Not a question for referees (just a bit of fun)

[DawRef]

Consider this. A player pots a colour and leaves the cue-ball tight in the jaws of the middle pocket. The last red is on the cushion such that the curved face of the middle pocket obstructs the path of the cue-ball.
The player goes across the table in order to hit the red, but misses. The referee calls 'Foul and a Miss' and awards the appropriate penalty. His opponent exercises his right and has the ball(s) replaced. The player again tries the one cushion escape and misses again. His opponent has the ball(s) replaced and asks him to play again.
As the player has now missed twice and is NOT snookered on the red (Section 2 Rule 16(e)), does the referee warn him that a failure to hit the red, will forfeit the frame?

[cally]

If there was a clear path to the OB the 3 miss rule would apply, but not being a clear path to OB it would cancel out the 3 miss rule, right?

So the ref would'nt warn of a forfeit (i reckon)...

[Souwester]

Not a question for referees...

OK I won't answer it then!

[thinsy]

Nice question

At first some people may even query the miss being called but as most of us do know, the shot is not a 'snooker' so a miss technically should be called... However, it is my guess that (as already mentioned) the 3 miss rule does not apply because direct contact can not be made!!

I hope I'm right... I want to 'test' my referee mate tonight

If a referee (or a knowledgeable person) PM me the answer (so not to ruin other peoples guesses on this thread) I would be greatful

[Terry Davidson]

As the rules state a player cannot be snookered by the pocket angle I would say the 3 miss rule is in effect.

Although this would happen rarely, I've seen a fair few occasions where a player is snookered (er...I meant 'angled I guess, thanks to Krypton) by the jaw of a pocket with no intervening balls obstructing a direct path to the object ball.

As a referee I would feel real bad about this call and I think perhaps a minor alteration to the rules is called for in this case.

I might even keep calling the miss but not give the warning after 2 misses as in reality there really is no clear path to the object ball although there is a simple one-cushion escape available to the player.

Terry

[Krypton]

The rule "snookered" and the rule "3 misses -> frame lost" have 'nothing' to do with each other, terry, sorry

[cally]

So everyone sort of saying what i said basically......

[Terry Davidson]

krypton:

This I knew and I meant 'angled' rather than the technical term 'snookered' although it works out to the same thing as the player has no direct path to the ball on.

Gimme a break as it was very early in the morning here and I was just taking my first sips on my first coffee of the morning and still in my PJs.

So, please give us the benefit of your knowledge and tell us how you would call it.

I think as written the 3 miss rule makes it tough when a player is angled on the ball on and sometimes the hit can be difficult if for instance he is angled by the yellow pocket knuckle and the object ball is between pink and blue with the baulk colours or middle pocket in his escape path for one cushion escape and the 2 cushion escape might be blocked too

Terry

[Kyra]

I recently had a chat with a Pro-Referee. He said it would take quite some "balls" to apply the 3-miss-rule in a situation like this. He didn't say what he would do. But I would use commom sense here and not warn the player.

[Souwester]

In thinking about the OPs scenario, you might like to consider section (c) of the 'Foul and a Miss' rule.

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. 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.

(a) After a foul and a miss has been called, the next player may request the offender to play again from the position left or, at his discretion, from the original position, in which latter case the ball on shall be the same as it was prior to the last stroke made, namely:
(i) any Red, where Red was the ball on,
(ii) the colour on, where all Reds were off the table, or
(iii) a colour of the striker's choice, where the ball on was a colour after a Red had been potted.

(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.

(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.

(d) After the cue-ball has been replaced under this Rule, 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, and the striker fouls any ball, including the cue-ball while preparing to play a stroke, a miss will not be called if a stroke has not been played. In this case the appropriate penalty will be imposed and
(i) the next player may elect to play the stroke himself or ask the offender to play again from the position left, or
(ii) the next player may ask the referee to replace all balls moved to their original position and have the offender play again from there, and
(iii) if the above situation arises during a sequence of miss calls, any warning concerning the possible awarding of the frame to his opponent shall remain in effect.

(e) All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee.

(f) After a miss and a request by the next player to replace the cue-ball, any object balls disturbed will remain where they are unless the referee considers the offending player would or could gain an advantage. In the latter case, any or all disturbed balls may be replaced to the referee's satisfaction and in either case, colours incorrectly off the table will be spotted or replaced as appropriate.

(g) When any ball is being replaced after a miss, both the offender and the next player will be consulted as to its position, after which the referee's decision shall be final.

(h) During such consultation, if either player should touch any ball in play, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker, without affecting the order of play. The ball touched shall be replaced by the referee, to his satisfaction, if necessary, even if it was picked up.

(i) The next player may ask if the referee intends to replace balls other than the cue-ball in the event that he should ask for the stroke to be played from the original position, and the referee shall state his intentions.

[Odrl]

Well... The part of the rules that discusses the 3-miss scenario doesn't actually use the word "snookered", which is a term that is defined earlier in the rules.

It only talks about a "clear path in a straight line" to the object ball(s), which clearly isn't available in this scenario. So I would say the 3-miss rule isn't part of the equation here.

[Krypton]

Yep, that's what I was after...

People BELIEVE that you lose a frame after 3 misses when you are NOT SNOOKERED. But this is not the case, as Odrl said. The '3 misses -> frame gone' rule speaks of the open, clear path for the cue ball for a center ball hit on the object ball, which is a completely different pair of shoes.

in fact: not snookered <> clear path (not the same)

The two things have to be looked at separately.


In fact, there are 2 scenarios that might seem strange, but perfectly fit the rule's wording:

A) scenario in the original post: you are not snookered, but there is no clear path. You might miss as many times as you like, without losing the frame. The 'not snookered' bit is irrelevant here. Rules give instructions on how to deal with snookers, not on how to deal 'non-snookers'.
question: "Is there a clear path?" - "No." (if "no", the 3-miss-rule CANNOT be relevant)


B) the contrary: you ARE in fact snookered, technically, according to the rule. But, nevertheless, you have a clear path for a center ball hit. THEN you can lose a frame due to 3 consecutive misses, even though you were snookered. The 'being snookered' is NOT necessary, as can be seen in the rule.
question: "Is there a clear path?" - "YES." (so it's irrelevant whether you're snookered or not, the 3-miss-rule IS always relevant).

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 ...

(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 ...

(c) then tells you that after 3 misses according to (b), you lost the frame. The snooker term is not needed.


The best example to show this is:

all colors on their spots, last red touching the brown, but exactly on the imaginary center line of the table (on the place the brown would be spotted, if all spots were occupied). The cue ball has just dropped/gone in-off.

The next player is technically snookered on the last red (has a free ball from "in hand").
Let's say he puts the cue ball close to the green and decides to go for the red: of course this is a snooker - technically spoken - as he cannot hit the red on the right side. BUT he can hit it center ball.

So, should he miss the red (unlikely), the 3-miss-frame-lost-rule is applied!

Other example: one red left, 2 colors between cue ball and the red, but with a gap in between them wide enough for the cue ball to go through, but not wide enough so both extreme edges of the red can be hit. This is a snooker, yes, but there's a clear path. Better hit this red, at least in the 3rd attempt.

[DawRef]

Hint: Defintion of a snooker.
I bought this scenario up at a referees meeting a couple of weeks back. I'll let it run another day or before giving the answer.

[Hyperonic]

As the player has now missed twice and is NOT snookered on the red (Section 2 Rule 16(e)), does the referee warn him that a failure to hit the red, will forfeit the frame?

Since there is no central, full-ball contact available, therefore, the referee won't warn him.

(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, then:
(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.

[Hyperonic]

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

Would it be a miss if the referee thinks the striker honestly endeavoured to hit the snookered ball on but missed it from quite a distance due to his poor judgement ?