Easy way to avoid being called FOUL AND A MISS??!!!

[The Statman]

we never in this thread suggested that Ronnie was delibrately trying to cheat by touching the black, BUT remember, when Jan approached Ronnie, because John wanted to have the balls replaced, then Ronnie said "but I didn't miss", this reaction from Ronnie is a bit fishy...
even if Ronnie didn't initially plan to cheat, but later on he realised he may be able to get away with it, the problem lies here!

in the thread, I'm always trying to suggest that the rules have already got it covered, because firstly that the ref is allowed to call any other misses, and secondly because of the existence of 14d, means if the people that wrote the rules have oversighted that a foul can be made while preparing to play a shot when all you can see is a hairline of a ball-on (straight line to any part of any ball-on), and give the non-striker an option of replacing the balls, how is it possible they didn't oversight this could also happen when the striker is fully snookered? Why would have left this fully snookered scenario out? My answer is, they didn't!

I think the reason is that, they were simply thinking that, if you foul a ball with your sleeve or whatever, and are snookered, then the Miss is pretty pointless because the situation will be the same whether put in again or replaced – the offender would still have the same shot because no relevant balls have moved, and since snookered no warning will be issued at any point.

They hadn't reckoned on the Miss being on a colour-after-a-red, where the ball on would change depending on whether the Miss was called or not.

[lk8]

I think the reason is that, they were simply thinking that, if you foul a ball with your sleeve or whatever, and are snookered, then the Miss is pretty pointless because the situation will be the same whether put in again or replaced – the offender would still have the same shot because no relevant balls have moved, and since snookered no warning will be issued at any point.

They hadn't reckoned on the Miss being on a colour-after-a-red, where the ball on would change depending on whether the Miss was called or not.

but this wouldn't make sense, we played snooker for so many decades, we all know when you "foul while preparing to play a stroke", it's not all about sleeve foul, you could be knocking a few balls with your cue butt, your rest could have pushed a few balls away, or even accidently dropped in a pack of balls, it's not like the rule writer never played or watched snooker before!

[The Statman]

No, well, if he nudges balls with the butt of his cue, he is still going to be snookered and put back in (and a free ball given against) – unless he happens to move such balls that the snooker is no longer there. And in that case, the other player may well be happy to play the shot himself.

If the referee feels that a disturbance has been deliberate he can warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct etc. One would assume that the balls would have to be moved at least a considerable distance for it to be worthwhile doing deliberately.

[lk8]

No, well, if he nudges balls with the butt of his cue, he is still going to be snookered and put back in (and a free ball given against) – unless he happens to move such balls that the snooker is no longer there. And in that case, the other player may well be happy to play the shot himself.

If the referee feels that a disturbance has been deliberate he can warn the player for ungentlemanly conduct etc. One would assume that the balls would have to be moved at least a considerable distance for it to be worthwhile doing deliberately.

well this is another subject for debate, but what I was trying to point out is they couldn't have included a scenario for "almost full ball snooker", but forgets to include the scenario for a "full ball snooker", so I'm suggesting they feels the rules already covers the "full ball snooker scenario" ( as there's no restriction on if a miss can be called before or after a stroke and ref allow to call any miss) but the only problem is it wasn't worded 100% clear enough which leaves room for argument...
I reckon if the people that wrote the rules didn't feel they have covered all the situation, then section 3.14d could've easily read as Martin suggested to cover all situation, as having it written as Martin suggested would've covered all situation while still keeping in line with fair play and consistency...

[vmax4steve]

Let's put these scenarios in, player A flukes a red and then crawls up behind the green to lay a snooker. Does this player deserve to have the miss rule play in his favour: not in my mind he doesn't: or player B pots a red, doesn't get on a colour that he feels he can pot and then stuns the white off the yellow to lay a snooker behind the green: the yellow cannons off a couple of reds and then goes into the corner pocket; does this player then deserve to have the miss rule play against him: not in my book he doesn't.
But time and again I have seen the miss rule implemented on just such occasions until player A has an easy pot on, not just a pot mind you, an easy pot, and until he gets that easy pot he keeps asking for the balls to be replaced and the shot played again, no matter how close player B gets to the escape. All within the present rules, but ungentlemanly in my book.
I think the players should all deliberately do what Ronnie accidently did until this unfair miss rule is recinded and replaced with something fairer. They don't even have to touch a ball, just lie and say that they did, I wouldn't think twice about doing it myself If I was in player B's position.

BOLLOCKS TO THE RULES IF THEY ARE UNFAIR

[Odrl]

Yes, but in the cases you describe, the other player would just have you play again, as you would still be snookered. And he would get a free ball as well.

[Krypton]

Let's put these scenarios in, player A flukes a red and then crawls up behind the green to lay a snooker. Does this player deserve to have the miss rule play in his favour: not in my mind he doesn't: or player B pots a red, doesn't get on a colour that he feels he can pot and then stuns the white off the yellow to lay a snooker behind the green: the yellow cannons off a couple of reds and then goes into the corner pocket; does this player then deserve to have the miss rule play against him: not in my he doesn't.
But time and again I have seen the miss rule implemented on just such occasions until player A has an easy pot on, not just a pot mind you, an easy pot, and until he gets that easy pot he keeps asking for the balls to be replaced and the shot played again, no matter how close player B gets to the escape. All within the present rules, but ungentlemanly in my book.
I think the players should all deliberately do what Ronnie accidently did until this unfair miss rule is recinded and replaced with something fairer. They don't even have to touch a ball, just lie and say that they did, I wouldn't think twice about doing it myself If I was in player B's position.

BOLLOCKS TO THE RULES IF THEY ARE UNFAIR

I can't come up with a fairer rule within a short time - any ideas?

I don't think the miss rule is unfair a priori. the scenarios you described don't prove that, even if you think so. sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not, but that doesn't make a rule unfair.

fluking the red, player A could also have ended up on a color by nothing but luck - so the green is a pot into the middle - and score a frame-winning break. fairer than the snooker? I don't think so. his opponent won't even have shot if he clears up. he was lucky to have a fluke, and that was independent to the miss rule.

[RCMIGil]

Perhaps the miss rule should be written and interpreted more as "failure to play, execute, or attempt, a fair shot" rule. Still up to the ref's discretion on calling it, however, a foul prior to the stroke would fall within the breadth of the rule. As it stands, it seems that miss can only be called if the cue ball is actually struck, which as we all know, is only a part of the complete execution of a shot.

[vmax4steve]

Yes, but in the cases you describe, the other player would just have you play again, as you would still be snookered. And he would get a free ball as well.

This might seem ridiculous to those of you who really need to win, but I have never crawled up behind a colour after fluking a red, it's not in my nature, neither would I continually put a player back in after he accidently snookered himself and failed to escape from it. I would accept that he was as fair minded as I am myself, and even if he proved himself not to be I would not relegate myself below my own standards in order to get even.

I am proud that, unlike pro footballers, pro snooker players do not cheat and will call their own fouls, but they do use the miss rule unfairly at times, which to my mind brings their integrity into question. It's all in the rules you might say, but then again, it's not in the rules that you have to call your own fouls.

Another thing I noticed about Ronnie at the UK last week was his refusal to help the ref when the ref was replacing the balls after he had a miss called against him. I don't know why he did this, but maybe he felt that his opponent was taking advantage of the miss rule unfairly, if that's so, then good on him.

[vmax4steve]

fluking the red, player A could also have ended up on a color by nothing but luck - so the green is a pot into the middle - and score a frame-winning break. fairer than the snooker? I don't think so. his opponent won't even have shot if he clears up. he was lucky to have a fluke, and that was independent to the miss rule.

My scenario is for what player A actually did, not what he could have done, what he could have done is immaterial, what he actually did was crawl up behind the green and then use the miss rule to his advantage in order to get himself an easy chance. We have all seen players getting to within a hairs breadth of the ball on and still have a miss called against them and being put in again.
Before this miss rule came into being, was there any one player who actually won tournaments by continually failing to escape from snookers ?

[Krypton]

then I got wrong the fluke you mentioned. it does not matter if he flukes the red, does it?

[vmax4steve]

then I got wrong the fluke you mentioned. it does not matter if he flukes the red, does it?

Yes it does matter because it was a fluked red. If it was a pot that he played for, then to crawl up behind a colour is o.k. even if it is a bit cowardly, but then after that to also use the miss rule unfairly is wrong, IMO.
Please don't question me on this, it's just the way I personally feel about what is fair and what is not, nothing whatsoever to do with rules.

[The Statman]

Surely, a Miss can only be called for failure to hit the ball on. If a player fouls with his sleeve (or whatever), he has not had a chance to miss the ball on because the shot has not been played. The call of foul is not for failure to hit the ball on, but for the sleeve touching a ball.

Ergo, a Miss can be called only when a stroke has been played. Until a stroke has been played, a player cannot be fouled for failure to hit the ball on.

[RCMIGil]

Surely, a Miss can only be called for failure to hit the ball on. If a player fouls with his sleeve (or whatever), he has not had a chance to miss the ball on because the shot has not been played. The call of foul is not for failure to hit the ball on, but for the sleeve touching a ball.

Ergo, a Miss can be called only when a stroke has been played. Until a stroke has been played, a player cannot be fouled for failure to hit the ball on.

Which is why I'm suggesting that the miss rule actually be based on the execution of the shot, rather than whether the cue ball is struck.
The spirit of the rule is to punish a player who plays out of a snooker in a way that allows them to perhaps take a penalty, but ultimately puts their opponent in a low percentage position. Up until the cue ball actually makes contact with the ball on, the player should be subject to the rule, at the referee's discretion.
The stroking of the cue ball should not be a determining factor in whether the rule can be applied.
What if a push shot is made? Is it a foul or a miss? Either way, it is a failure to execute the shot, and the miss rule could be applied, given the spirit of the rule, namely, punishing player A for unsuccessfully attempting a low percentage shot in order to leave his/her opponent in a low percentage position.

[DawRef]

What if a push shot is made?

Section 2 Rule 18:
A push stroke is made when the tip of the cue remains in contact with the cue ball
(a)after the cue ball has commenced its forward motion, or
(b)as the cue ball makes contact with an object ball except when the cue ball and object ball are almost touching, it shall not be deemed a push stroke if the cue ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball.

Therefore, if the cue ball is touching an object ball, then a foul will be called for playing a push stroke. However, if the cue ball is touching a ball NOT ON, i.e. the player is snookered, then a Foul and Miss could be called. You cannot be called for both in the same stroke.