NEW Miss rule?

[snookerpoolman]

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

Well said Terry, Totally agree (and with Statman). Leave it as it is, but allow for discretion when it's a fag paper's width miss. In our league it's only partially adopted. Mostly Div. 1 matches play it. Outside of that it's largely ignored.

Don't like that ball in hand anywhere on the table idea - too much like American Pool for me.

As for specating when a miss happens - it's a lot better since World Snooker saw sense and allowed video evidence. Before that it was a complete joke as the ref. could put the cue ball anywhere that 'sort of' looked 'about right' and we the TV viewers, plus the commentators, all knew it was miles out, but the referee didn't and couldn't see the original position!!

[DawRef]

As a referee, I have always gone by the advice the late John Street gave me. If the cue-ball fails to reach the object ball (i.e. stops short), irrespective of how many cushions or direction, then a F & M has to be called - it just hasn't reached!!. However, if the cue-ball misses the object ball by the preverbial gnats appendage, then it is up to the discretion of the referee (me) whether to call F & M or not.
I have always used this guidance, irrespective of the difficulty of the snooker laid or stroke played.