new allternative to the miss rule

[cuemick147]

hi, as an am player, most league,s i play in, dont have the miss rule. it can cause too much trouble between the players, as most times there is no ref. but having no miss rule is not much better, as some players take advantage and dont always try too get out of the snooker.. so what about a replay rule. this means you can ask your appontant to replay the shot but you dont take the points for the foul. the next time he might get out of the snooker but this is the risk you take. the max points you can give away is 7 (foul the black). like the miss rule you can put him back as often as you like, untill he hits the ball or you are happy to play on.
The only down side i can see is if the player keeps missing and it goes on for too long.
I would like to hear feedback from other snooker players and see if it might work
Thanks CUEMICK147....cueman147@btinternet.com

[The Statman]

I have often thought about this as a genuinely workable alternative, but I don't think it has ever received any serious backing.

This is essentially the referee saying to the (non-offending) player - I don't think he made a full enough attempt at it, so you can make him replay the shot OR you can have the four points for the foul ... but you can't have it both ways.

I think it would be seriously worth trialling.

[cuemick147]

hi The Statman, thanks for your reply. if there is a ref, i think the miss rule is ok. as long as the ref is neutral, during league matches most times we have no ref and if we do its either one of your team-mates or from other team. this rule works best then. i hope to get this rule started in my local league and over time will see if it works or not. thanks..

[magicman]

I think the miss rule has been in place for enough years now for all amateur leagues to implement it. How are players ever going to get better if they constantly fail to hit a ball as opposed to succeeding (eventually). I can understand why a lot of leagues don't use the miss rule when snookered but one local league I play in doesn't even use the miss rule when the player can see the object ball.

[Souwester]

I fail to see why all leagues and players cannot implement the F&M rule when the striker can see at least part of a ball on. It's a black and white case: either you can see a ball on or you can't. There's nothing subjective about that, so everyone should be able to play it.

As I've said on numerous occasions on these forums, the only problems arise where you have an unqualified referee adjudicating on another player's attempt to get out of a snooker. Most players should b able to hit or get fairly close to the object ball if there is a simple one cushion escape, but as in any attempt at getting out of a snooker, due regard must be given to the ability and experience of the player, and of course that *IS* subjective.

if players are handicapped then there is a school of thought, which IMHO has some merit, that the handicaps not only reflect the players ability to pot balls, but their level of safety play, their positional play and their ability to get out of snookers. Therefore it would be unfair to apply different criteria to them than would be applied to a lower-handicapped player. Having said that there are some people who wouldn't be able to get out of the simplest of snookers in a month of Sundays, so would continue to be called for F&M until snookers are required.

That last point brings me to my main concern about the OPs suggestion. There are many lower level players who just cannot judge angles, and I can see many many frames where the balls are replaced goodness knows how many times, probably until the players give up in despair.

[damienlch]

...There are many lower level players who just cannot judge angles, and I can see many many frames where the balls are replaced goodness knows how many times, probably until the players give up in despair.

Lol... I may have a similar situation here and can see the merit in Cuemick147's suggestion. Certainly worthwhile to explore in certain matches especially when a good referee is not available. Would be better than getting a makeshift referee to add to everyone's frustration imo... A foul and a miss rule works best only when a qualified person is refereeing the match.

[vmax4steve]

I think it's ridiculous having the miss rule in local amateur leagues for the following reasons

1. Referees whether qualified or not just will not be able to replace the balls in the proper place, unless they film the attempt on their moblie phone and replay it to see where the balls were.
2. The standard of players who struggle to make a twenty break isn't high enough to warrant it.
3. If a player can miss a black off it's spot then surely he can miss a one cushion escape from a snooker.
4. The standard of some tables are not up to scratch, balls will turn off line, loose cushions alter angles etc.
5. The arguments it will cause will be intense and could lead to threatening behaviour or even violence.

The miss rule should never even have been implemented for the pro game. The rule as it stood, take the points for the foul and either play from the position yourself or put your opponent back in was o.k. then and it would be o.k. now and would at least put a stop to the endless replacing of balls while racking up the foul points from negative play. So what if a player leaves the cue ball an inch short while coming off four cushions, to me that's a good attempt.
On the other hand if, in the referees opinion, a player does play a deliberate foul, and maybe guidelines have to be set for this, then cue ball in hand anywhere on the table will not only be a suitable punishment but a great deterrent.

[murr]

How about after three failed attempts to hit a ball out of a snooker you introduce a ball in hand rule. I think all players will defo try there hardest to hit a ball then.

[murr]

How about after three failed attempts to hit a ball out of a snooker you introduce a ball in hand rule. I think all players will defo try there hardest to hit a ball then.

Oops didn't read the post posted just before me lol

[choice]

How about after three failed attempts to hit a ball out of a snooker you introduce a ball in hand rule. I think all players will defo try there hardest to hit a ball then.

They had that rule at the snr world champs (Peterborough), Steve Davis and john parrott didn't like it. I think it's a too severe punishment.I.M.H.O.

[magicman]

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. 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.

[coomsey76]

Would have to totally agree with you there, I don't like all this ball in hand rule either!!

I played league snooker for years and we never had any foul and miss rules, I really like the 3 misses idea and I think it would benefit the amateur leagues.....

[nrage]

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. 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.

In the pro game, the pro's choose to give away points instead of leaving an opening. I don't think there are too many snookers that a pro would not be able to escape from in 1, 2 or 3 attempts - provided they actually selected the easiest escape option. The fact is they usually select a harder escape option which has less chance of leaving something, and as a result give away points. It's a tactical decision, just another aspect of the game.

There was a thread here a few months back where the miss rule was discussed and I realised that my local competition could in fact have been said to be playing it, despite the fact that a miss was never called and balls never replaced. Why, because a miss should only be called if the player isn't making their best attempt at the easiest escape option available. Which, as it turns out, players always were (or people were happy they were). So, even if they failed the escape, there is no reason to call a miss and replace balls. But, you can therefore technically say we were playing the miss rule. I suspect this is the case in a lot of leagues/competitions where people think they're not playing the rule.

[magicman]

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!

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.

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.

The issue remains the same, an awful lot of leagues 'choose' to ignore certain rules of the sport, and the WPBSA should ensure that all levels of the game are playing by the official rules else it's simply a mockery. After all, would you 'choose' not to penalise players for going in-off because they haven't got the same cue-ball control as a pro? Or 'choose' not to play with 15 reds but use 10 instead as the full 15 red game may take too long due to the players lack of potting ability? Or what about 'choosing' not to break off from the D as it's so far away from the triangle or reds? I'm being ridiculous, of course, but only to emphasise the point that the rules of any game are not to be cherry picked at random because we don't like some of them.

[cuemick147]

hi magicman, if the league you played in used this rule, then the players would get better at getting out of snookers because of being asked too try again and you would also have the choice to put them back. with no miss rule in force then you dont get this option.
its a simple idea and its not perfect but it works most of the time..