Miss Rule Etiquette

[Steve180]

Never played the miss rule ever or seen anyone try to use it in.

Played in two different leagues in different parts of the country.

Is it commonly used then in the amateur game?

[philip in china]

I saw this discussed somewhere else on TSF and can't remember the answer. What if you are in a snooker which is absolutely impossible to escape? If your opponenet is stubborn enough do you keep playing until you die of hunger, wear through the cloth or until you run out of numbers on the scoreboard? ;-)

[tipes]

I agree with you - I think the miss rule is one of the most abused rules in snooker if a qualified referee is not in charge of a match. It is so open to misinterpretation either wilfully or through ignorance. I think this rule needs overhauling - especially if applied
at amateur level.

Mark

[simon dent]

Only last week in the UK, I think in the Williams/Joyce match, we saw a snooker on the green left near the black end and, I think, Mark Williams refusing to use the miss call. Its good to see pro players disregarding the rule sometimes, I recall Virgo screeching 'Why doesn't he put the ball back?" but that kind of sums up how far some want to take the rule.

Some players done want to win that way when they see their opponent really trying.

If you try and imagine snooker without the miss rule, thus allowing a player to play anywhere on the table and get away we would alll agree thats not a situation we would want.

The '3 tries then ball in hand' puts a player on notice. For snooker I would increase it to '5 tries' because having ball in hand should give a snooker player terrific advantage when you think how important white ball position is. On these fine cloths you may need 5 times also to get the pace and angle. It will move the game on and the players AND audience will know where they stand.

[simon dent]

Never played the miss rule ever or seen anyone try to use it in.

Played in two different leagues in different parts of the country.

Is it commonly used then in the amateur game?

We do use it in the Brighton and Hove League and apply it on the basis of players ability, but I do agree that most players are trying to hit the ball so saying they 'missed' it on purpose is a bit ludicrous.

[The Statman]

Only last week in the UK, I think in the Williams/Joyce match, we saw a snooker on the green left near the black end and, I think, Mark Williams refusing to use the miss call. Its good to see pro players disregarding the rule sometimes, I recall Virgo screeching 'Why doesn't he put the ball back?" but that kind of sums up how far some want to take the rule.

Some players done want to win that way when they see their opponent really trying.

If you try and imagine snooker without the miss rule, thus allowing a player to play anywhere on the table and get away we would alll agree thats not a situation we would want.

The '3 tries then ball in hand' puts a player on notice. For snooker I would increase it to '5 tries' because having ball in hand should give a snooker player terrific advantage when you think how important white ball position is. On these fine cloths you may need 5 times also to get the pace and angle. It will move the game on and the players AND audience will know where they stand.

The big problem I have with the "3 and ball-in-hand" (or any other number) is that on that 3rd (or 5th or whatever) occasion, the player has no obligation to try to hit the ball on.

I imagine a situation with the last red in baulk and I'm 30 in front, snookered behind the black. I try the first time and get called a Miss; I try the second and ditto; the third time I know my opponent will be in hand, so I might instead of trying to hit the red, either just play another colour to put it safe [He'll be in-hand with an easy red but the clearance will be difficult] or maybe play directly into the black to cannon the red back up the table [might not work but maybe worth a bash].

Thus by putting such a rule in place, you are penalising the player for not trying his best on the first two occasions, and then inviting him not to try for the third go. It goes completely against the principle of 100% commitment to playing the ball on.

[The Statman]

I've just read my post above and it looks a bit of a criticism - it wasn't meant as such so apologies simon dent if it comes across that way. The 3-and-in-hand idea has one very good argument going for it and that is that if there is a cap of 3, then you just say every failure to hit is a Miss and that leaves no room for calls based on opinion.

Also sorry to drag this thread rather off topic - so, to return to the topic:

Yes, there is a problem and in matches without a third-party referee there are always going to be occasions where the Rule is misused. Probably no different to if one player is bridging over a ball and the other player falsely calls foul for a sleeve touching the ball.

It does happen the other way as well and I have seen players offer Misses on themselves when I (as referee) would never have called it. Of course, that puts me in a difficult position if I then play a shot which I wouldn't have called on myself but which my opponent would!

So I appreciate that there are problems with it, even when no injustice is intended - so using it inappropriately is definitely possible and tricky.

Not quite sure what the answer is, though!

[simon dent]

No apologies needed statman, I see your point regarding the colours on the final shot, but this would be clear miss and ungentlemanly if anything.

As it stands, even if opponent needs snookers, we could still call a miss if its a blatant miss.

The same with the final shot of 3 or 5 can be viewed in the same way, and the opponent would need to make that effort to hit ball on.

[The Statman]

No apologies needed statman, I see your point regarding the colours on the final shot, but this would be clear miss and ungentlemanly if anything.

As it stands, even if opponent needs snookers, we could still call a miss if its a blatant miss.

The same with the final shot of 3 or 5 can be viewed in the same way, and the opponent would need to make that effort to hit ball on.

But then you would still have the issue of judging whether it was a real attempt or not - and what if it's deemed a deliberate clear miss? Have it replaced again? In which case the clarity of the number 3 (or whatever) is lost in a load of subparagraphs!

Don't get me wrong; there is merit in looking for a way of limiting the Miss rule and/or cutting out decisions based on opinion. Maybe after the initial Miss, all others are worth 1 point! Sounds silly but it would mean the limitless Misses would not add up to a huge deficit so quickly.

Maybe after failure to hit the ball on, the balls can be replaced and the opponent has a go - if he gets closer than the original attempt, he can have the offender make another attempt.

That last paragraph was a joke, by the way.

[simon dent]

I like the last paragraph 'Statman'.

Hmm lots to think about...

[The Statman]

Hmm lots to think about...

Absolutely.

Perhaps the answer is to say limit it to 3 Misses, as long as the third attempt is the closest.

This could work as follows:

• Any failure to hit the ball on will be called a Miss (except if snookers required as per current rule) for the first and second attempt
  Third attempt, if the closest yet, will not be called a Miss and play continues with normal options after a foul
  If third attempt is not an improvement on the first two, then further Miss can be called. Same principle then applies to 4th and subsequent attempts - if the closest yet the Miss sequence ends; if not further Misses are liable.

The danger with this, of course, is the possibility of making two very poor attempts, making a 'better' third a virtual certainty.

So even this seemingly plausible idea has a major flaw which makes it pretty much unworkable.

Certainly the ideal Miss rule, in my eyes, would:

• Remove any Miss calls based on opinion, and
  Have a reasonable limit on the number of points a single situation can yield.

I think this is necessary to make universal operation of the Rule, to the same guidelines, possible - the pros can use it on tv and we can all use the same interpretation in our local games, particularly those without an impartial referee.

It would mean that it couldn't be used in unrefereed matches to gain loadsa points from one snooker, but it is easy enough to operate that it can still be used in unrefereed games.

That's a fairly sound wish, but finding the Rule that makes it possible might be a tricky one.

[vendetta_revived]

Can't the amateur leagues see the constant abuse of the rule and not use it altogether unless a referee is present ?

[tipes]

Some common sense there Simon - I agree with many of your points. We have to find a fairer way forward on this I feel, although having said that it is however difficult to get the balance right.

Mark

[simon dent]

Can't the amateur leagues see the constant abuse of the rule and not use it altogether unless a referee is present ?

In our amateur league a member of the home team does referee the match and its his call. Magicman, had the idea that all should play it so it makes it a level playing field for what is expected.

The main problem for me with the miss rule, is when it is at the end of a frame and seems to unfairly alter the natural outcome.

I do think that the ruling which allows the referee to make a decision based on the ability of the player has no bearing on how the pro or amateur game uses the rule. All failed snooker escapes in the pro game result in a miss. 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.

[jim evans]

miss rule

hi lads the miss rule is used in sheffield a division all the time in the b division it is used only when the shot is deemed easy i think in c division (mine) the captains tend to ask each other before the game and generally play the miss if theres a ball on