Miss and in-off.

[Smiffie]

Remembering the game with Ronnie and Higgins where Ronnie potted a red and the white stuck in a impossible position covered from all angles by reds and the corner of the table.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT6JFuT9PWk

Ronnie nominated a colour and he had a few attempts at hitting this colour but failed every time, eventually whilst trying to again hit a colour Ronnie touched the black and a foul was called. I am sure you all remember this.

The point I am making is this.

Initially the foul was a miss, this then was superseded by a touched black, this negated the miss and Higgins was now in play.

With that in mind........... imagine this.

===============================================.

Normal play is on going.

A miss is called, the player is put back in and he missed it again but on this occasion the white goes in-off.

Is this now a in-off foul, where the other player is put back in and then plays from the baulk line, or does it revert back to the miss and the white is again replaced ?


What a wonderful game we play

[DawRef]

The decision, if it's a foul and a miss(the correct term), will rest with the referee.

If he calls 'foul and a miss', the incoming player will still have the 3 options available:

1 have the balls replaced and the stroke replayed;
2 have his opponent play from where the cue-ball has landed (in this case from the 'D' as the cue-ball went in off); or
3 play the next stroke himself (again this will be from the 'D').