NEW Miss rule?

[DawRef]

I'm sure I heard the rumour of the ball in hand suggested after the uk

Probably by 'supposed expert' John Virgo.

[Souwester]

Thanks for the reply, Souwester.

I don't know if you agree with me on this, but if you made it 3 misses and ball in-hand (or anywhere on the table), you are in effect inviting the player on his third attempt not to even attempt to hit the ball on. He may as well just push a colour safe or somesuch. That may be safer than guaranteeing a hit and leaving a potential clearance opportunity to his opponent.

Another suggestion I've heard is after 3 misses give an automatic free ball - again, he can just tap the white to a position where even with a free ball there is no attractive pot.

In fact, anything done to limit the amount of Misses will just invite the player to make a tactical foul on the last attempt. I don't see any obvious way around that.

Personally I think the theory of the Miss rule is fine as it is.

Yes, there are some referees who will call it totally differently to another referee, and maybe referees need to be given more *practical* guidance on when to call a Miss. By that I mean setting up certain situations and getting a player to play deliberate get out shots and discuss the whys and wherefores.

I can understand there being problems when players referee themselves, but as I've said elsewhere it has never been a problem in the league I play in. There are one of two players who will ask for a Miss more regularly than others. Some would never dream of asking for a Miss. Note I say ask, because that's the way our league has worked. Sometimes the offender will object , and sometimes there's a short discussion which ends amicably.

[147Alexandra]

6 Red Miss Rule Deleted

Below are the newly updated Rules that have been adopted by the IBSF, and under which the IBSF 6 Red Snooker Championships will be conducted:
1. Delete the "Foul and a Miss" rule;

2. After any foul, the incoming player has 3 options:

• Play from where the balls have come to rest
• Ask the opponent to play again from where the balls have come to rest
• Play the cue ball from anywhere on the table, except when snookers are required;

3. A player cannot snooker behind a nominated ball after potting a red ball.

[Souwester]

Below are the newly updated Rules that have been adopted by the IBSF, and under which the IBSF 6 Red Snooker Championships will be conducted: ...

Just to clarify. Those are the rules that have been adopted SOLELY for the 6-Red game, not the traditional game of snooker.

[Tricue]

Below are the newly updated Rules that have been adopted by the IBSF, and under which the IBSF 6 Red Snooker Championships will be conducted:
1. Delete the "Foul and a Miss" rule;

2. After any foul, the incoming player has 3 options:

• Play from where the balls have come to rest
• Ask the opponent to play again from where the balls have come to rest
• Play the cue ball from anywhere on the table, except when snookers are required;

3. A player cannot snooker behind a nominated ball after potting a red ball.

Ok then... I think that explains where 'the rumour' I heard came from then...

Have to say I think part of the 'problem' (if you want to call it that) with the miss rule is the actual word MISS...
... If instead of calling 'F&M' the referee called something like 'foul & no-hit/contact' you might see less discussion on it as the word MISS still has undertones of a deliberate MISS rather than what it now means?

Either way, it'll be interesting to see how the 6 red championships work out...

[The Statman]

Personally I think the theory of the Miss rule is fine as it is.

Yes, there are some referees who will call it totally differently to another referee, and maybe referees need to be given more *practical* guidance on when to call a Miss. By that I mean setting up certain situations and getting a player to play deliberate get out shots and discuss the whys and wherefores.

I can understand there being problems when players referee themselves, but as I've said elsewhere it has never been a problem in the league I play in. There are one of two players who will ask for a Miss more regularly than others. Some would never dream of asking for a Miss. Note I say ask, because that's the way our league has worked. Sometimes the offender will object , and sometimes there's a short discussion which ends amicably.

I agree with you; I don't see a great problem with the Miss rule as it is - and the theory behind it is certainly sound.

It does seem harsh on occasions and one way, perhaps, that it could be improved is in its erxplanation when awkward but perfectly legitimate examples crop up.

The only wau I see round it, if it perceived that something needs to change, is to call a limit of 3 (or 5 or whatever) Misses, after which the other player may have the cue-ball anywhere on the table but is not allowed to score from his next shot.

[magicman]

As a referee (admittedly not at pro level, but certainly at international amateur level), sometimes a match can go through its entirety without a miss being called. I remember the Home Internationals in 2009 where in one match I went all three frames without any fouls at all.

This is one example and meaningless. I played in the 2005 Home Internationals for England and Andy Lee had a miss replaced 12/13 times. Equally as meaningless!

I can understand there being problems when players referee themselves, but as I've said elsewhere it has never been a problem in the league I play in. There are one or two players who will ask for a Miss more regularly than others.

Forgive me for listing another quote of yours Souwester, but this highlights what I was originally talking about - "ask for a miss?" - it shouldn't be a dialogue, it's the ref's decision. That "decision" should be made easier and acceptable to players by being written in the rules. The rules should be universal and not open to interpretation. In off a black - foul 7. Opinion doesn't come into it. I've played in leagues where they play f&m but equally I've played in many more where the rule is ignored completely. This needs to be rectified with a consistent application of the miss rule that can be applied across the board.


As for 3 misses ball in hand, or 3 misses free ball; I don't see why just 3 misses alone can't be applied. You'd get a minimum of 12 and maximum of 21 points for one shot you'd played. You'd still have the option of playing yourself or putting your opponent back in.

[The Statman]

As for 3 misses ball in hand, or 3 misses free ball; I don't see why just 3 misses alone can't be applied. You'd get a minimum of 12 and maximum of 21 points for one shot you'd played. You'd still have the option of playing yourself or putting your opponent back in.

Because the whole point of the Miss rule is to enforce the principle that a player should try his best to hit the ball on. By limiting it to 3 (or however many) you are inviting the player not to bother even attempting a hit on his final attempt.

It would actually make an interesting difference to the game strategy-wise because it may make the other player consider whether he would have the balls replaced after the last-but-one attempt.

Imagine a situation where there are a few reds left, a couple of them easy to hit, but I try a multi-cushion attempt to one isolated red because it will leave little in the way of potential opening. This is classic Miss territory. If I give 24, 28, 32 points away that is entirely up to me because I have a much easier option of hitting other red(s) which I am opting to ignore.

If I know there is a maximum of three attempts with no further penalty, I might as well abandon the shot on the third attempt and play a completely deliberate foul, such as just knocking the brown safe to the side cushion or whatever, knowing that there is nothing the Rules can do about it.

Unless you start making exceptions for deliberate non-attempts and then you get slowly back to the current rule because the limit is conditional.

[Tricue]

Exactly the problem Statman, and this is exactly what happens if you just limit the attempts.
The league I play in did just this for the lower divisions and it lead to situations whereby on the third attempt the player would play the shot so that even if they were put back in they could now hit the ball. Obviously they left the ball on for their opponent but it meant they gained the advantage in deciding where the cueball would be played from.
Hopefully, I explained that correctly..
Anyway, I'm still looking forward to how the NEW rule works in the 6 red tournament as I think this rule is a solution to a problem that DOES exist, even if it is only in the amateur game and if its successful in the 6 red then it should follow into the full game.

[iancafc]

ball in hand could cost someone a match or even a title

[Souwester]

This is one example and meaningless. I played in the 2005 Home Internationals for England and Andy Lee had a miss replaced 12/13 times. Equally as meaningless! .

So it may be, but it's a meaningless exaggeration to state: Not only does it take an inordinate amount of time to constantly replace balls thus irritating the watching public

Balls being replaced more than once or twice really are quite rare occurrences, and just one of those things that a spectator has to put up with, just as he has to see players spend half an hour playing safety shots because the players don't want to risk missing a pot and leaving something on.

[Souwester]

Whilst my earlier comments suggest that I don't see any need to change the rule, one option might surely be that no miss can be called after 3,4, 5 attempts, whatever, PROVIDED the referee is satisfied that the player has made a genuine attempt at trying to hit a ball on. The non-offender simply has the choice as to whether to play himself from the position left or put the offender back in from that position. Much the same as what happens when snookers are required after a series of misses.

[DawRef]

.......after which the other player may have the cue-ball anywhere on the table but is not allowed to score from his next shot

What if, then, after playing his stroke, he leaves another snooker? You could end up with this scenario and the opponent still giving away 20 or 30 points in successive turns. Might just as well leave the F & M as it is.

[The Statman]

What if, then, after playing his stroke, he leaves another snooker? You could end up with this scenario and the opponent still giving away 20 or 30 points in successive turns. Might just as well leave the F & M as it is.

Hadn't thought of that.

Which just goes to prove, as you say, that you might as well leave it as it is. (I agree, by the way; I was just going along with those who want to see it changed, to see what pitfalls would be created if suggested replacements were to take effect.)

[Terry Davidson]

Hey, just one point.

The MISS rule for professionals as it stands now is perfect.

The problems arose when in amateur matches the players were being held to professional standards even though the tables for the most part are nowhere near as true as the tables the pros play on. In general, neither is the skill level.

What happened is on TV all the amateur refs out there saw the pros being held to the 'MUST HIT' and this is what has happened to the amateur game. It used to be the pros had their own rules which differed from the amateurs and for quite a few years these differences stayed in place.

I would say on normal club tables the MISS rule should be enforced as written, which allows a player to make a good attempt at a hit and if he comes close and passes the object ball (provided there isn't an easier hit on or a pack of reds in place) then a MISS shouldn't be called. There's also the 'except for intervening balls' exception right in the rule which to me points the referee in the right direction. (If a player hits the blue when attempting to get to a red at the top end of the table how can a referee tell if he would have come close?) I think the IBSF had a lot less stringent idea in place when the rule was put in place but the pros adapted the MISS rule to suit their own standards.

However, all that said, I still see (even in my own amateur ranking tournaments) it's not really a 'MISS' rule, but rather a 'MUST HIT' rule now and I think that is very wrong in some situations where there is only one object ball and the player has to use 3, 4 or 5 cushions.

How many times have we seen club tables with rolls and also bad cushions and even light cueballs? Is it fair to penalize a player because of table conditions? I know some people will say it's the same for both players, but in a short match one solid snooker with a very difficult hit can get a player 40-50 points and win him the frame and the match in some cases. In the pro game generally the matches are longer and one single frame won by multiple miss calls doesn't mean as much as in a best of 5 match for an amateur.

The other problem is the MISS rule has actually changes the tactics of snooker in the amateur game. If the weaker player is down points near the end of the frame and happens to have a choice between a roll-up snooker or potting a ball and trying to run out, he will elect the roll-up snooker and hope for multiple misses from his better opponent.

I've seen quite a few players pass on a pot with a chance to run out and win a frame and elect to lay a difficult snooker. To me, this type of negative tactic was never intended to be part of the game. But now, unfortunately, it is.

Terry