snookered place cue ball again back

[geertmoreau]

I don't understand one rule not so well. In the sem final uk open between trump and wilson, wilson needed 3 snookers in the .th frame.
He made a fabulous snooker behind the black ball. Trump missed the red one he needed to have. Wilson came back to the table and played the red one... why didn't he asked to put the cue ball back behind the black ball ?
Kind regards from a belgian snookerfan

[Mark187187]

Balls aren't replaced if the person laying snookers needs snookers to win the frame. If they can still win or tie without foul strokes then they can ask for balls to be replaced.

[geertmoreau]

All clear now ! Thanks a lot Mark

[DeanH]

Balls aren't replaced if the person laying snookers needs snookers to win the frame. If they can still win or tie without foul strokes then they can ask for balls to be replaced.

It is if any player needs "snookers" before or after the stroke, "and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional", a Miss will not be called; not just the player needing snookers.

[vmax]

It is if any player needs "snookers" before or after the stroke, "and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional", a Miss will not be called; not just the player needing snookers.

And yet they're always sure it was intentional when snookers are not needed no matter how close the escape attempt gets or how difficult the escape is.
Stupid rule and needs to go, if a top pro can miss a black off its spot then it's just as sure that a snooker attempt off three cushions can be missed by half an inch.

[Billy]

Stupid rule and needs to go, if a top pro can miss a black off its spot then it's just as sure that a snooker attempt off three cushions can be missed by half an inch.

Yes. I’d like to know when the rules were amended to say that a referee can’t use their discretion to decide when the snookered player has made a satisfactory attempt to hit the ball on.

If the rule is still in place, why do referees never employ it?

[Londonlad147]

Yes. I’d like to know when the rules were amended to say that a referee can’t use their discretion to decide when the snookered player has made a satisfactory attempt to hit the ball on.

If the rule is still in place, why do referees never employ it?

The rule hasn't changed, and a referee should always have due regard to the difficulty of the snooker and the ability of the player in deciding whether to call a miss. At professional level, referees deem players capable of escaping from just about any snooker.

[Cue crafty]

In the workplace, there is a buzz word for this, it's called "quiet quitting"

It is a concept that refers to doing only the amount of work you are paid to do and not making difficult decisions you dont need to.

I think the Refs have unanimously agreed to this approach wrt the "miss rule" because well let's face it, it's much easier for them and without any stress.