new allternative to the miss rule

[nrage]

I see, you were technically playing the miss rule even though you weren't playing it at all. Makes perfect sense. People 'think' they're not playing the rule but actually are!

Now you're just being facetious. You can play the rule which is commonly called the "miss" rule, without ever having to call "miss". In fact, if you never call "miss" it means the rule is doing it's job perfectly as it is forcing players to make their best attempt to escape all the time.

You say "a miss should only be called if the player isn't making their best attempt at the easiest escape". That's not the miss rule. There's no qualification on whether it's a hard or easy snooker to get out of or which ball you're obliged to go for.

True, the rules don't state you have to pick the easier escape but IMO it is implied, especially when you look at rule 14(b):

(b) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS,

In this case the rule isn't even subjective, if the player has played a more difficult escape than the direct shot which is available, then you must call a miss.

The general miss rules are..

21. Miss
A miss is when the cue-ball fails to first contact a ball on and the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball on.

and..

14. Foul and a Miss
The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless ...

The key components there are good enough attempt and The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on.

So, the Q is, can you really say you've played to the best of your ability, and made a good enough attempt if you pick a harder escape and miss? No, what you've really done is picked the safer option, the harder option, the one where you're less likely to hit the ball on, and is therefore not you endeavouring to hit the ball on, but instead you endeavouring to avoid letting the opponent in.

That's the argument for playing the easiest escape option, because it's your best attempt to hit the ball on, and anything else is a "miss".

And when there's one or two reds left on the table and pro's are trying to hit one, I can assure you, they are not 'choosing' to give away points either.

I feel you're splitting hairs here. If a pro picks one hard shot over another easier shot you can bet it's because the harder shot has less chance of leaving the opponent in. So, the choice they've made is between (possibly) giving away points and (more likely) leaving the opponent in. Which is what I meant, when I said, they choose to give away points - because the alternative is leaving the opponent in, and is far worse.

[The Statman]

I agree 'choice'. Ball in hand is a terrible idea imo. If the WPBSA keep allowing SKY to randomly alter the rules of snooker as and when they see fit we'll eventually end up with a best of 3, shot-clocked, ball in hand for ANY foul World Final.

The miss rule was incorporated into the rules of snooker some 15/20 years ago, and any league that doesn't use it, are simply choosing to ignore playing by the rules of the game. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the rule as it stands, mainly for this very reason. Rules HAVE to be universal. Pro's in any game need to be playing by the same rules as amateurs and vice-versa. I've always felt that to reward a fluked snooker with the potential of 20/30/40 points is unfair, especially when later in the same frame, the most brilliantly devised snooker may only get 4 points thanks to the points gained earlier by a fluke.

The current problem, as I see it, is two-fold. The pro game suffers with endless misses going back again and again, too many points given away for repeated fouls, and time wasted on accurately putting balls back, which is boring even to the ardent fans. The other problem is amateur leagues not implementing the rules of the game.

And I think worthy of exploration are the reasons that amateur leagues don't implement the rules of the game: I think they can be summarised as this:
- The perception of the rule as applied on tv is seen to be 'too harsh' and, by definition, has an element of subjectiveness to it, and leagues do not want to go down the route of putting controversy into fixtures when it can be more easily avoided;
- Games are refereed usually by unqualified officials who (and this is the important bit) have no interest in being qualified officials. (And that's not a criticism: why would they be interested?)
- The stakes are pretty low and, often, so is the standard, so (a) it's not worth getting too upset over and (b) people are less likely to be worrying about what they leave the opponent and more likely to be wanting a social evening out.

I don't think any of these prevail as to their importance - they are sort of interlinked and all in all, it is easier to prevent the situation from occurring and ignore the whole thing.

Imo the best solution is to have 3 misses and then the player chooses to play from where the ball lies or put his opponent back in. This should be applied to any level of the game. Local league players acting as refs are then free to implement the rules without any personal judgement calls. This removes any potential arguments.

It does - but (and this is a big but) it undermines the whole principle of the Miss call. Because what would happen is that, on the first two attempts, the player will make a Miss-worthy shot with no opening, knowing each time that it will be put back and on the third effort will just play the cue-ball to any-old-where knowing that he cannot be penalised more than the relevant points. You are almost saying, you MUST make your best effort to hit a ball on otherwise you can try again, but on the third attempt you NEED NOT make any valid effort at all.

I know you are not condoning this suggestion but any artificial limit on the number of Misses created by a single scenario can only lead to this conclusion.

I am a (lapsed) grade-1 referee and also Secretary of the local league. We state that we call the Miss rule only where there is full-ball path and, with my referee's hat on, I cannot be entirely comfortable with that. But, as a league, I am aware that those officiating the frames are not referees and would be very reluctant (especially in lower divisions where the league is more about a lightheartedly competitive social event than a serious competitive rivalry) to get bogged down in what can be seen as accusations of cheating. This is down to the standard of the official and of the player and is only going to put people off.

However, in the very strong first division I think it does players no favours, especially young up-and-comings who will also be embarking on an amateur career which will include proper tournaments, properly officiated. It does them no good to play (and consider seriously) league matches where they can make different shot selections in the same situation from what they'd choose in a proper event with serious opposition and serious prize money. That, to an extent, is undermined.

And so, as a League, you have to try to come up with an answer that doesn't disgruntle too many people in one direction, but also satisfies people coming from the other direction. The middle ground is difficult to find, when there are all categories of player and very few qualified officials to hand.

So I think it is sensible to try to find some alternative to the Miss rule, without heading down the road that you mentioned at the top of your post where the rules of the game in general drift entirely from what we recognise today. (Or, indeed, without heading down the road where you have to have a different complete set of rules in your mind depending on the tournament you are entering.)

To find a Rule that covers both the top-division, very good players, where the opponent's chances of clearing up are a very real factor in the player's shot selection, and the lowe divisions where, even if a player leaves an opening, his opponent is unlikely to score more than 16-or-so, is not straightforward at all.

It isn't easy.

[Souwester]

nRage, I sort of agree with you. If the player pots a red but lands behind the pack of reds early in the frame, he can see the black but opts for a baulk colour - he'll always be called for a miss because he could also make the black off one cushion, which is a lot easier. He chooses the baulk colour because he's less likely to leav an easy red for his opponent. If he can actually see he black then there is absolutely no question about calling a Miss.

However, I've long pondered about the s2 definition of a Miss referring to hitting "a" ball on, whereas s3 rule 14 refers to "the" ball on. Is rule 14 to be more narrowly interpreted by limiting the decision making to the specific ball on that the player has decided to play

[magicman]

Now you're just being facetious. You can play the rule which is commonly called the "miss" rule, without ever having to call "miss". In fact, if you never call "miss" it means the rule is doing it's job perfectly as it is forcing players to make their best attempt to escape all the time.

Yeah, I was being facetious because your comment was ludicrous. Then you repeat the same nonsense again. Sorry nrage, but you're not playing the miss rule if you're not playing the miss rule. To even argue the issue defies belief.

True, the rules don't state you have to pick the easier escape but IMO it is implied, especially when you look at rule 14(b):

(b) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS,

The rule doesn't imply this at all. You are inferring it, as it backs up your argument.This isn't an 'escape' at all nrage. It's simply hitting a ball that you can already see. It's a foul and a miss because you're not snookered.

The key components there are good enough attempt and The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on.

But they're NOT the key components are they? Ref's replace cue-balls regardless of whether the pro has made a 'good enough attempt'. The miss rule is implemented in the pro game EVERY time a pro misses, regardless of whether he comes off one, two or even four cushions and misses the ball by the thickness of a playing card. So the 'key components' are only 'key' for your argument, they actually don't apply to the real world scenarios in professional tournament play.

I feel you're splitting hairs here. If a pro picks one hard shot over another easier shot you can bet it's because the harder shot has less chance of leaving the opponent in.

As above. The pro can choose the easiest option and make his best attempt, and it's still going to be put back. So this part of your argument is academic.

It does - but (and this is a big but) it undermines the whole principle of the Miss call. Because what would happen is that, on the first two attempts, the player will make a Miss-worthy shot with no opening, knowing each time that it will be put back and on the third effort will just play the cue-ball to any-old-where knowing that he cannot be penalised more than the relevant points. You are almost saying, you MUST make your best effort to hit a ball on otherwise you can try again, but on the third attempt you NEED NOT make any valid effort at all.

I know you are not condoning this suggestion but any artificial limit on the number of Misses created by a single scenario can only lead to this conclusion.

The principle of the miss rule isn't for a player to be rewarded disproportionally though is it? Or to make 30 or 40 points off a fluked snooker? I see your point though Statman, and maybe a further qualification on the last attempt could be added to the rule change (as if this is ever going to happen anyway!)

In the amateur game, the 3 attempts are enough, players get rewarded 12 points or so for a good snooker and there's no arguments as the rule is the same for everyone. The local league player then gets some benefit from playing good snookers and people's games will improve by having to try to escape from snookers a few times.

In the pro game, and top amateur levels, you could qualify the last attempt by saying, for instance, the cue-ball must get to within an inch of a ball on. Fundamentally, the rule is the same for all levels, and we do away with the seemingly endless replacement of balls on live television, which becomes tedious. We also prevent the scenarios discussed briefly above, in rewarding fluked snookers with a shed-load of points. Imo, even the best laid snooker shouldn't be getting more than a maximum of 21 points. What other shot can be rewarded with the possibility of 40 or 50 points added to your score?

[nrage]

nRage, I sort of agree with you. If the player pots a red but lands behind the pack of reds early in the frame, he can see the black but opts for a baulk colour - he'll always be called for a miss because he could also make the black off one cushion, which is a lot easier. He chooses the baulk colour because he's less likely to leav an easy red for his opponent. If he can actually see he black then there is absolutely no question about calling a Miss.

Yep.. it's not stated in the rules that he has to play the easier one cushion escape, but it is how the rule appears to be enforced - at least at the higher levels. I think the reason is that it ultimately comes down to the intent or primary motivation for the shot choice. Picking a harder baulk colour escape so as not to leave the opponent in shows your primary motivation is not to escape the snooker, that becomes secondary, and thus miss gets called.

However, I've long pondered about the s2 definition of a Miss referring to hitting "a" ball on, whereas s3 rule 14 refers to "the" ball on. Is rule 14 to be more narrowly interpreted by limiting the decision making to the specific ball on that the player has decided to play

I think you're right, s3 r14 is more narrow in places and is referring to the specific ball the player has chosen. Except in subsection (b) which uses "a ball on" and "any ball that is or could be on" to include other possible choices.

Perhaps, in the case above where a baulk colour is chosen over the easier black off one, the rule which actually applies is the general rule in s2. Another interesting thought; s3 r14 says "the referee considers the Rule infringed" .. which rule, s2 or s3 r14? Perhaps it's referring to s2 here? Perhaps this is what ties the two rules together, making s3 r14 a description of how to apply the rule in s2?

[nrage]

@magicman, I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm not making any further argument for how the miss rule is, or should be played at the pro level - IMO it's fine as-is and simply adds another level/layer of tactical choice to the game.

What I was trying to say is that it can, and does get played at the amateur level. A call of "miss" is (except in the one case I mentioned earlier) subjective, and at amateur levels will occur far less frequently than at higher levels, including occurring not at all if all players are always doing their very best to hit the ball on.

At amateur levels the easier escape is almost always taken because despite the chance of leaving the opponent in, it's usually the best option. And, lets face it, at that level there is no chance the opponent is going to clear the table, so the risk involved is far less as is the justification for picking a harder escape.

You seem to disagree that a rule can be "played" if it's never "enforced" .. that's a bit like saying a law doesn't exist because no-one commits the crime it's there to enforce, so it's never enforced. I disagree, but I'm not going to argue the point.

[HemiRR]

I don't think that deciding whether the player can actully see an edge is necessarily all that black & white.

Try this - place a long straight edge (4-5 feet will do) at right angles to top cushion in line with the centre of the table; take a cigarette rolling paper and place it against the straight edge then freeze a ball trapping the paper against the straigt edge; now freeze another ball against the straight edge in front of the ball trapping the paper; now freeze a ball against the straight edge (at the other end 4 - 5 feet away) Now freeze the cue ball to the ball that was just frozen against the straight edge. Make sure the cue ball is exactly perpendicular to the straight edge.

The cue ball can actually "see" an edge of the ball 4-5 feet away that is pinning the paper against the straight edge. The edge that is sticking out is the thickness of a rolling paper - have a good look - now remove the paper and freeze that ball to the straight edge and see if you can see any difference - I say it is not likely that anyone will see any difference. Try it with the rolling paper foled in half - 2 thicknesses - even using a piece of 20 lb paper it is very hard to see as you are 4-5 feet from the cue ball which is 4-5 feet from the object ball.