Foul and a miss O'Sullivan-Hendry Fr. 23 2008

[cox orange pippin]

I'm somewhat new to the letter of law when it comes to snooker, but I wanted to get an explanation on a concrete situation that occurred in the 2008 WC match between Hendry and O'Sullivan in frame 23. Hendry plays a nice snooker behind the yellow and Ronnie comes to the table and plays off of the green rail and back in attempt to strike a red that is laying quite near the yellow. He comes within a fraction of an inch of striking the red and the referee calls a foul and a miss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNr161XgBg

Now, if we go to the rule as set forth in Section 3, Rule 14, we find the following:

"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."

As I understand this rule, the referee must have believed that Ronnie was not trying to hit the red. Ronnie was totally snookered from all reds, so it seems very clear to me that he's trying to hit the red. In fact, on his third attempt he does. So, why was this not called simply a "foul"?

[Russ]

A professional snooker player is good enough to get out of nearly every snooker he is ever likely to come across. The fact that he does not want to hit the red and leave it in a potable position, but instead to roll up to it and almost rest against it, could mean he gains an advantage by fouling and just missing the red too. To prevent this scenario arising, the miss rule was brought in.

That is my understanding, I'm sure someone will add a more technical explanation soon.

Russ

[Odrl]

Yes, while O'Sullivan did arguably choose the easiest red to play, he tried to play it almost dead-weight, and it also looked like he tried to only hit the extreme edge of the red (you can see his disappointment when he hits it "incorrectly" on his 3rd attempt). I think he thought the white could rest on the yellow if he got it right, which would make it awkward for Hendry. So he increased the chance of missing by trying to get it safe, which is of course an automatic miss. Let's be honest, if his life depended on it, he would have hit that red on his 1st attempt.

[wildJONESEYE]

A professional snooker player is good enough to get out of nearly every snooker he is ever likely to come across. The fact that he does not want to hit the red and leave it in a potable position, but instead to roll up to it and almost rest against it, could mean he gains an advantage by fouling and just missing the red too. To prevent this scenario arising, the miss rule was brought in.

That is my understanding, I'm sure someone will add a more technical explanation soon.

Russ

yes but by just hitting it hoping for luck he hands over the advantage to his oponement.

getting out of a snooker has to be a art not just hitting it for hitting it sake

[Russ]

yes but by just hitting it hoping for luck he hands over the advantage to his oponement.

getting out of a snooker has to be a art not just hitting it for hitting it sake

Who mentioned hitting it and hoping for luck?
It is because professionals are so good that the miss rule had to be introduced.

Russ

[cox orange pippin]

While I understand the explanations given, per the rule, the referee must have thought Ronnie was NOT trying to hit the ball, when in fact he was. Yes, he was trying to hit it in such a way as to leave his opponent with a difficult shot, but isn't that we're all trying to do when we are trying to hit the ball on, but have no chance of potting it?

I guess I need to watch more snooker (which I will in April), but from the responses I have received thus far (that pros can hit the ball on from almost all snookered positions if they want to), is it safe to assume that almost all fouls where the striker misses the ball on from a snookered position are now called foul and a miss?

[wildJONESEYE]

Who mentioned hitting it and hoping for luck?
It is because professionals are so good that the miss rule had to be introduced.

Russ

the miss rule was introduced for the glancing escape Alex Higgins was using all the time.

these days its gone to far where genuine attempts to hit the ball on and keep the table safe is being penalized.

a pro can get out of any snooker however leaving the table for your opomement to clear up is not the object of the game

[Odrl]

I guess I need to watch more snooker (which I will in April), but from the responses I have received thus far (that pros can hit the ball on from almost all snookered positions if they want to), is it safe to assume that almost all fouls where the striker misses the ball on from a snookered position are now called foul and a miss?

Well yes, but that's only because almost all escapes are played with an element of safety. You only get a couple of occasions in a season, where the miss isn't called.

[Russ]

from the responses I have received thus far (that pros can hit the ball on from almost all snookered positions if they want to), is it safe to assume that almost all fouls where the striker misses the ball on from a snookered position are now called foul and a miss?

That kinda sums it up very well!

Russ

[cox orange pippin]

Out of curiousity, when you guys are playing with your mates, do you call "foul and a miss", such that the non-striker can ask that the balls be replaced to their original locations and the striker must play again? This could get a bit tedious.

[AndrewB]

While I understand the explanations given, per the rule, the referee must have thought Ronnie was NOT trying to hit the ball, when in fact he was. Yes, he was trying to hit it in such a way as to leave his opponent with a difficult shot, but isn't that we're all trying to do when we are trying to hit the ball on, but have no chance of potting it?

Suppose the penalty for missing the red on that shot was forfeiting the match. Would he have played it that way? No, he'd have made sure of hitting a red. Therefore, the way he played it didn't maximise his chance of hitting a red, so when he commits a foul it's a miss. (I know that's not how the laws are actually phrased, but it's not a million miles from their intent).

I guess I need to watch more snooker (which I will in April), but from the responses I have received thus far (that pros can hit the ball on from almost all snookered positions if they want to), is it safe to assume that almost all fouls where the striker misses the ball on from a snookered position are now called foul and a miss?

Unless one of the players needs a snooker. Then it can only be a miss if a player does deliberately miss the ball on in the way you suggested earlier. (I've never seen this happen).

[The Statman]

While I understand the explanations given, per the rule, the referee must have thought Ronnie was NOT trying to hit the ball, when in fact he was. Yes, he was trying to hit it in such a way as to leave his opponent with a difficult shot, but isn't that we're all trying to do when we are trying to hit the ball on, but have no chance of potting it?

You are almost right in your interpretation of the referee's thoughts.

The rule states that the player must try to the best of his ability to hit the ball on.

Therefore, in this situation, the referee does not "think O'Sullivan missed it on purpose" as you put it, but rather "did not try to the best of his ability to hit it".

If you think about it in these terms, you can appreciate that trying 'to the best of your ability' means hitting the ball is the main aim of the shot you are trying to play. O'Sullivan undoubtedly had safety as an aspect of his chosen shot, so by definition, having failed to hit it, he was not trying his utmost to hit the red.

I guess I need to watch more snooker (which I will in April), but from the responses I have received thus far (that pros can hit the ball on from almost all snookered positions if they want to), is it safe to assume that almost all fouls where the striker misses the ball on from a snookered position are now called foul and a miss?

Yes, pretty much. A snooker would have to be a very difficult one for the Miss not to be called, in the professional game.

[Souwester]

Therefore, in this situation, the referee does not "think O'Sullivan missed it on purpose" as you put it, but rather "did not try to the best of his ability to hit it".

If you think about it in these terms, you can appreciate that trying 'to the best of your ability' means hitting the ball is the main aim of the shot you are trying to play. O'Sullivan undoubtedly had safety as an aspect of his chosen shot, so by definition, having failed to hit it, he was not trying his utmost to hit the red.

Put more simply, the referee is thinking "could the player have made a better attempt at hitting it?"

[Souwester]

Out of curiousity, when you guys are playing with your mates, do you call "foul and a miss", such that the non-striker can ask that the balls be replaced to their original locations and the striker must play again? This could get a bit tedious.

Most people I know (and many of us really aren't at all good) try to play by the rules, which obviously include Section 3 Rule 14 'Foul and a Miss'. Therefore, we always declare a Miss where the object ball can be hit in a straight line (unless snookers are required).

In getting out of snookers, there has to be a degree of judgement: simple one cushion escapes are mostly called, but even then it really does depend on the ability of the player.

As I said in my last post: could the player have made a better attempt?

[rambon]

The miss rule (correct me if I am wrong someone) is only applicable in the Professional game. When I played in Amateur Leagues it was just assumed that you would always try to just escape from a snooker honestly, and I never in 8 years playing in games with referees, heard a Miss called in the amateur game.

When playing amongst your mates, the Miss should never come into it.