Amateur Foul & Miss

[Twister167]

Hi everyone,

The Foul & Miss rule seems pretty tough to amateurs like me. Me and my mates barley manage breaks into the mid 20's and it seems quite harsh to give potentially dozens of points away on a snooker - especially a flukey one, as many of them are with our skills!

I was just wondering what you guys out there do? Do you enforce this rule for not its full? Do you limit this rule, say to 2 or three attempts?

Dunno maybe I should just get better at getting out of snookers!!!

Thanks!

[Twister167]

*Do you enforce this rule to its full?*

(Wish I could type!)

Original Source: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...#ixzz110FqR2Rt
TSF - TheSnookerForum.com

[best1966]

In the league I play in, we only call a miss if you can see the ball on centre ball, or on occasions if there is what's considered a fairly easy one cushion escape, especially if there is still 15 reds to go at!!

[Souwester]

I don't think there is any problem in calling F&M when the player can see any part of a ball on.

The problem comes in when to call them when a player is snookered. Whether to call one should really take into account the player's ability and the difficulty of the snooker, and how close he came to getting out of it.

Professional players can get out of just about any snooker, and will usually do so within a couple of attempts or so. Most usually fail because they are trying to make contact with the object ball in a particular way, to leave it safe, rather than simply trying to hit it.

Most decent league players should be able to get out of a one-cushion situation, but lesser players may not. It's all down to common sense.

[shamreez]

Even I would like to know if there is a max number of attempts some one can make you do a play again

[Krypton]

The BAD THING is not the rule itself, it's the players (amateurs) not quite reading or not understanding it.

It says a player has to try his (!) best, and if he did NOT do so, THEN a ref might, can, shall, must... consider calling a Miss, additional to the foul.

As the pros are so very good, they can - normally - hit about any ball they want, and that's why they get a miss called - as they try to leave the table safe and therefor take an extra risk of missing the ball on.

If you score breaks around the 20s, sometimes, then THAT standard defines your level, more or less. I'd consider such a player able to get out of a snooker if he's got to play the ball straight in to one cushion. I'd not give a miss when he misses a more difficult snooker, because HE CAN NOT DO BETTER!!!

When you play 10 escapes, not getting close to the ball, then you simply cannot do it - so a MISS is not unfair, it's WRONG! You really try your best. Take this into consideration: getting out, but leaving a chance, might offer your opponent easy 15, 16 points, then' he'll miss - given the standard.
So it's not even worth giving 8 times 4 points away, just to keep him from having a chance. I try to hit the ball, basta, not giving fouls away. Should he get in and score 16 - so what. I did my best, and I can still catch up by scoring 15 or 16 myself, as only 4 foul points have been given away.

On pro level, leaving a ball on after a successful snooker escape might cost you the frame, as the opponent could get in and score an 70, 80... - so it's well worth taking the risk of a miss, playing with extra safety in mind - even if i play 6 fouls strokes, giving 24 away.


As a rule of thumb: If the points given away by several foul and a miss shots can easily decide a frame, as often (esp. on lucky snookers) seen in beginners matches, then the player's standard is not as good they think, and no misses should have been called. What I want to say is:


As soon as an (amateur) player starts to just COLLECT POINTS by calling misses (because in his case, this is more effective than going to the table, getting into the balls and score heavily), THEN
his (also amateur) opponent will normally say to himself "I just want to hit the f##king ball to stop him collecting points" and REALLY try his best to hit the ball on.

And THAT is, you guess it, exactly the thing he has to do to AVOID a miss being called - so FOUL alone is all you have to call.

Or (last one, I promise) idea:
A pro, given a good chance after a miss, will go to the table and score a break himself. If there's no ball on to pot (or only a difficult one), he might take the MISS - and he takes a RISK by doing so. Of course, there's the chance his opponent leaves him a better chance - but there's also the risk his escape could turn out very well and leave you in big trouble. The place the cueball will end up at is more or less close to where it is already, because his opponent normally only will play with slight adjustments to get out. Of course, millimeters can make the difference of whether a pot is on or not, and it's normal to take this into consideration and hope for a pot when putting the opponent back, but you can predict at least where the cueball will approximately end up.

Are you, with your standard, afraid of your snookered opponent? because you have to risk he could (by SKILL, not luck) leave you a VERY nasty next shot? Not? He can NOT play to get you in trouble? Or even to snooker you back? Because he's barely good enough to just even hit the ball and get out of the snooker? Can you hope for a good chance for a next shot because the outcome of his shot is more or less random? He could leave you a very good chance just because he cannot predict where the cueball will land?

Then voilà, that's exactly the definition of when NO MISS SHOULD BE CALLED.

[Krypton]

Even I would like to know if there is a max number of attempts some one can make you do a play again

no - as long as a Miss is called, you can put him back.

(The rules say that (with exceptions) a miss cannot be called if any of the players needs snookers before or after the shot)

[The Statman]

Yes a lot of the problem is that the average guy down the club sees almost every miss called (rightly) a Miss on the television and they therefore assume that that's the way they should play.

I have seen guys just playing over a couple of pints, lucky to get a break in double figures, who will just pick up the white after any failure to escape from a snooker. And even the offender seems quite happy with the arrangement because he knows no different.

On one occasion, I saw a bloke replace a fiendish snooker about 6 times, even though on about the fourth attempt he was left an easy straight red. And yet ironically, shortly afterwards a player miscued and hit the white sideways about half an inch, and the opponent said "Don't worry, try again" and replaced the white, overlooking the foul!

There is definitely not enough said about it on the television, the fact not so much that it is wrongly harsh, but that it is to be judged on the standard of the player(s) and therefore the way it's used in the professional game does not dictate how it is handled down the club.

Our league officially uses the Miss rule only when full-ball contact is available. Some of the better players in the top division are a bit miffed because they know some shots should really be called (and would call it themselves usually), while in the lower divisions I highly suspect that it is never enforced at all.

[astle_the_king]

The league i play in use the miss rule which i dont mind because you soon find out how strict which clubs ,players,refs are, what bugs me is when your at a club playing a league match and they call misses on one frame and not on other frames ,when you have five different refs your always going to have problems,kills me when your playing away and the match is 2-2 and the opposing teams player lays a difficult snooker you know even if you get within 1/8 inch that balls going back .

[Terry Davidson]

statman:

I agree entirely with your interpretation of the F&M rule. In our ranking tournaments (good amateur level) our tournament director uses the professional interpretation for all players, no matter what their skill level and I've been trying to get that changed to the actual intent of the rule, which is not so harsh for non-professionals.

I've had a case myself in a ranking tournament where I potted a red and ended up inside a group of reds and the only hit I had on was a 4-cushion hit on the green (which would have left a red on for my opponent anyway). On my first attempt I missed the green by about 1in, called a miss and on the second attempt just barely missed the green on the same side by about 1/8th inch. Foul and a miss from the director. As there were about 6 reds left on the table I kept attempting the same shot and because of the throw on the cushions on this club table kept just barely missing the green until I had given up the frame, I think I gave up around 60+ points.

The thing that really made me angry was after each attempt my opponent had two easy pots on which he refused as he knew he had me by the short and curlys and indeed I did end up losing the frame.

However, I resolved to show him how it feels and won a frame later (and the match) on a very difficult snooker for him with one red left frozen behind the pink and him frozen behind the brown with only a 5 or 6 cushion hit left on, which he didn't hit or even come near to

Terry

[The Statman]

The league i play in use the miss rule which i dont mind because you soon find out how strict which clubs ,players,refs are, what bugs me is when your at a club playing a league match and they call misses on one frame and not on other frames ,when you have five different refs your always going to have problems,kills me when your playing away and the match is 2-2 and the opposing teams player lays a difficult snooker you know even if you get within 1/8 inch that balls going back .

And that is one of the problems that leagues have. It is not so much the playing standard but the refereeing standard that is so wide-ranging.

In the professional game, with professional referees, there are the odd occasions which might be different depending on the referee, although they are very rare. However, the majority of league matches are reffed by untrained officials, usually a member of the home team, and inconsistencies are bound to be rife. It will only result in bad feeling on what is supposed to be an enjoyable social evening without the stakes of a professional match!

I think that is, in the end, why a lot of leagues came to the position of calling Miss only if (some kind of) direct contact is available. ANd even then, some untrained referees are better than others at calling it.

[Twister167]

Thanks guys, that's all very informative and really useful.

My opinion is that we're not professionals and this rule is very much more applicable the better the player is.

If I try my best, but foul and leave my opponent on, isn't that enough punishment? Why penalise each other with a rule which seems to me intended to ensure professionals play for a shot that with their skill they could easily get out of though at the expense of leaving the frame at risk.

Admittedly this is a major gripe with me as my mates are better and can usually beat me with their potting skill alone - let alone implementing this rule as we see it on TV!

Cheers

[Twister167]

Oh, and a big thanks for the great detail in some of these posts. This place is a wealth of experience and knowledge!

[APK]

A lot of good info on this post.
I think the thing to take away fom this is that social referees are not necessarily up to speed with the correct enforcement of the Rules.
The Foul and Miss Rule as it stands does ask the referee to take into account the ability of the player. If the social referee ws able to do this it would help the issue massively.
The Rule seen enforced on th TV is no different to Joe Bloggs in the local club. The interpretation should be the same. Unfortunately your mate in the club is not Ronnie O'Sullivan and you are not Jan Verhaas.

[The Statman]

A lot of good info on this post.
I think the thing to take away fom this is that social referees are not necessarily up to speed with the correct enforcement of the Rules.
The Foul and Miss Rule as it stands does ask the referee to take into account the ability of the player. If the social referee ws able to do this it would help the issue massively.
The Rule seen enforced on th TV is no different to Joe Bloggs in the local club. The interpretation should be the same. Unfortunately your mate in the club is not Ronnie O'Sullivan and you are not Jan Verhaas.

Absolutely spot on.

Of course, a lot of the 'social referees' (I like your phrase!) have no real interest in refereeing and why should they. The Foul and a Miss rule is not the only part of the rules that causes prblems, as we probably all know from experience. They are simply players who, in home fixtures, are given the chore of reffing a couple of frames.