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

[The Statman]

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.

Yes – if a push stroke has been made, then by definition a stroke has been made so there is no reason not to call a Miss.

If the player plays a push stroke, but still hits the ball on, then no Miss can be called because the player successfully escaped the snooker. If the player plays a push stroke and also fails to hit the ball on, then the shot is called for two fouls – the push and the failure to hit. The higher value foul is awarded (though they will probably both be 4-pointers) and the Miss can be called without reference to the push shot.

[Hyperonic]

So, reading all that has gone before (including my own posts), if a player pots a red and is snookered on ALL colours, if whilst preparing to play his stroke (after nominating a colour), he fouls a ball with his sleeve and is then asked to play the next stroke, he is then on a red NOT a colour. Correct? Even if it is his 4th or 5th attempt?
Yet if a player pots a red and then misses his intended colour twice (after foul and miss has been called) and is warned, if after being asked to play again, he then fouls a ball with his sleeve and is asked to play again, he is STILL on a colour. Why not a red?

(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,

If a foul is committed, the referee shall immediately state FOUL.
(a) If the striker has not made a stroke, his turn ends immediately and the referee shall announce the penalty

What rule from the above will be applied if the striker, after potting a red, fouls while preparing for the stroke after nominating a colour which is

1). snookered but some part of it can be directly hit
2). fully snookered

while some or all of the other colours are a). not snookered or b). fully snookered ?

Will section 4, rule 14 not apply in any case because this is the striker's first attempt at hitting the colour and the cue ball was not replaced before ?

[Hyperonic]

So, reading all that has gone before (including my own posts), if a player pots a red and is snookered on ALL colours, if whilst preparing to play his stroke (after nominating a colour), he fouls a ball with his sleeve and is then asked to play the next stroke, he is then on a red NOT a colour. Correct? Even if it is his 4th or 5th attempt?
Yet if a player pots a red and then misses his intended colour twice (after foul and miss has been called) and is warned, if after being asked to play again, he then fouls a ball with his sleeve and is asked to play again, he is STILL on a colour. Why not a red?

If Section 3, Rule 14(b) can be applied when the striker is snookered on all colours and either player needs snooker, then why can Section 3, Rule 14(d) not be applied if the striker is snookered on all colours ? Why limit Section 3, Rule 14(d) to the case when the colours are not completely snookered ?

In both the Rules "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" is stated.

[Hyperonic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT6JFuT9PWk

Jan Verhaas says that miss was not called because the shot had not been played. He's right about that, but he could have put Ronnie back in for the colour, which he didn't because he think the offending player can only be put back in for colour if miss has been called.
I think he forgot Section 3, Rule 14(d) in which also a miss is not called when the striker fouls while preparing for the shot but (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.