Miss Rule Etiquette

[Souwester]

Almost all in the amateur torunament game do as well. Here the ability of the player and the difficulty of the shot should be considered in the ref's judgment or remove that part fo the rules' wording.

I was refereeing an EASB event on Sunday, and in the first frame of the final I called four consecutive misses, for failure to make a simple one cushion escape. I'd have happily called a lot more in that situation.

A little later in that frame I called two misses for what I considered to be not particularly close attempts at hitting the ball on, but on the third attempt it was rather closer, and I did not call a miss.

The same thing happened again in the following frame: two misses then a closer outcome, and no miss called.

To my mind that's how it should be, and most referees would make similar decisions.

In my local league the Miss rule has been played ever since it was introduced, generally without a problem. There are some better players who are more likely to call for a miss than others, but generally there are no arguments. Some lesser players don't bother calling misses at all.

[coomsey76]

I like that Jim, that sounds like a more sensible solution for the league matches.......
Because you know the players in the A division should be of a standard to get out of most snookers!!

[simon dent]

I was refereeing an EASB event on Sunday, and in the first frame of the final I called four consecutive misses, for failure to make a simple one cushion escape. I'd have happily called a lot more in that situation.

A little later in that frame I called two misses for what I considered to be not particularly close attempts at hitting the ball on, but on the third attempt it was rather closer, and I did not call a miss.

The same thing happened again in the following frame: two misses then a closer outcome, and no miss called.

To my mind that's how it should be, and most referees would make similar decisions.

In my local league the Miss rule has been played ever since it was introduced, generally without a problem. There are some better players who are more likely to call for a miss than others, but generally there are no arguments. Some lesser players don't bother calling misses at all.

Thats sensible and its good to see but that thinking or judgement appears NOT to be universally understood at amateur level.

[Welshsteve]

We do not play the miss rule in normal league and cup competitions in our league for the simple matter that because there is a such a wide range of abilities, applying the "black and white" nature of the miss rule just isn't fair on the lesser players. We just place trust in the players to be honest, and it works. We do from semi finals onwards, where matches are refereed by qualified referees, play the miss rule in it's entirety.

The main argument about the miss rule I have seen is that a player misses a ball by a couple of millimetres and a miss is called. The referees argument being that "if you can get that close, you can hit it".

As we all know though, most snookeres in the middle of a frame when there are a lot of reds on the table are easy to hit. It's just in everyone's competitive nature to try and hit a red that won't let our opponents in. This is why the miss rule was brought in.

The UK League Snooker Tournament - www.leaguesnooker.com - uses a simplified rule in that a miss can be called if a player isn't snookered but still misses the object ball(s).

[poolqjunkie]

I think I read somewhere that instead of speeding up the game with the 3-miss-then-ball-in-hand rule applied in 6 reds, it actually dragged the game on much longer when a lot of safe shots were played in an attempt to gain the ball-in-hand advanatge.
In principle once with a ball-in-hand one should find it easier to make a 40 something break and win the frame; while in fact in a lot of cases when that opportunity did present itself the colours were already all messed up thus making a decent break more difficult to achieve. The ball-in-hand rule seems to promote the playing of more defensive and intentional foul shots when one would just mess up the colour with his/her last miss attempt. Some players also tend to opt for the roll up safety more often in order to get a ball in hand rather than going for the more aggressive shot hence making the match longer. I think I read about this somewhere regarding a 6 red ladies event, may be it was the Asian Games?

[Welshsteve]

The IBSF have applied the ball-in-hand rule for the upcoming world 6 reds championship (not to be confused with the pro version). Basically if a player fouls they have the usual options plus the option to have the ball in hand, except when snookers are needed

[The Statman]

... The ball-in-hand rule seems to promote the playing of more defensive and intentional foul shots when one would just mess up the colour with his/her last miss attempt ...

Yes that's the problem with any rule which limits Misses to a certain number. The player will be under no incentive to make any sort of genuine effort to hit on the last attempt. Similarly, suggestions to abandon Misses and instead give an automatic free ball from anywhere - the player will just play the white to a position which gives no attractive shot at ANY ball.

This is fine if the strategy involved with deliberate fouls is something the game is looking for, but somehow I doubt this is the case.

[Welshsteve]

Surely the deliberate foul is covered by the "ungentlemanly conduct" rule though?

[simon dent]

Yes that's the problem with any rule which limits Misses to a certain number. The player will be under no incentive to make any sort of genuine effort to hit on the last attempt. Similarly, suggestions to abandon Misses and instead give an automatic free ball from anywhere - the player will just play the white to a position which gives no attractive shot at ANY ball.

I cant see this, if you know that you have one last attempt to play an escape you will be trying as much as you can to avoid your opponent having ball in hand, surely?

Thats the whole point of '3 attempts and ball in hand' - although I think this should be 5 attempts.

[The Statman]

I cant see this, if you know that you have one last attempt to play an escape you will be trying as much as you can to avoid your opponent having ball in hand, surely?

Thats the whole point of '3 attempts and ball in hand' - although I think this should be 5 attempts.

Not sure. If you feel that going full-blown for the object ball is likely, whether you hit it or not, to offer your opponent a clearance opportunity, you may feel that just rolling a colour safe but conceding ball-in-hand is the higher-percentage option to avoid loss of frame.

Or, if the object ball is not attratclively pottable from in-hand anyway, you might as well just tap the cue-ball rather than risk leaving it nearby to the ball on.

I'm not sure that the ungentlemanly conduct rule does adequately cover shot choice. Misonduct would generally involve loss of frame for a subsequent offence. If this occurred and a second Miss situation arose, and the player's final attempt fell short but was arguably not a full-blown attempt, it would be a very harsh subjective decision of the referee which saw a frame forfeited for ungentlemanly conduct, particularly if the player genuinely misjudged or miscued. This would open a huge can of worms, potentially – worms which I think are best contained in the can.

Failure to do one's utmost has always been penalised by the Miss rule, not by anything connected with ungentlemanly conduct - while deliberate in-offs (to get to baulk when natural path is difficult) are not penalised at all other than the 4 points (and anyway, it is a flimsy decision because the player could claim he was going for the two cushions but hit it too thick).

[simon dent]

Failure to do one's utmost has always been penalised by the Miss rule, not by anything connected with ungentlemanly conduct - while deliberate in-offs (to get to baulk when natural path is difficult) are not penalised at all other than the 4 points (and anyway, it is a flimsy decision because the player could claim he was going for the two cushions but hit it too thick).

An ungentlemanly shot should be replaced and the snookered player is then forced to play his best shot, so the idea of rolling balls safe will not be available to them. I agree that I wouldnt want to see frames lost over this, the point is to make it less contentious not more.

As far as going in-off is concerned, I have no problem with this shot as its still a shot of skill to actually get the in-off. Its surprising how many snooker players struggle to do it when asked.

[poolqjunkie]

When the tournament starts giving out ball in hand, which is a hugh advantage for a top player, the shot selections will change. For example, if the scores are very close and one player has a semi tough shot to play, with the ball in hand situation, he might go for playing a roll up snooker as it can award him a ball in hand which he could use to clear the table with; while without a ball in hand , he may go for the shot because the benefit of a foul is not as big--he may gain 4, 8, or 12 points with the foul whereas if he makes the shot he has a chance to win the frame.
From the other player's point of view, if he misses the snooker he could give up the frame with a ball in hand, so instead of trying to hit it, he might go for shooting the black safe, or tight up the last red with another colour so it would not go anywhere or to shoot the yellow safe to try making the clear up impossible.
I dont believe you can simply call a foul on these shots based on ungentleman conduct. When ball in hand is introduced, it is no longer the same game.
In theory ball in hand can speed up the game and make it more aggressive but in reality I think it could do the exact opposite.

[The Statman]

Yeah, exactly. If you're going to have a limit of Misses of, say, 3 or 5 – or even 1! – you cannot then easily say that 'ungentlemanly' deliberate misses can continue to be called when there is such a big penalty as in-hand. For the simple reason that what if it is a borderline one?

Here's a radical suggestion: After the 3rd (or 5th) Miss, they can continue to be called but have a penalty thereafter of only 1 point.

This would allow the principle of the Miss to continue to be operated, but would mean that a single snooker would not be able to dictate the outcome of a frame to such a large degree. I know that there would have to be thought as to what if the blue, pink or black were hit because they should attract a higher penalty, but I think this could be worthy of trial.

[Welshsteve]

I think the way things are in the professional game doesn't really need much changing because all the players are capable of making proper attempts at getting out of a snooker, and the players and referees should know. The one thing that does gripe me is the miss being called regardless of how genuine, even if the snooker is EXTREMELY difficult, and a player makes a great effort at getting out of it, just misses it and a miss is called. Whether they've hit it soft or hard. This usually happens when there are few object balls (reds). Sometimes a snooker is so good it's just a case of you having to hit it.

The problems lay in the amateur game, and as a result, in pro-ams, where player abilities vary considerably, and therefore make it difficult to apply a rule that's fair to all. What may look like a terrible effort at a get out to most of us, could be a genuine attempt from somebody who doesn't have the knowledge of angles, or ability to play the shot.

[poolqjunkie]

Yes, Stateman, I think especially with ball in hand in 6 reds the advantage can be so hugh tha we should think about a different alternative. I think ball in hand will really change the way the game is played.
WelshSteve, I agree with what you said. I believe the thinking is that a top pro is supposed to hit almost any snooker so the ref will almost alwasy award the miss call. But with regular league level players or even top amateurs to call a miss is a very delicate matter, especially if the score is very tight as it could turn the game around. Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if it is a fair idea to award the player who has been behind in the frame all along more than 20 or so points from several foul and a miss calls when his opponent has displayed better potting with better break building ability in the frame but ends up losing because of the misses of hitting a very difficult snooker. Some of the snookers are as you said very hard to hit even for professional players. I am all for the miss rule in principle because a player is supposed to give his full attempt to hit a snooker. The problem as I see it is not in the rule itself but who makes the call and whether the call is really justified.