comparable conditions to the regulated case. The conclusion by anology is permissible in our situation based on the “a fortiori” argument. If, according to 3.14 (b), no miss can be called when snookers are required, while there is a clear path in a straight line to a part of at least one ball on, then all the more a miss cannot be called without the benefit of such clear path.
So the answer was right: No miss - not according to 3.14 (b) directly, but analogical.

Regulatory gap in rules that is unintentional... Thanks for your interpretation. This is very delicate nuance which could confuse even people who have peen playing and watching snooker regularly more than 10 years.
It's a pity that we could only guess it reading official rules

I just found one referee's opinion that will be interesting to take into consideration:
***********
"Contrary to popular belief, there is no rule that prevents a miss being called if a player is snookered regardless of the score. The miss is at the discretion of the referee. However the normal interpretation is that a miss will not be called if either player requires snookers before or after the shot".
***********
I found it here:
http://www.jesterssnooker.co.uk/snooker/ask_the_ref.php

[AndrewB]

@ davis_greatest:

Rule 3.14 (b) does not apply directly. You`re right so far with your doubts. Here we have a regulatory gap, which is unintentional. These gaps can be filled by use of anology when there are comparable conditions to the regulated case. The conclusion by anology is permissible in our situation based on the “a fortiori” argument. If, according to 3.14 (b), no miss can be called when snookers are required, while there is a clear path in a straight line to a part of at least one ball on, then all the more a miss cannot be called without the benefit of such clear path.
So the answer was right: No miss - not according to 3.14 (b) directly, but analogical.

But it doesn't say "no miss can be called when snookers are required"; it says "a miss must be called if snookers are not required (and the miss is not intentional)."

So (it seems to me) if (in the opinion of the referee) a player deliberately misses the ball on, this is always a miss, whatever the situation regarding snookers. I think this agrees with the comment cited by dao.

[dao]

What do you think about this logical graphic chart of foul and miss definition? Is it applicable for amateurs as well as professionals?

it is taken from:
http://www.jbsa.co.uk/Foul%20&%20Miss%20Rule.htm

Shall we finally accept it, print out and use at local tournaments in our country? Your comments will be appreciated.

[DawRef]

The Rules governing Foul and Miss, apply to both the amateur and professional game. Whether you or your league decide to enforce it is up to you. In the 2 leagues I play and referee in, it only applies if you can see the ball on. However in any county or National match in which I referee, it is fully enforced.

[tksix]

I was recently in a match where I was 25 behind to tie with 25 left on the table. I played a PERFECT snooker behind black. The ref did not allow the foul and miss rule because a snooker was needed to over come the point deficit.

So to add to this already confusing topic.

1) was that an accurate call?
2) how many times if a foul and miss is called can you have your opponent attempt the same shot?

Thanks,

Mike

[davis_greatest]

I was recently in a match where I was 25 behind to tie with 25 left on the table. I played a PERFECT snooker behind black. The ref did not allow the foul and miss rule because a snooker was needed to over come the point deficit.

So to add to this already confusing topic.

1) was that an accurate call?
2) how many times if a foul and miss is called can you have your opponent attempt the same shot?

Thanks,

Mike

If you were 25 points behind with 25 left, then you did not require snookers.

1) Therefore, it was not an accurate call - unless the referee would not have called a Foul and a Miss whatever the score, due to the attempt to hit the ball being good enough.

2) There is no limit, except that the Foul and a Miss would not be called (with certain exceptions) if either player requires snookers before or after the shot. Therefore, if you started 147 points behind, it might take up to 74 attempts (giving away 4 points each time) before you are put 149 points ahead - with your opponent then requiring snookers himself - and the referee would then cease calling Foul and a Miss.

[tksix]

OMG!! Still a bit confused, but that helps. What is confusing is the "attempt being good enough"

I guess that is the refs call.

So if I were 26 behind and only 25 on the table (a snooker would be needed) correct?

Then the foul and miss would not apply?

Mike

[davis_greatest]

OMG!! Still a bit confused, but that helps. What is confusing is the "attempt being good enough"

I guess that is the refs call.

"Attempt being good enough" I used as shorthand - what the rules say is that "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on."

This will be a matter for the referee's discretion, taking into account the ability of the player. There is also guidance for referees at professional level - for instance, playing a stroke too softly to reach the ball on would be Foul And a Miss, as would not choosing the easiest route, or playing off more than one cushion when there is a single cushion escape, or going for a lone red when there is a big cluster of reds to hit. (The referees on this forum can no doubt give a better answer here!)

So if I were 26 behind and only 25 on the table (a snooker would be needed) correct?

Correct

Then the foul and miss would not apply?

Mike

In most cases, it would not - you are correct. An exception is where the striker could hit the object ball full (central) ball and had already had one attempt. For example, if you had been 18 points behind (with 25 on) and had been able to hit the green full ball, but missed, then the referee would call Foul and a Miss and you would then be 22 points behind. If at your second attempt, you again missed, the referee would again call Foul And a Miss, even though you are now 26 points behind and require a snooker.

Incidentally, if your opponent then asks for the balls to be replaced again, you will be warned that a third failure to hit the green will result in your forfeiting the frame.

[tksix]

O.K. Clearer now................thank you. I want to go back and get my frame back from the ref who called it wrong. I will know better next time. Or even better not find myself 25 behind!!

Mike

[noel]

DawRef ... Thanks for your help on this! Another question for you mate...


Miss Rule is cruel!

...she is a sadist!


Q: What does a masochist say?
A:: Beat me. BEAT ME!



Q What does a sadist say?



























A: No.





=o)

Noel