Exception to not calling Miss when snookers required?

[The Statman]

I wonder if you, as a referee, would call a Miss in a specific scenario below, even though a player will need snookers to win the frame as a result of the shot played.

A player is 33 in front with one red remaining, and is snookered on it. He has a relatively easy escape - i.e., it would certainly be called a Miss if there was no issue about the difference in scores.

However, he misses the red, and in the end the red becomes pocketed after a subsequent hit from the cue-ball or another ball.

This means that he is now 29 in front but, according to rule, it cannot be called a Miss (I know there are exceptions but let's assume these do not apply) because we have reached the 'snookers required' stage.

It occurs to me that, in normal circumstances, you would expect only the offender to need snookers when he didn't previously require them; the opponent would usually only require fewer snookers than before the stroke.

This one is the other way around - the opponent needing snookers when he didn't previously. This can only be achieved by missing the red and then somehow the red (or a red) going in the pocket.

This is clearly not what is intended by the proviso in the Miss rule that it won't be called at the snookers required stage. This proviso assumes that the player is 'bound' to be trying his hardest to hit it otherwise he will require (more) snookers or his opponent will require fewer.

However, in this case, the player could not have foreseen the pocketing of the red, so it is conceivable that he did play the shot erring on the side of caution, because he would have anticipated being 29 in front with still 35 on the table if he happened to miss it – precisely the reason the Miss rile is there. He didn't expect a 'snookers required' scenario at the completion of the shot.

Would you, as referee, use Section 5 (referee free to make decision in the interest of fair play for any situation not adequately covered by rule) and call a Miss in such circumstances?

[deant1982]

No, I would not call a miss on the above as you have described it. So long as the player made a fair and valied attempt at escaping the snooker within the best of his ability, then I wouldn't call a miss. The red going in is of no significance to the way the striker played his shot, it is just an unfortunate side note. Whilst it may sound harsh, the striker has made an attempt to the best of his ability to escape the snooker, and as you said, could have been 29 behind with 35 on the table, and set the red up over a pocket, which would be unlucky, or hit the black and pot the red. This would result in a foul 7, removing the final red, leaving 26 the difference with 27 on. Its all hyperthetical, but my opinion is it is best left to the referee's discression. If the referee has no intelligence and trys to play a frame to the exact lettering of the rules, the game could theoretically last forever, but in this instance, they should not be refereeing in the first place, especially a frame where the miss rule is being used.

If the player made (in the opinion of the referee) no attempt to hit the red within his ability, then the miss should be called and the balls replaced, irrespective of outcome or score. (if the player chooses this, which I guess he would in that situation, in order to be able to still win).

[The Statman]

Thanks for your reply. I'm a bit confused by your answer, in that I mentioned at the start that it was easy enough that it would have been called a Miss if the scores had been irrelevant. Could you clarify?

[deant1982]

Sorry, I was at work so didn't read the entire question. In the case you describe then, easy escape but commits a foul and pots the red, yes, it is a miss, and the balls replaced in my opinion if I were the referee.
My interpretation of the miss rule is -
In the referees opinion, the striker doesn't make an attempt in accordance with his ability to hit the object ball, a miss is to be called and the balls replaced if the opponent chooses so.

[DawRef]

However, he misses the red, and in the end the red becomes pocketed after a subsequent hit from the cue-ball or another ball.

Have I read this correctly?
Either,
(i) Player A 33 in front with one red remaining, and snookered. Misses red. F & M (player B can still win with the red and remaining colours). Player A 29 in front. or
(ii) Player A 33 in front with one red remaining, and snookered. Misses red. but cue-ball hits another ball which pockets the red?

In my opinion, both scenarios are F & M and the usual 3 options. Player B can still win.

Perhaps I've had too long day, and dont see the point about the F & M rule you are making.

[Souwester]

No, I would not call a miss. The fact that the rules prevent a miss being called when snookers are required (by either player) either before or as a result of a stroke is what dictates that. The fact that the red has subsequently been pocketed is just 'rub of the green' I'm afraid.

Another scenario to consider. Player at the table is 33 points in front, and on a colour, but with no easy colour, and with the last red hanging over a pocket has no obvious safety shot. He therefore elects to play a colour such that cannons the last red and pockets it. He's given 4 points away but has left his opponent needing a snooker. Very difficult for the referee to do anything other than award the penalty points and let the next player come to the table.

[davipp]

I would call a F&M, because in some cases the last red could be in a plant situation close to a pocket. As in your scenario you say the striker had an easier escape to hit the red but chose to take a different line which sounds like to me he knew he would cause the cue ball to cannon onto the colour which in turn pots the red.
If the red was in the jaws of the pocket covered by a colour with no way of hitting the red at all it may be a different scenario, because the striker must attempt to get out of the snooker with enough strength to intend on hitting the red??

[Terry Davidson]

What would be the odds of this happening statman? What you're saying is he is snookered on the last red, doesn't make his intended escape, cannons another ball and then flukes the last red. So he can't cannon the black but any other colour (pink would take him to 27 and that has now been ruled 'no miss'.

The only way I can see it happening is the red is in the jaws of a pocket with a colour covering it tightly. Player A tries to swerve around the coloured ball but makes contact with it first and then pockets the red. In this case if Player A is left with 27 or more points after the foul then you couldn't call a miss I would think as he made an honest attempt to hit a nearly impossible snooker.

Terry

[Camio]

No, I would not call a miss. The fact that the rules prevent a miss being called when snookers are required (by either player) either before or as a result of a stroke is what dictates that. The fact that the red has subsequently been pocketed is just 'rub of the green' I'm afraid.

Another scenario to consider. Player at the table is 33 points in front, and on a colour, but with no easy colour, and with the last red hanging over a pocket has no obvious safety shot. He therefore elects to play a colour such that cannons the last red and pockets it. He's given 4 points away but has left his opponent needing a snooker. Very difficult for the referee to do anything other than award the penalty points and let the next player come to the table.

You do know a F&M can be called, on 1 scenario, even if you're snookers required stage, right?

[Souwester]

You do know a F&M can be called, on 1 scenario, even if you're snookers required stage, right?

Yes, I'm well aware of the *TWO* scenarios when a a F&M will be called if snookers are required!

[The Statman]

What would be the odds of this happening statman? The only way I can see it happening is the red is in the jaws of a pocket with a colour covering it tightly. Player A tries to swerve around the coloured ball but makes contact with it first and then pockets the red. In this case if Player A is left with 27 or more points after the foul then you couldn't call a miss I would think as he made an honest attempt to hit a nearly impossible snooker.

Well, actually, it could happen whenever there is a red over the pocket; it could be that the route is a narrow one and the cue-ball grazes a colour on its way past but still goes on to knock the red in.

That's the situation which put it into my mind, because it did happen to me the other day, albeit early frame with many reds so the Miss was definite.

(And don't forget, it could just as easily be 57 in front with 3 reds left etc., so there are more reds which could go in.)

[The Statman]

No, I would not call a miss. The fact that the rules prevent a miss being called when snookers are required (by either player) either before or as a result of a stroke is what dictates that. The fact that the red has subsequently been pocketed is just 'rub of the green' I'm afraid.

Another scenario to consider. Player at the table is 33 points in front, and on a colour, but with no easy colour, and with the last red hanging over a pocket has no obvious safety shot. He therefore elects to play a colour such that cannons the last red and pockets it. He's given 4 points away but has left his opponent needing a snooker. Very difficult for the referee to do anything other than award the penalty points and let the next player come to the table.

Thanks, Souwester, that's interesting.

My argument was that it wasn't the failure to hit the red which left the opponent needing snookers; it was the red going in. It certainly seems to be an exception to the spirit of the Rules, but I know that's not a unique position!

[lk8]

really interesting thread, in my opinion the spirit of the game is that the offender of a foul should never gain any kind of advantage whatsoever, although it's a rare scenario, but it's bound to happen, just like the OSullivan/Higgins incident, especially when a guy is snookered and tries the hit and hope "200 MILE AN HOUR" shot, in my opinion I would look at this seriously and have the rules amended to cover such event before it happens in a professional tournament...

[poolqjunkie]

Yes, I'm well aware of the *TWO* scenarios when a a F&M will be called if snookers are required!

Could you tell me which two, please?

[DawRef]

The only way I can see it happening is the red is in the jaws of a pocket with a colour covering it tightly. Player A tries to swerve around the coloured ball but makes contact with it first and then pockets the red. In this case if Player A is left with 27 or more points after the foul then you couldn't call a miss I would think as he made an honest attempt to hit a nearly impossible snooker.

Yes. In this case I probably wouldn't call a F & M. However, for interest in fair play, could the referee, by using a ball marker, check to see if the cue-ball can get to the red, without hitting the said coloured ball, or would that be deemed assisting the striker?