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

[lk8]

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.

unfortunately the game needed Ronnie to survive, just like NBA needed Jordan, just like golf needed Tiger, so it doesn't matter how "unsportsman" he become, the penalty wouldn't be more than a slap on the hand, and no ref will dare to approach him fear of losing their job...

I'm still interested to know how the rule can be interpreted to say that a miss can only be called after a stroke have been made..

[The Statman]

You are right; I misremembered the Rule, the stipulation that a shot has to have been played is only referred to in part (d) and not the complete rule, as I had thought.

Looking at it further, I believe that the failing in the Rule is to not cover a player on a colour-after-a-red, as was the situation on Saturday.

Look at it this way: in the vast majority of cases, the shot from whatever position would be the same for both players. Suppose Ronnie had potted a colour and snookered himself on all the reds. Ok, he goes round the table and touches the black with his arm and the foul of seven is called. Here, the call of Miss is irrelevant because, if John elects to play the shot he's on a red; if he calls Ronnie to play again, he too is on a red; if a Miss had been called and Ronnie called to replay the same shot, he would still have been on a red. And anyway, the Miss doesn't make any difference because the cue-ball and reds haven't moved. (It is possible that the black was shunted into a position to make the escape easier/harder, but in essence the Miss call is redundant because there is nothing to replace.)

Therefore this discrepancy can only occur when on a colour after a red. And for that reason, I think the Rules slightly fail in covering this situation. (There are another couple of points where the wording is not 100% watertight but that is for another thread!)

[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. ...

But here you are wrong. Higgins's awful following shot far more affected the outcome of the frame than the incident itself.

He had already seen Ronnie try six times to hit the brown/yellow and got close each time. All he had to do to get it safe was play the same shot, virtually, that Ronnie had played. Higgins had a touching ball so he didn't even need to commit to hitting one of the baulk colours; only play towards them to get it safe. The fact is he hit the blue and left Ronnie with an opening, but that is not the fault of the decision itself.

I was not completely happy with the call at the time, and neither am I 100% now – but it is a fallacy to blame that one incident on John's loss of that frame, let alone the following three as well.

The more I read the Rules closely, the more I am inclined to think that Jan Verhaas acted correctly but that the Rules do want looking at in this specific respect.

[C-J]

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?

if section 3.14(d) is the only exception on the call of a miss,then a miss should have been called as the situation was not as in 3.14(d)

[Monique]

Ok ... there is something I don't get here about all this agressivity and suggestion the foul was done on purpose. From all the previous discussion I understand that even with a foul being called John had the opportunity to ask Ronnie to play from that position AND Ronnie would still have been on a colour. So what would he have gained? He would have got a 7 point penalty and would have found himself in exactly the same situation as before. Or do I misunderstand?
Why John decided to play the shot himself is the real question and as Statman pointed out, he was on a red, with a touching ball and we all would expected him to play a good safety from there.

[AndyG]

Ok ... there is something I don't get here about all this agressivity and suggestion the foul was done on purpose. From all the previous discussion I understand that even with a foul being called John had the opportunity to ask Ronnie to play from that position AND Ronnie would still have been on a colour. So what would he have gained? He would have got a 7 point penalty and would have found himself in exactly the same situation as before. Or do I misunderstand?
Why John decided to play the shot himself is the real question and as Statman pointed out, he was on a red, with a touching ball and we all would expected him to play a good safety from there.

Ah, but Ronnie would have been on a red too, because a miss was not called. In essence he'd got out of a tricky situation on an apparent technicality, which as you can see above, is hotly disputed!

[The Statman]

Ok ... there is something I don't get here about all this agressivity and suggestion the foul was done on purpose. From all the previous discussion I understand that even with a foul being called John had the opportunity to ask Ronnie to play from that position AND Ronnie would still have been on a colour. So what would he have gained? He would have got a 7 point penalty and would have found himself in exactly the same situation as before. Or do I misunderstand?
Why John decided to play the shot himself is the real question and as Statman pointed out, he was on a red, with a touching ball and we all would expected him to play a good safety from there.

I am 100% sure that Ronnie did NOT do it on purpose.

It is a situation which can only come up when snookered on a colour after a red (which is, of course, always a situation arrived at by the same player's previous shot). Therefore I find it highly unlikely that a player would consciously arrive at the idea that he could get out of the situation in that way.

Also, Ronnie has his faults but I do not believe that unfair play in a live situation is one of them.

John played the shot himself because it was a fairly easy safety shot. If he had put Ronnie in (on a red) he would have played the same safety and may well have played it well.

[Monique]

I am 100% sure that Ronnie did NOT do it on purpose.

It is a situation which can only come up when snookered on a colour after a red (which is, of course, always a situation arrived at by the same player's previous shot). Therefore I find it highly unlikely that a player would consciously arrive at the idea that he could get out of the situation in that way.

Also, Ronnie has his faults but I do not believe that unfair play in a live situation is one of them.

John played the shot himself because it was a fairly easy safety shot. If he had put Ronnie in (on a red) he would have played the same safety and may well have played it well.

I can only agree Statsy.

[AndyG]

For the record, because I haven't said it in this thread yet, I agree 100% that this was not deliberate on Ronnie's part. He belongs to the Jimmy White school of calling a foul on yourself no matter how badly you wished you hadn't done it!!

[Martin76]

You are right; I misremembered the Rule, the stipulation that a shot has to have been played is only referred to in part (d) and not the complete rule, as I had thought.

Looking at it further, I believe that the failing in the Rule is to not cover a player on a colour-after-a-red, as was the situation on Saturday.

Look at it this way: in the vast majority of cases, the shot from whatever position would be the same for both players. Suppose Ronnie had potted a colour and snookered himself on all the reds. Ok, he goes round the table and touches the black with his arm and the foul of seven is called. Here, the call of Miss is irrelevant because, if John elects to play the shot he's on a red; if he calls Ronnie to play again, he too is on a red; if a Miss had been called and Ronnie called to replay the same shot, he would still have been on a red. And anyway, the Miss doesn't make any difference because the cue-ball and reds haven't moved. (It is possible that the black was shunted into a position to make the escape easier/harder, but in essence the Miss call is redundant because there is nothing to replace.)

Therefore this discrepancy can only occur when on a colour after a red. And for that reason, I think the Rules slightly fail in covering this situation. (There are another couple of points where the wording is not 100% watertight but that is for another thread!)

I disagree that the rules fail. If it doesn't state that needs to be played for the complete rule, then it was a MISS.

Within the scope of "endeavour to hit the ball on" is approaching the table, forming the bridge etc, IMO. Obviously Ronnie was perfectly capable of forming the bridge and executing the shot without touching the black, a fact he demonstrated on the five or six previous shots. It was thus within his ability. Clearly then he didn't "endeavour to hit the ball on" to "to the best of his ability". Hence FOUL AND A MISS.

Right?

[The Statman]

Maybe. Or maybe he did "endeavour" to hit the ball on but unfortunately happened to touch a ball with his sleeve. One can only judge that by looking at the shot he was endeavouring to play – which, if he has not played it, we cannot.

That is very different from the normal Miss situation, where he goes for other than the easiest ball on, or uses other than the easiest route – where it can be demonstrated that he was "endeavouring" more to leave no opening than to hit the ball on.

It does happen reasonably often that a player grazes a ball with his sleeve, or whatever, while bridging over a baulk colour. A Miss is NEVER called as well. As I mentioned upthread, normally it is of no consequence because no ball has moved – and the same ball is the ball on in all scenarios of who is made to play next – so the Miss call would be pointless anyway.

By your reasoning, if a player had a clear path and had already missed twice – and was therefore on a warning that a third failure would lose the frame – then if he got down for his third attempt and touched a ball with his sleeve, you would dock him the frame when he hasn't even made a third attempt.

I think the wording of subparagraph (d): "(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. ...makes it clear that in that scenario he will be called foul but no Miss, but it goes on to say that if under a potential warning it shall remain in place.

[Monique]

I disagree that the rules fail. If it doesn't state that needs to be played for the complete rule, then it was a MISS.

Within the scope of "endeavour to hit the ball on" is approaching the table, forming the bridge etc, IMO. Obviously Ronnie was perfectly capable of forming the bridge and executing the shot without touching the black, a fact he demonstrated on the five or six previous shots. It was thus within his ability. Clearly then he didn't "endeavour to hit the ball on" to "to the best of his ability". Hence FOUL AND A MISS.

Right?

Martin, following this reasoning each time a player brushes a ball with his sleeve, waistcaot, touches it accidentaly with a body part or with his cue, or leaves an implement on the table that is subsequently hit by a ball ... almost every of these fouls then should be called misses because obviously they ALL have the ability not to foul in almost ANY of these situations. They result from being "distracted", most of the time by concentrating exclusively on the shot to play and forgetting about balls or other things that could be in their way. Would that be right?

[Martin76]

...
By your reasoning, if a player had a clear path and had already missed twice – and was therefore on a warning that a third failure would lose the frame – then if he got down for his third attempt and touched a ball with his sleeve, you would dock him the frame when he hasn't even made a third attempt.

I think the wording of subparagraph (d): "(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. ...makes it clear that in that scenario he will be called foul but no Miss, but it goes on to say that if under a potential warning it shall remain in place.

I take the wording if subparagraph (d) to mean that IF there is a clear path, hence potentially there is a warning situation, THEN a miss will not be called. So you can't be docked a frame by fouling in this fashion. But, the warning shall remain in effect so you still run the risk of being docked a frame when you retake the shot.

It does happen reasonably often that a player grazes a ball with his sleeve, or whatever, while bridging over a baulk colour. A Miss is NEVER called as well.

This is certainly true, though, and seem to contradict me. But subparagraph (d) starts with "After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule..." which implies a miss has already been called. Does this bail me out?

(I might be way off here as I sort of try to interpret different parts of the text as I go along, but it is an interresting and unusual scenario...)

[DawRef]

So now, IMO, we have an anomoly in the rules.
Here are two scenarios which basically are the same, but will have a diferent outcome:
1. Player A pots a red and nominates the yellow. He fails to hit the yellow, the balls are replaced and he is asked to play again. He fails to hit the yellow again, put back in and warned that failure to hit the ball on he will lose the frame (and possibly match). If he now fouls, for example, the blue with his sleeve and asked to play again, he is still on the yellow (or any colour of his choice) and still on a warning;
2. Player A pots a red and is snookered on all colours. He nominates the yellow but fails to hit it. Again the balls are replaced and he is asked to play again (for a colour). As he goes to play his shot, he brushes a ball with his sleeve. This time, if he is asked to play again, he is now on a red.
Why, following scenario 1, is he not still on a colour?
In both scenarios his turn ended when he committed the foul of brushing a ball with his sleeve.

[Martin76]

Subparagraph (d) continued: 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.

Doesn't (ii) above solve it?

By the balls being replaced it implies the offender is replaying the original shot in accordance to subparagraph (a): ...from the original position, in which latter case the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on,
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table, or
(iii) a colour of the striker’s choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.

So, in the actual situation, Ronnie only gets a foul, but Higgins can STILL ask to have the balls replaced and having Ronnie playing from the original position. So it is only a foul, but since it is committed under these specific circumstances, the options for Higgins are the same as if it had been a foul and a miss.