Questions Related to Miss Rule

[Odrl]

Does this mean that the referee can call foul and a miss if the cue ball fails to first hit a ball on when there is NOT a clear path in a straight line even if either player need snooker ?

Yes, but only if the player clearly makes no attempt to hit the ball on. If he at least attempts some sort of escape, even if it's not the easiest one, the miss will not be called if either player needs snookers before or as a result of the shot.

[Hyperonic]

Yes, but only if the player clearly makes no attempt to hit the ball on. If he at least attempts some sort of escape, even if it's not the easiest one, the miss will not be called if either player needs snookers before or as a result of the shot.

You didn't understand my question. I'm not referring to the attempt.

There are two cases when the cue ball is snookered. One is, when the cue ball can directly hit some part of the ball on. And the other case is when no part of the ball on can be hit directly. In both the situations the cue ball is snookered. So we can have two types of misses. Will it be called foul and a miss when the ball on cannot be hit directly even if the striker attempts some sort of esacpe and either player needs snooker ?

[Odrl]

There are two cases when the cue ball is snookered. One is, when the cue ball can directly hit some part of the ball on. And the other case is when no part of the ball on can be hit directly. In both the situations the cue ball is snookered. So we can have two types of misses. Will it be called foul and a miss when the ball on cannot be hit directly even if the striker attempts some sort of esacpe and either player needs snooker ?

Nope, the miss would not be called in this scenario.

[Hyperonic]

Is foul because of miscue considered a miss or not ?

[DawRef]

Is foul because of miscue considered a miss or not ?

If neither players need snookers, then, yes, a miscue would still be called Foul and A Miss.
Reason? A miscue is still a stroke and the relevent part of the definition of a stroke is Section 2 Rule 6 (a):

A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue.

[The Statman]

Will it be called miss if the striker

1). can directly hit a ball on but miscue occurs

Yes

2). fails to hit a ball on in a direct path, when trying to pot it with very thin cut

Yes

3). after potting a red, cue ball is in the black ball area and touching another red. Playing for one of the yellow or brown located on their spot is easier than playing for black because of awkward cueing.

If the colour he goes for is not the easiest to hit, then a Miss will be called. If replaced, the player can change his intended colour.

4). tries to pot a ball on located near the center pocket, which can be directly hit but cannot be potted this way. So the striker sends the cue ball to the top cushion and back comes the cue ball but misses the ball on.

Yes. The other player will possibly not have the balls replaced, in case the shot is successful next time. But he is entitled to have the option.

5). Either player requires snooker but no part of the ball on can be directly hit. will it be called miss if the stryker fails to hit it ?

As long as the referee is satisfied that it was not a deliberate miss. Because one of the players needs snookers, it will almost always be a genuine attempt. But the rule is written that way so that, if the player blatantly makes no attempt – such as tapping the cue-ball a few inches – the referee still has the power to call a Miss.

[King T]

Another question that I would like to answer.

If the striking player accidently hits/touches a ball beneath him as his cloth contacts it, what procedure should be taken?

In a match between O'Sullivan and Carter (NIT I think) O'Sullivan accidently touches a ball, referee Michaela Tabb calls a foul, awards Ali carter 4 points. Ronnie accidently touches the ball again before striking the cue ball, this time she goes like: You touched it again haven't you? earned Carter another 4 points then hand in the shot to Carter rather then Ronnie completes his break.

Is there a max. number of times to accidently touch a ball or what was the case?

[Hyperonic]

Another question

Will it be called a miss when cueing over a touching ball, the cue touches the touching ball when the stroke is played but the cue ball goes on to hit the ball on ?

[DawRef]

Will it be called a miss when cueing over a touching ball, the cue touches the touching ball on when the stroke is played but the cue ball goes on to hit the ball on ?

No. It is just a foul and the requisite number of points given to his opponent. If the foul was committed during the stroke, then a foul and miss will not be called. If the ref calls foul and then the player plays a stroke, the referee would be quite right to replace all the balls (once the foul was called, the players turn ended and it now becomes 'ball moved other than by the striker').

[Hyperonic]

...or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but the obstructing ball or balls.

If the cue ball is near the edge of corner pocket and is surrounded by a ball not on while the ball on is near the other side cushion. The striker can send the cue ball towards the top cushion or towards the side cushion as if he is attempting to hit the ball on. In both the cases the ball not on will be hit. What will be the outcome if he attempts to play in either way ? Can he play the shot in either way ?

[The Statman]

...or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but the obstructing ball or balls.

If the cue ball is near the edge of corner pocket and is surrounded by a ball not on while the ball on is near the other side cushion. The striker can send the cue ball towards the top cushion or towards the side cushion as if he is attempting to hit the ball on. In both the cases the ball not on will be hit. What will be the outcome if he attempts to play in either way ? Can he play the shot in either way ?

Yes I would expect the player normally to 'aim' directly at the ball he nominates. I think the rule is worded that way so that you cannot nominate a colour which would still not be hittable if the impossible scenario wasn't there.

Imagine that the cue-ball was surrounded by reds, in the pack, and the player was on a colour. Let's say the pink is close to its spot and the brown and blue are also spotted. It would not be within the spirit for the player to nominate brown and play directly towards it - because the blue and pink are in the way. In that scenario it would be fair to call a Miss because he is not aiming as if the reds were not impossibly snookering him.

Another situation is: cue-ball in the jaws of pocket surrounded by two colours. The red is against one of the side cushions on the same side/end of the table. If the two colours were not impossibly snookering him, the jaw of the pocket would be preventing a direct shot at the red. In this case it would be ridiculous for the player to aim directly at the red, because without the impossible situation he would be aiming for the angle of the cushion.

We could make an even more complicated situation like this:
One red remaining, against the baulk cushion behind the green. The cue-ball is against the top cushion directly behind the black, with the yellow and brown resting against it like Mickey Mouse ears, preventing the cue-ball from going anywhere. The black is on its spot. Playing directly towards the red, even with sufficient strength, would not be a valid 'attempt' because the player was aiming directly at the black.

When you read the 'impossible' section, the wording ends with "...in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but the obstructing ball or balls. – it is easy to visualise this that, if it wasn't an impossible snooker it would not be a snooker. In fact, remove the impossible snooker and it could still be a snooker, just not an impossible one!

[Hyperonic]

(c) After a miss has been called under paragraph (b) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or that could have been on, such that central, full-ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:
(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the same position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless of the difference in scores, and
(ii) if asked to play again from the original position, the offender shall be warned by the referee that a third failure will result in the frame being awarded to his opponent


Either player needs snooker and a red ball has central, full-ball contact available while the cue ball is touching blue ball on its spot such that to hit the red ball directly the spider rest is needed. The striker plays but the cue ball fails to hit the red and also the cue touches the blue ball. Will it be called foul and a miss or only a foul ? Will the striker lose the frame if he misses the red in the third attempt ?

[The Statman]

(c) After a miss has been called under paragraph (b) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or that could have been on, such that central, full-ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:
(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the same position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless of the difference in scores, and
(ii) if asked to play again from the original position, the offender shall be warned by the referee that a third failure will result in the frame being awarded to his opponent


Either player needs snooker and a red ball has central, full-ball contact available while the cue ball is touching blue ball on its spot such that to hit the red ball directly the spider rest is needed. The striker plays but the cue ball fails to hit the red and also the cue touches the blue ball. Will it be called foul and a miss or only a foul ? Will the striker lose the frame if he misses the red in the third attempt ?

It will normally be called only a foul if a player needs snookers before or after the shot. (The paragraph you quote will not apply because a Miss will not have been called under (b) above.)

If we assume neither player needs a snooker, then a Miss MUST be called because the player failed to hit the red and direct contact was available. The cue touching the blue can be disregarded in respect of the Miss (except that it will be a foul of 5 points not 4). The Miss is judged on whether the cue-ball makes initial contact with the ball on. Cue touches blue AND red is hit = Foul 5 but no Miss. Cue touches blue and red is not hit = Foul 5 and a Miss.

[Hyperonic]

It will normally be called only a foul if a player needs snookers before or after the shot. (The paragraph you quote will not apply because a Miss will not have been called under (b) above.

but this statement says that miss will be called

(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the same position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless of the difference in scores, and

[The Statman]

Ah yes. at the initial attempt, if neither player needs snookers before or after the shot, then a Miss will be called, of course.

If there is a full clear path to the red*, then if replaced the 3-strikes-and-you're-out aspect will remain in force for the second and third attempts, even if a player then needs snookers as a result of one of those subsequent attempts.

Therefore, the situation you describe could only arise as a Miss if it was the second (or third) attempt from a position where, after the first attempt, the striker did not need snookers but now does.

And then, yes, it would be a Miss, with warning to follow if it is the second attempt, or loss of frame if the third.

* or colour if red not the ball on.