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

[lk8]

So now we had an incident in the UK Championship Semi Final Higgins vs OSullivan, where after OSullivan snookered himself after potting a red, instead of going for the "easier" escape where he could've hit the black off 2 cushions, he played to leave it safe by playing off 3-4 cushions going for the baulk colours, so a series of miss was called...... until Ronnie decides to foul the black with his hand while preparing to play the shot, Jan the ref, called a foul, but no miss, so Higgins had to play from where Ronnie left or send Ronnie in from where he left off, with the white touching the red that is now the ball-on (ie. touching ball) Clearly John wasn't happy with the decision, and it had changed the outcome of the frame, and almost the match...


so my interpretation of the rule is, a miss should still be called even when the striker touched and/or moved other balls that are in play, while preparing to play the shot, and the only exception is Section 3.14(d) under (http://www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm)


and the reason I drew to this conclusion is, if this is not true, then you will never have a foul and miss because the striker can get away with it by "accidently" touch/move another ball while preparing to play a shot.. Also I feel if this is not true, then Section 3.14(d) would never exist in the first place... (They must have written 3.14(d) for a reason!)


Section 3.14(d) reads:

(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, 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 the striker fouls any ball, including the cue-ball while preparing to play a stroke, a miss will not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate penalty will be imposed and
(i) the next player may elect to play the stroke himself or ask the offender to play again from the position left, or
(ii) the next player may ask the referee to replace all balls moved to their original position and have the offender play again from there, and
(iii) if the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls, any warning concerning the possible awarding of the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.

But not many seems to agree with me, what is the other ref's say on this?




EDIT: just to clarify my post, what I meant was, if you were never going to be called a miss anyway while fouling when preparing to play your shot, then why do you need a section to give an "exception" where you AREN'T going to be called a miss while fouling when preparing a shot?

[montoya10]

Perhaps this is the real reason why the word 'Unsportsmanship' up in the dictionary

If a player does this deliberately, he is going to lose his whole reputation of being a gentleman..

[AndyG]

(I've already posted elsewhere on this site that) I reckon section 5 part (ii) of these rules provides for the referee to "be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by Rule". This was surely such a situation!

[lk8]

(I've already posted elsewhere on this site that) I reckon section 5 part (ii) of these rules provides for the referee to "be free to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by Rule". This was surely such a situation!

but the point of my post is such that it shouldn't even need to go to the point where the referee have to make a decision based on fair play, but instead, it should've been an automatic miss anyway based on the rules... (read my post again if you still don't get it)

[missneworleans]

Perhaps this is the real reason why the word 'Unsportsmanship' up in the dictionary

If a player does this deliberately, he is going to lose his whole reputation of being a gentleman..

Obvoisly Ronnie hasn't made this deliberately
Still he's not a gentleman for years though

[montoya10]

Obvoisly Ronnie hasn't made this deliberately
Still he's not a gentleman for years though

I know that he didn't do it deliberately. If he was to do something consciously, he would do it on the, let's say second or third attempt..

As for his gentleman status, I don't know.. He is not a kind of arrogant person, but sometimes a reminiscent of a bored aristocrat willing to get rid of his crowded life.. So, he was not rewarded an MBE, right

[missneworleans]

Must be real actor to make that deliberate but not look deliberate
Looks like simulation in football-if you do it wrong-might get a yellow card

[AndyG]

fair enough mate!

but the point of my post is such that it shouldn't even need to go to the point where the referee have to make a decision based on fair play, but instead, it should've been an automatic miss anyway based on the rules... (read my post again if you still don't get it)

I have just taken a few more minutes to pick the bones of what you were saying and now I do agree. Guess I will just stick to lurking in future!

[montoya10]

If Ronnie snookered himself on a red, all these conversations were not going to be made, as even he accidentally touched a ball, call it a miss or not, John would make him continue from the position left.. Which actually would mean that an automatic miss was called unless John makes a mad decision to play the position and escape from the snooker himself,which is an unreal situation..

[lk8]

I think the current rules got it covered, Ronnie tried to bend it by saying he didn't "miss" and Jan wasn't confident enough to hold his line, Jan got it wrong, end of story, either this, or you are trying to say: under the current rules, if you snookered yourself after potting a red (how often this happens), and the white is safe from potting a red, then you do not need to attempt to hit a colour and risk being called a miss, all you need to do is, approach the table, and oops, tell the ref you accidently touched a red, foul, 4 away, no miss, how neat?

my point is simple, under the current rules "if you are never going to be called a MISS when you foul while preparing to play a shot, then why do you need section 3.14(d) to description a situation, the "exception" when you won't be called a MISS when you foul while preparing to play a shot"?!?!

[The Statman]

So now we had an incident in the UK Championship Semi Final Higgins vs OSullivan, where after OSullivan snookered himself after potting a red, instead of going for the "easier" escape where he could've hit the black off 2 cushions, he played to leave it safe by playing off 3-4 cushions going for the baulk colours, so a series of miss was called...... until Ronnie decides to foul the black with his hand while preparing to play the shot, Jan the ref, called a foul, but no miss, so Higgins had to play from where Ronnie left or send Ronnie in from where he left off, with the white touching the red that is now the ball-on (ie. touching ball) Clearly John wasn't happy with the decision, and it had changed the outcome of the frame, and almost the match...


so my interpretation of the rule is, a miss should still be called even when the striker touched and/or moved other balls that are in play, while preparing to play the shot, and the only exception is Section 3.14(d) under (http://www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm)


and the reason I drew to this conclusion is, if this is not true, then you will never have a foul and miss because the striker can get away with it by "accidently" touch/move another ball while preparing to play a shot.. Also I feel if this is not true, then Section 3.14(d) would never exist in the first place... (They must have written 3.14(d) for a reason!)


Section 3.14(d) reads:




But not many seems to agree with me, what is the other ref's say on this?




EDIT: just to clarify my post, what I meant was, if you were never going to be called a miss anyway while fouling when preparing to play your shot, then why do you need a section to give an "exception" where you AREN'T going to be called a miss while fouling when preparing a shot?

The reason it is written as an exception is that the introduction to Rule 14 makes plain that a Miss can only be called on a stroke. In this situation a stroke has not been played so it can't be called a Miss.

The exception is that, although technically not a Miss, the player can still be put in to re-attempt the earlier shot.

[AndyG]

I think the reason for the 14d exception is to make it clear that fouling by touching a ball during a sequence of misses does not count towards your total of three misses under the "three strikes and you're out" policy, although I note that the count is not reset by virtue of 14d(iii).

I'm afraid that I cannot see how the introduction to rule 14 "makes plain that a miss can only be called on a stroke". It simply says "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on." Please help me out on this one, because I'm inclined to side with LK8 at this point.

[AndyG]

And now I'm worried that there is at least one error in rule 3.14(b) as it appears on www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm.

(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.

As I have always understood it, this is the rule that applies even when you are completely snookered, not just "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". If we took this rule literally then the "snookers required" clauses above would actually only apply if you weren't snookered!

I'm forced to conclude that the inclusion of the "when there is a clear path..." clause is erroneous and that it only belongs in (c) and (d). I also believe it should say "OR the referee is satisfied", otherwise we would need another rule for what to do if the referee wasn't satisfied that the miss was not intentional - but I guess that is just pedantry.

I'm also uncomfortable with the slight change in definition between (c) and (d) of what constitutes a clear path. I know that the change in (c) to "central full ball contact" is a more recent update, but should this also have been applied to (d)?

All in all, I don't believe that rule 3.14 is adequately expressed. Instead I believe that the referee should make use of his discretionary powers under 5.1(a)(ii) to make decisions in the interests of fair play. In this instance, even if someone could convince me that a miss can strictly only be called following a stroke, Jan should have called a miss against Ronnie.

[lk8]

The reason it is written as an exception is that the introduction to Rule 14 makes plain that a Miss can only be called on a stroke. In this situation a stroke has not been played so it can't be called a Miss.

The exception is that, although technically not a Miss, the player can still be put in to re-attempt the earlier shot.

thanks for your contribution in this Statman, but I've got a problem finding the part which makes it plain clear "a Miss can only be called on a stroke" as you put it..

the only part where I can read in the rules, that does not allow the ref to call miss is...
*** part b (if snookers required and statified miss was not intentional but are still allowed to call miss if the situation allows)
*** and part d (miss not called but penalised as if it was called miss)

*** whereas part e clearly allows the ref to call any miss at the refs discretion

*** and the refs is the sole judge of fair and unfair play, and I feel Jan did not fulfill his duty, but I believe he is one of the best if not the BEST in the team, but everyone is allowed to make bad calls and mistakes, as long as one learns and try not to repeat the mistake next time instead of defending their own mistakes and covering it up...

but my question to your reply is, where does the rule make it plain clear a miss can only be called on a stroke? Thanks in advance...

[Lux]

I don't find that Ronnie O'Sullivan shows respect for snooker anyway, which is also why I'm always puzzled by his consistently high public appeal.