League Snooker Help! - The miss Rule

[tmax]

Hi everyone

I need some help please, a friend of mine plays League Snooker in Torquay where they have the miss rule for 2 put backs. Some/many of the players are of the opinion it spoils their matches. The teams are made up of a couple of divisons where there is a diversity of snooker ability. The better players (up to ex-pro levels) are handicapped accordingly.

I play in the Epsom League where the miss rule is not enforced

My question is what league do you play in and is the miss rule enforced ?

My friend's league has a committee meeting in August and he would like to give a balanced argument for or against the interpretatioon of the rule

Just so you know my understanding of the rule:

The "Foul and a Miss" has always been in snooker - it is purely the interpretation that changed somewhere around 2000 where the referees in the professional game were instructed that any professional should be able to hit almost any ball at any time.

The rule 14 states:

(a) The striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red, or
a free ball nominated as a Red, has been potted. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, they shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless:
etc etc

As expected all our league games are refereed by a player from the home side, and as such are considered to be neutral and fair

Thanks
Simon

[Londonlad147]

There has always been a 'miss' in the official rules of the game, but it effectively meant that if the referee called a miss he was saying "you cheated, you deliberately missed". At one point if the referee called a miss he would automatically replace the balls without giving the choice to the non-offender.

The foul and a miss rule (3.14), more or less as we know it today, was introduced with the rule book published on 1 September 1995. That followed several seasons of the WPBSA experienting with different wordings. Some iterations included things like "a miss will not be called if an easy pot has been left". That led to a lot of inconsistency between referees and indeed by the same referee on different occasions, and they were open to claims of bias. The final version minimised the subjectivity element, other than calls when the player was snookered.

When I lived in Somerset I played in the Yeovil league, and we adopted the rule in full, and there were very few issues in implementing it, although generally only the better players would call it on failed snooker escapes. I really don't see any problem in applying it in full when you can see any part of a ball on.

There are a couple of anecdotes I've often recounted. First, I was at a World Ladies event, and in those days they didn't play the miss rule unless the match had a proper referee. I walked past one table where they players were refereeing themselves. One very well experienced player, was getting out of a snooker and missed the ball on by about six feet, but leaving the cue ball perfectly safe. There was no question in my mind that it was a deliberate miss, and totally unsporting.

The second incident relates to a match I refereed. I was asked to referee a neighbouring league's singles final. I knew one of the players from other events, but not the other. I asked the league secretary if they played the miss rule and after consulting with the two players, the none I didn't know said he didn't want to play it (the league didn't normally play it). When it came to the match, the player I knew played several; shots in a way in a way to err on the side of caution because he knew he couldn't be called for a miss. The player who hadn't wanted tom play the miss rule most definitely came off worse.

I believe the WDBS (disabled) still have the adapted rule that no more than three misses will be called - provided a qualified referee witnesses the third attempt and is satisfied that it wasn't a deliberate miss. That's the problem in leagues though, where you limit the number of misses: what happens if on the third attempt, the striker makes no serious attempt to hit the ball on? There really needs to be something in place to deal with that.

[tmax]

Londlad thanks for your reply - two very interesting anacdotes

Personally I think the game prior to 1995 (thanks for the year) for the viewer was better, especially professionally as so much time can be taken up replacing balls etc - although the Chinese tech replacment method is way better than the 2nd ref saying "up a bit down a bit", reminds me of the Golden Shot on itv !!!

Having said that professionally I can see the need when your mortgage could be on the line !!!!

But in the amateur game I feel it is different, no proper referees and very wide mixed abilities

[Drissa]

I watched some local league matches recently and was surprised to see the miss rule used. There are players who might struggle to make 20 and, when faced with a difficult escape, could be several inches from hitting the ball even with their very best efforts. The same level of player might also struggle to ref these scenarios. The 'maximum two replacements' feels like a reasonable compromise.

[DeanH]

I watched some local league matches recently and was surprised to see the miss rule used. There are players who might struggle to make 20 and, when faced with a difficult escape, could be several inches from hitting the ball even with their very best efforts. The same level of player might also struggle to ref these scenarios. The 'maximum two replacements' feels like a reasonable compromise.

Again the first line of the rule is being forgotten.

"The striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on ..."
If the player has attempted to hit the ball on and it is their best ability then the Miss WONT be called, and the non-offending player will have the usual two options - play themselves, or put the opponent in from where the balls come to rest.
Everyone thinks just because you miss the ball on it is a Miss automatically - IT IS NOT

On TV it is deemed that the professional player has the ABILITY to hit nearly everything so the Miss is called more often. But in the amateur game this first line MUST be applied and if done properly, you don't need any number limit.
The issue is not the player but the lack of training and understanding of the rules by the referee - who is probably just one of the home team players.

[Drissa]

Again the first line of the rule is being forgotten...

Absolutely. And if the standard of play and awareness/judgement of the rule are below a certain point, it seems a good idea not to play the rule at all.

[itsnoteasy]

Absolutely. And if the standard of play and awareness/judgement of the rule are below a certain point, it seems a good idea not to play the rule at all.

Taking the best of their ability into account, then the miss rule should always be played.
For example an attempt should never be short, it could be a fair bit away and not be a miss, but everyone can hit the ball hard enough to reach and if they dont it should be called a miss.

[Siz]

I remember having a knock-about with a professional back in the late 80's. I attempted a thin safety, missed the ball but landed safe. As he passed me on his way to the table, he congratulated me on a good shot. Not being sarky - a genuine complement (although undeserved, as I was actually trying to hit the ball)

The point is that this was how pro players played the game back then. The rules said deliberately missing was not allowed, everyone understood that in practice you just had to look as if you were attempting to hit it. It was a case of plausible deniability.

Alex Higgins changed that. When opponents missed thin and got reasonably safe, he started kicking off. Put the referees in a very difficult position, and not a good look for the game. So they changed the way the miss rule operated.

But just because the Pro's were forced into this change does not necessarily mean that amateur leagues should follow suit. In a league, the ref can use their judgement. If the player does not like it, they might make a comment, but the ref should have the authority to tell them to shut up and get on with it. They are amateur league players after all, not some 'big I am' like the late Alex Higgins.

A counter argument is that in leagues, the referees are not usually 'neutral'. This might suggest that it might be better to avoid rules that depend significantly on referee discretion. But in practice, is the issue of partisan referees in league games really an issue? (Genuine question).

[DeanH]

But in practice, is the issue of partisan referees in league games really an issue? (Genuine question).

I don't think that is the issue in 99% of the time, I do think that most players being given refereeing duties do try to be impartial; the issue is the general lack of understanding of the rules, especially the F&M due to its complexity in its wording and application once declared that most do forget the fundamental part - the first line - ability
The complexity clouds the first part when they are standing there watching the stroke happen - "oh Gawd where was it at the start..."

[Siz]

I recently came across a fascinating Youtube vid of Steve Davis interviewing John Spencer. I mention it here because they touch on the miss rule see here. Spencer suggests that the game would be better without the rule: it might prevent the odd occurrence of someone cheating (not making a genuine attempt) but this is outweighed by the honest players being unfairly penalised. He was talking about the pro game of course, but perhaps the argument could equally be applied to an amateur league