When did the miss rule start?

[quintahunter]

I've watched a match from 1988 and the referee didn't call a miss on any foul. I thought the rule had always existed.

[csmarkus]

I cannot answer your question but I know that the miss rule was reasonably changed (together with many other rules) in 1994: the "new" foul and a miss rule was introduced. Since that, the miss rule has not changed much as far as I know.

[The Statman]

Yes that's right. The Miss rule was actually in place previously, and the referee at one point was free to just pick up the cue-ball and replace it, without reference to the oncoming player's wishes.

It was rarely used – only if a player was out by a huge margin – and the way it was worded was basically tantamount to accusing the player of cheating, rather than the current wording of 'not attempting to the best of his ability' which is not quite the same as 'deliberately missing'.

The rule came into force on 1 September 1995 and, as noted above, has changed very, very little since, if at all.

[dantuck_7]

Chris, do you know if it's being re-worded giving the situation in the Ronnie Higgins match that cropped up last year?

[missneworleans]

How it can be re-worded?

[poolqjunkie]

Yes that's right. The Miss rule was actually in place previously, and the referee at one point was free to just pick up the cue-ball and replace it, without reference to the oncoming player's wishes.

It was rarely used – only if a player was out by a huge margin – and the way it was worded was basically tantamount to accusing the player of cheating, rather than the current wording of 'not attempting to the best of his ability' which is not quite the same as 'deliberately missing'.

The rule came into force on 1 September 1995 and, as noted above, has changed very, very little since, if at all.

So, before Sept 1995, the incoming player did not have the option of shooting from where the cue ball stopped if the ref deemed it to be a miss?

[csmarkus]

I have the following text of the old rules related to the miss. I don't know whether it comes from the then official rules or is just an unofficial version:

In the Definitions section:
A miss is when the referee considers the striker has not endeavoured to
hit a ball on to the best of his ability. If this is the case, then the
offending player has to play from the original position all balls having
been replaced, if requested by the next player. Note: if the ball on is
impossible to hit, no miss will be called.


In The Professional Game section (there were different rules for professional and amateur level):


When trying to hit a ball on, according to amateur rules you can play
any shot you like, no matter how difficult, even if there is an easier
shot, provided that you really try it in the opinion of the referee - a
miss will not called. (It will be a foul, but not a miss. See "miss" in
"definitions").

In WPBSA tournaments, a miss is also called when a player doesn't make
contact even though he could have made full ball contact with a ball on.
Also a miss is called if the so called "two-cushion escape" is
attempted, and contact is not made. The two cushion escape is played at
the pack of reds off of the side cushion and the top cushion, attempting
to get a thin nick on the pack and getting the cue-ball back in to
baulk. This is a very defensive shot and it can be argued that the
player doesn't really care if he hits a ball on or not. In addition, if
a pro misses three times in a row, he will forfeit the frame. A miss is
not called according to pro rules if anyone needs snookers in the frame.


From this text it looks like the non-offending player had the same choices as today when he came to the table after a miss.

[Nellie]

The miss rule was actually put in place after Willie Thorne admited after a match that he had deliberatly missed hitting the object ball when in a snooker as it was to his advantage to do so. Sorry, don't know what year that was or which match but we have Willie to thank for the introduction of the miss rule.

[The Statman]

So, before Sept 1995, the incoming player did not have the option of shooting from where the cue ball stopped if the ref deemed it to be a miss?

No, that's not quite what I said - I'm not 100% sure though.

There was a time when the referee could just replace the ball; I'm pretty sure that it was a long time ago, though. It may have been that the referee would consider if the oncoming player had an inviting opportunity before doing so.

September 1995 is when the current rule came in; the replace-without-consulting-player was probably not the immediate predecessor.

[DawRef]

According to the late John Streets book, he quotes:

'What is generally forgotten is that the Miss Rule has been in the rule book since at least 1936 but was very rarely, if ever, implemented. Indeed, for quite a long time, it was left to the referee (without reference to the next player) whether to replace balls. An "Official Decision", as it was called (and it was still in the 1978 edition of The Rules), said, " If the striker makes a miss, the referee can order him to replay the stroke penalising him the requisite forfeit for each miss, but he scores all points in any subsequent stroke" - a situation that was far from satisfactory as it could work to the disadvantage of the next player. This 'Foul and a Miss' Rule is an entirely new one in the Rule Book but it was adopted and adhered to by the professionals in all their events many years before it was introduced into the rule book for all players in 1995."

[Mr Snooker]

I think it came in early than 1995, i remember two matches in the 1992 world championships were players complained about the miss rule, one was between John Parrott and Tony Knowles in the last 16 of the world championships, when John Parrott (defending champion) was 6-4 up on tony Knowles and missed the brown, Len ganley the referee called foul and a miss and tony Knowles had the balls replaced and JP potted the brown and won the frame. Tony Knowles never won another frame after that and was beaten 13-4. and on the replay it showed that the brown was placed wrong after Tony Knowles asked for the balls to be replaced which he did not check, you see tony having a word with len after the frame.

The other incident in the same year with the same referee was between Dennis Taylor and Mick Price (whatever happended to him), when Dennis missed the red about four or five times and Len kept calling a foul and miss. After which Dennis said i have a quairy to make, he said look I am missing the red by this much (meaning a fraction) and trying my best to hit the red and said the rule is riddiculous and needs scrapping, both Tony and dennis were not having a go at the referee but the rule. by the way dennis went on to lose that match 10-6, after that I think both players had to agree on the replacement of the balls after a foul and a miss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fj1O...om=PL&index=64

a word with Len after the frame.

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

links here via U tube

[Mr Snooker]

this is the correct link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_npW...om=PL&index=63

it is about 2 mins 10 into the link, Dennis's miss was on yellow after being called for 5 misses and JP's was the green when he potted it after the balls were re-placed wrong after the foul and miss and won the frame

[wildJONESEYE]

Yes that's right. The Miss rule was actually in place previously, and the referee at one point was free to just pick up the cue-ball and replace it, without reference to the oncoming player's wishes.

It was rarely used – only if a player was out by a huge margin – and the way it was worded was basically tantamount to accusing the player of cheating, rather than the current wording of 'not attempting to the best of his ability' which is not quite the same as 'deliberately missing'.

The rule came into force on 1 September 1995 and, as noted above, has changed very, very little since, if at all.

it was cheating in a way.... the getting out of snooker around the angles and not trying to clip the reds was the reason it changed and no matter how you look at it that was deliberately missing.

however these days through lack of common sense or whatever its gone to far in to the realms of hit that ball or lose the frame sucker.

hit any ball, if you like try and hit the reds on the other table lol

you got to judge it on skill and not hit any ball for the hell of it.

[jrc750]

So weird to see Peter with his ponytail

[jb134]

I believe the dispute that led to Horace Lindrum famously winning a world title that was not recognised was down to the miss rule. As ever I stand to be corrected.

The miss was a common part of the game, I remember Dennis Taylor having a go at the ref (which is exactly what he was doing) when rightly repeatedly put back.

Dennis was of the generation that regularly played misses when it was advantageous to do so, in fact there is a very strong argument that had the current miss rules been in place, he would never have been world champion.

Anyone who has seen the final frame may remember his attempt at "hitting" the yellow (I think it was yellow from memory).

However, I now think the rule has gone too far, particularly when implemented in the amateur game where there can be a huge disparity in ability between opponents.

I have frequently seen it used by players who do not have the bottle to pot the balls as an easy way to rack up points and win frames.