Miss rule imperfection?

[csmarkus]

When no snooker is needed, the player at the table is snookered full ball, misses by a fraction, referee calls foul and a miss because he didn't make a good enough attempt. Balls are replaced, same scenario except snooker is now needed. The player misses the exact same way, and the referee calls foul and a miss because he didn't make a good enough attempt.

Is this how it works? If not, why? Can you pinpoint the exact section, rule and paragraph of the official rules that is in use?

I am really interested in pro referees' opinion about this one because I suspect an imperfection in the wording of the miss rule.

[magicman]

Sorry not to be able to give you the chapter and verse - I'm sure someone will, but the very first instance you highlighted wouldn't be replaced as a snooker is already needed at that point after the foul points have been added. A miss is almost never called when a snooker is required. The rules allow for discretion from the ref but I personally have never seen a ref EVER call a miss when a snooker is required, when playing myself or watching on tv. I personally think the introduction of the miss rule was absolutely necessary but imo still requires further tweaking. The possibility of fluking a snooker during the early part of the frame and possibly getting 30 or 40 points versus a terrifically controlled creative snooker later in the frame gaining only 4 points seems completely unfair to me.

[csmarkus]

Thanks for spotting the imperfection in my own text. Let me do a correction: snookers are required only after the second miss, this way the point of the example remains the same.

BTW, I agree with what you describe about the use of the miss rule. What I'm looking for is why referees don't call a miss when snookers are required.

[RGCirencester]

Referees do not call a miss when snookers are required because the wording of the miss rule states that one must "to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on". If snookers are required then it is assumed that the player will be attempting to hit the ball on, or he would require additional snookers.
The miss rule is worded in this way to stop a player, for instance playing the white safe to baulk when snookers are required without attempting to hit the ball on (say he thought he would definitely lose the frame if he attempted to hit the ball on, whether he hit it or not). The way the miss rule is worded still allows for a miss to be called if the referee thought that the player had made no attempt at the shot, even if snookers are required.

[csmarkus]

... If snookers are required then it is assumed that the player will be attempting to hit the ball on, or he would require additional snookers.

That doesn't explain the case when the player in front misses. The rule is valid for both players.

I'm looking for the exact rule that is in use in my (corrected) example. The "full ball" phrase was included intentionally!

[RGCirencester]

There is no exact rule stating when the referee should call a miss. The only thing that is considered in the miss rule (assuming full ball snooker) is the "endeavour" to hit the ball on. In the case that you are ahead and snookers are required, again you can assume you will be "endeavouring" to hit the ball on in order to retain your lead.

If you would like the exact wording of the rule it is

14. Foul and a Miss
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.

[csmarkus]

Thanks! Maybe I'm seeing it better now but the picture is still not clear. If you look at my example, what is the difference beween the two shots from the referee's point of view? The two attempts are practically identical, yet the first is a foul and a miss and the second one is a foul only? Did the referee's opinion change about the exact same shot? What was not good enough before is good enough now?

[RGCirencester]

Well I'm sure a qualified referee will comment on this at some point, but to me beforehand the player might be thinking for instance "I will play this a little softer than I think I should because a miss will be called and I won't leave him anything that way", the referee could interpret this (rightly) as not endeavouring to the best of his ability. The second attempt the player now thinks he has the pace of the shot, so he plays hoping to leave it very close to the red and safe. Again only playing dead weight though. The third time you would assume that the player will play it firmer, because if he fails to hit the ball snookers will be required, so maybe trusts a little more to luck plays it a bit harder than before. If he still does not make contact and snookers are now required, the referee would most probably give the player the benefit of the doubt, that he thought he was playing with sufficient strength so that he will not require snookers.

The miss rule has always been one that gets debated, because it does not have a specific definition and is up to each referees discretion.

[The Statman]

Here is the bit you need:

(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.

Now, granted, this refers to a position where the player can see the ball.

But look at it this way: The rule is clearly worded on the assumption that, if a player or his opponent needs snookers, or will do if a foul occurs, then it is illogical that the player would be willing to compromise on needing snookers by not trying his hardest to hit the ball.

Therefore, if the player cannot see the ball on, it would be very illogical to call a Miss when, if he had had a clear path to the ball, it wouldn't have been called.

I think that perhaps the subparagraph mentioning 'snookers required' would be better placed in the opening section of the Rule, rather than where it is. As you point out, in reality the Rule is interpreted as if it was placed in the introductory bit.

[csmarkus]

Thanks for the thorough answer, Eirian, it clarifies the referees' way of miss rule interpretation very well!

Having read your answer, do you think it's reasonable to assume the following two "quality levels" for judging whether the shot is a foul and a miss or only a foul?

a) When no snookers are needed, the player must make a very good attempt (according to his abilities) to hit the ball on or a foul and a miss will be called. In professional snooker terms, this is almost always interpreted as "the player must hit the ball on".

b) When snookers are needed, the player must make a decent attempt to hit the ball on or a foul and a miss will be called. That is, he should still try to hit it but a miss will not be called if he fails to hit the ball on.

(So called "automatic" foul and a miss calls are not considered above.)

[RGCirencester]

Here is the bit you need:



Now, granted, this refers to a position where the player can see the ball.

But look at it this way: The rule is clearly worded on the assumption that, if a player or his opponent needs snookers, or will do if a foul occurs, then it is illogical that the player would be willing to compromise on needing snookers by not trying his hardest to hit the ball.

Therefore, if the player cannot see the ball on, it would be very illogical to call a Miss when, if he had had a clear path to the ball, it wouldn't have been called.

I think that perhaps the subparagraph mentioning 'snookers required' would be better placed in the opening section of the Rule, rather than where it is. As you point out, in reality the Rule is interpreted as if it was placed in the introductory bit.

Cheers Statman I've never thought of it like that before, but it does make perfect sense to say if a miss wouldn't be called in an effectively "easier" circumstance of being able to see part of the object ball then it also wouldn't in the more difficult situation where you are completely snookered.

[The Statman]

Thanks for the thorough answer, Eirian, it clarifies the referees' way of miss rule interpretation very well!

Having read your answer, do you think it's reasonable to assume the following two "quality levels" for judging whether the shot is a foul and a miss or only a foul?

a) When no snookers are needed, the player must make a very good attempt (according to his abilities) to hit the ball on or a foul and a miss will be called. In professional snooker terms, this is almost always interpreted as "the player must hit the ball on".

b) When snookers are needed, the player must make a decent attempt to hit the ball on or a foul and a miss will be called. That is, he should still try to hit it but a miss will not be called if he fails to hit the ball on.

(So called "automatic" foul and a miss calls are not considered above.)

Yes, pretty much.

If snookers are required, the Miss should not be called "as long as the referee is satisfied it was not deliberate".

So, let's say the player is snookered behind the yellow on a red that is near the black, and is 32 behind. It is fair to assume that he will want to hit the red, to avoid needing snookers.

He miscues and the white travels only a few inches. This would normally be called a Miss because he got nowhere near the escape – but it would be wrong, I think, to call it in this case because of the 'needing snookers' element which is applicable.

However, if he did decide to make a 'deliberate' Miss (even though this is unlikely to be in his interests) then a Miss can, and should, still be called. Supposing he just taps the white a few inches – that would be a blatant deliberate miss and worthy of a Miss call.

Those two shots I've descrbed above could actually have involved exactly the same travel of the cue-ball; but in the one case it is accidental and in the other it is accidental.

[csmarkus]

Excellent example, easy to understand, thank you very much!

Can I have one more question about the miss rule? I pot a red and the balls end up like shown below. There is a clear straight path from white to centre ball hit yellow but the gaps are exactly ball width plus one micrometer wide! It's a very difficult shot I'm facing yet I'm going to lose the frame if I don't hit the yellow in three attempts? This sounds unfair...

What would a referee do in similar situations?

[Odrl]

Excellent example, easy to understand, thank you very much!

Can I have one more question about the miss rule? I pot a red and the balls end up like shown below. There is a clear straight path from white to centre ball hit yellow but the gaps are exactly ball width plus one micrometer wide! It's a very difficult shot I'm facing yet I'm going to lose the frame if I don't hit the yellow in three attempts? This sounds unfair...

What would a referee do in similar situations?

That's an interesting scenario. A central full-ball contact is clearly available, but the odds are still against the player hitting the object ball directly.

Another similar scenario was mentioned a while ago on another thread...

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...208#post312208

He had a big controversy in the Masters a few years ago concerning the Foul and a Miss rule, when Ken Doherty sent the cue-ball into the back of the pack and was on a colour. After two failed attempts at the black off the side cushion, Chamberlain spoke to both players and said he would not be warning Ken on this occasion since it was so awkward to reach the black direct. He later explained that he had assessed the table from the baulk end and concluded that it was impossible to strike the cue-ball from that end of the table due to the comined distance/height required. This may or may not have been a decision that any other referee would have come to, but I think this incident led pretty directly to a reduction in the work he would be given in the latter ends of tournaments. A tad unfair in my opinion.

So it's not unprecedented for the referee not to give a warning when a direct shot is technically available, but tricky to execute.

I don't know how difficult it would be to play the white through that gap in the pictures, but if it's virtually impossible, I suppose some referees might make a decision "in the interest of fairness" not to give a warning?

Or it wouldn't even come to that. The referee might consider it an impossible snooker, and not call a miss at all, as long as the player played in the direction of the yellow with sufficient strength.

[Luke Hooper]

However, if he did decide to make a 'deliberate' Miss (even though this is unlikely to be in his interests) then a Miss can, and should, still be called. Supposing he just taps the white a few inches – that would be a blatant deliberate miss and worthy of a Miss call.

if it was a deliberate miss, wouldnt that be classed as a deliberate foul and would then lose the frame?