Miss in amateur league

[itsnoteasy]

We play the miss rule in our top division but unfortunately it is not consistently applied by all. The top players understand it fully as amateurs and won't call one when reffing if, for example someone is faced with a 2 cushion escape and they get within 6'' or so and the attempt had enough power in it.

The less knowledgeable call it for everything and it causes a lot of friction. There argument sometimes is that ''it was a 1 cushion escape". The fact there might be 10 feet of table between the 2 balls and loads of side was required isn't taken into consideration. My worst gripe here is there are some players who when left plum in the balls with an easy starter will take the miss instead to try and get as many fouls as possible.

I don't think a miss should be called if a sitter is left, four points for the foul(or whatever it scores) and the benefit of an easy starter is enough punishment/ advantage to receive.

[jb134]

In snooker that's not practical. Other than the fact it greatly increases the difficulty because of the table size, it's not really necessary. Gentle roll-ups etc are a vital part of the safety side of the game, it's only a problem when the opponent is too low a standard to hit their object ball and continually suffer from "foul and a miss". This is why we're saying it shouldn't be played at a amateur level.

I agree with that. I have twice seen a player reach the snookers required stage through misses and then of course when his opponent snookers him, it can't go back.

[tommo146]

The rule is ok at the top level or in scratch events when everyone is deemed to be at the same level. In the amateur game I'm sick of seeing guys who can't score 30 getting 32 points in misses for rolling up behind the green. It's a joke rule to stop cheating at high levels and shouldn't be used in local events.

The rule is part of the game and should be applied at all levels it is up to the referee of the frame to decide what is a reasonable attempt if u r playing in a league game of any standard u should have an idea of how to escape if it is more than a one Cush escape they should b called less frequent if get close enough and hit with enuf power if it is one Cush at any league level should hit if no side needs to be used

[SnkrRef]

I was at a junior event this weekend. The miss rule was applied, but the players were advised that they should seek guidance from a referee after three misses. I was asked to adjudicate about half a dozen times. Once the young lad of about 12, was playing from almost tight behind the green, but on the green cushion side of it. He was on the yellow which was close to the yellow cushion about 12 inches up the table towards the centre pocket. I witnessed the third, fourth and fifth attempts at trying to get out of the snooker, but the lad didn't know his angles and was playing the shot with right hand side so that the cue ball was missing by about 12 inches. If he'd have played with a touch of left hand side he'd have been a lot closer to hitting the yellow. Sadly, though he wasn't learning from his mistakes and he'd have been there giving points away until snookers were required if I hadn't declared that 'enough was enough' and the non-offender had to make his choice from the position left.

For some players the one-cushion escape isn't easy, and referees (or opponents) must make allowance for the ability of the player.

[dcrackers147]

I have spoken with Dan Lewis about this and his advice was basically if you feel the player is capable/has the ability to hit the ball and doesn't, regardless of how close they get It's a miss. I think this is why in local leagues were you may see 2 frames off a player per season its hard to judge. Our league has had it in and taken it our again several times. It's currently out but I personally feel it should be played at all times as it is part of the gam. You really do gain no advantage from laying a good snooker as your oponent just plays it in a way not to leave anything and only gives 4 away.

[dcrackers147]

I was at a junior event this weekend. The miss rule was applied, but the players were advised that they should seek guidance from a referee after three misses. I was asked to adjudicate about half a dozen times. Once the young lad of about 12, was playing from almost tight behind the green, but on the green cushion side of it. He was on the yellow which was close to the yellow cushion about 12 inches up the table towards the centre pocket. I witnessed the third, fourth and fifth attempts at trying to get out of the snooker, but the lad didn't know his angles and was playing the shot with right hand side so that the cue ball was missing by about 12 inches. If he'd have played with a touch of left hand side he'd have been a lot closer to hitting the yellow. Sadly, though he wasn't learning from his mistakes and he'd have been there giving points away until snookers were required if I hadn't declared that 'enough was enough' and the non-offender had to make his choice from the position left.

For some players the one-cushion escape isn't easy, and referees (or opponents) must make allowance for the ability of the player.

he would have learned next time...Once you have called it you have to keep calling it to be consistant. If I was his oponent and ended up losing the frame because the ref felt sorry for him I would have been annoyed.

[tommo146]

I was at a junior event this weekend. The miss rule was applied, but the players were advised that they should seek guidance from a referee after three misses. I was asked to adjudicate about half a dozen times. Once the young lad of about 12, was playing from almost tight behind the green, but on the green cushion side of it. He was on the yellow which was close to the yellow cushion about 12 inches up the table towards the centre pocket. I witnessed the third, fourth and fifth attempts at trying to get out of the snooker, but the lad didn't know his angles and was playing the shot with right hand side so that the cue ball was missing by about 12 inches. If he'd have played with a touch of left hand side he'd have been a lot closer to hitting the yellow. Sadly, though he wasn't learning from his mistakes and he'd have been there giving points away until snookers were required if I hadn't declared that 'enough was enough' and the non-offender had to make his choice from the position left.

For some players the one-cushion escape isn't easy, and referees (or opponents) must make allowance for the ability of the player.

A one cushion escape where no side needs to be applied is easy and should be called every time if you are playing in an amateur league as the prosumption would be you must have a reasonable ability to play in a league......if i snooker someone and it is a one cushion escape i expect it to be called every time without exception and i would expect the same if i were in the snooker.....it tis a rule of the game and if you are playing competetive snooker it is part and parcel of the game for both players no exceptions for me......you cannot feel sorry for someone and say enough is enough if it is an easy snooker and cant get out of it ....after all the game is called snooker not potting

[magicman]

This debate about the miss rule only highlights the fact that the rule needs amending. Amateurs should be playing by the same rules as professionals. It's the same rules for am and pro golf, tennis, football, why should snooker be any different?

Amateur leagues that choose to ignore the rule are not playing snooker. They're playing their version of it. They don't ignore the 7 point penalty for going in-off the black by using the 'we are not as good as pro's' argument. So why do they feel they can ignore the miss rule? Because the rule is harsh, cruel and open to interpretation, which no rule should be.

That said, a fairer interpretation of the miss rule would possibly make amateur leagues more likely to encourage its use. Say - the ball can only be replaced once for one ball on, twice for two balls on, etc. If you can't hit an entire pack you deserve to be replaced 15 times. However, glued behind the black going for the last red behind the brown shouldn't be rewarded with 30-40 points in fouls.

[SnkrRef]

he would have learned next time...Once you have called it you have to keep calling it to be consistant. If I was his oponent and ended up losing the frame because the ref felt sorry for him I would have been annoyed.

A one cushion escape where no side needs to be applied is easy and should be called every time if you are playing in an amateur league as the prosumption would be you must have a reasonable ability to play in a league......if i snooker someone and it is a one cushion escape i expect it to be called every time without exception and i would expect the same if i were in the snooker.....it tis a rule of the game and if you are playing competetive snooker it is part and parcel of the game for both players no exceptions for me......you cannot feel sorry for someone and say enough is enough if it is an easy snooker and cant get out of it ....after all the game is called snooker not potting

I never said I felt sorry for him! However, after seeing three of his five attempts it was obvious that he didn't have the ability to get out of the snooker. As I have said many times, the referee should always have due regard for the difficulty of the snooker AND the ability of the player when determining whether to call a Miss or not.

[The Statman]

This debate about the miss rule only highlights the fact that the rule needs amending.

Does it? I'm not so sure.

Amateurs should be playing by the same rules as professionals. It's the same rules for am and pro golf, tennis, football, why should snooker be any different?

Amateur leagues that choose to ignore the rule are not playing snooker. They're playing their version of it. They don't ignore the 7 point penalty for going in-off the black by using the 'we are not as good as pro's' argument. So why do they feel they can ignore the miss rule? Because the rule is harsh, cruel and open to interpretation, which no rule should be.

That said, a fairer interpretation of the miss rule would possibly make amateur leagues more likely to encourage its use. Say - the ball can only be replaced once for one ball on, twice for two balls on, etc. If you can't hit an entire pack you deserve to be replaced 15 times. However, glued behind the black going for the last red behind the brown shouldn't be rewarded with 30-40 points in fouls.

I am a Grade 1 referee and also a League Secretary. With my referee's hat on I partly agree with you, but with my secretary's experience I can assure you that it is nowhere near as clear-cut.

Our League has found it necessary to modify the Miss rule NOT because of the different abilities of the players, but because of the proficiency of refereeing. It is not possible to expect a teammate from the home side to referee a game to the standard and impartiality that would allow the evenhanded and calm application of the Rules. It just causes more arguments than it solves.

We therefore voted, many years ago and with no complaints since, that the Miss is called when a player at least has full-ball contact available on a ball on, but not at other times. As a referee, that goes squarely against the grain but, all things considered, it is not possible to expect anything more without the great potential for arguments on what is supposed to be an enjoyable social Thursday night out.

The big problem with having a limit to the number of times a ball can be replaced is that it effectively condones the deliberate miss on the last permissible attempt. A limit of three has been suggested before - but all that will happen is that the player will play the same shot three times, give away 12 points, but leave exactly the same situation as he would have done without the Miss, only eight points worse off.

The bottom line is that, without qualified impartial officials, this is the best we can come up with as a League and I must say, it works well and there is no appetite to change it.

[tommo146]

Does it? I'm not so sure.I am a Grade 1 referee and also a League Secretary. With my referee's hat on I partly agree with you, but with my secretary's experience I can assure you that it is nowhere near as clear-cut.

Our League has found it necessary to modify the Miss rule NOT because of the different abilities of the players, but because of the proficiency of refereeing. It is not possible to expect a teammate from the home side to referee a game to the standard and impartiality that would allow the evenhanded and calm application of the Rules. It just causes more arguments than it solves.



We therefore voted, many years ago and with no complaints since, that the Miss is called when a player at least has full-ball contact available on a ball on, but not at other times. As a referee, that goes squarely against the grain but, all things considered, it is not possible to expect anything more without the great potential for arguments on what is supposed to be an enjoyable social Thursday night out.

The big problem with having a limit to the number of times a ball can be replaced is that it effectively condones the deliberate miss on the last permissible attempt. A limit of three has been suggested before - but all that will happen is that the player will play the same shot three times, give away 12 points, but leave exactly the same situation as he would have done without the Miss, only eight points worse off.

The bottom line is that, without qualified impartial officials, this is the best we can come up with as a League and I must say, it works well and there is no appetite to change it.

In some respects I agree with what you say and I have played league snooker for nearly 25 years now prior to when there was no miss rule and now that there is one and i have to say although there are arguments about the interpretation of it by 'home refs' it is better than not having the rule at all or a different version of it! I would say in general it should be applied as close to the pro game as it can be but like has been said on TSF players abilities and difficulty of snooker need to be taken into account.....i did see a miss not called by a pro ref in a match between selby and walden recently think it was at the uk championship and this was the correct call as the snooker was almost impossible......i think if it is a one cushion escape where no side is required if you are playing league snooker you should be able to hit the ball on if you dont it should be called and if youre not good enough to get out of it you need to put the relevant time in to be able to learn how to get out of snookers the same way as improving your game in general. In our top league there are 4 or 5 teams who have players who have been pros or top amateurs making centuries on a regular basis so these players should be getting out of almost any snooker once you go beyond them ability changes and most players/refs with common sense know how to apply the rule in this case........if you do not have a strong rule in place people abuse it by playing a deliberate miss leaving nothing from a good snooker (i play in another league where it is not used and this happens all the time) biggest problem you have is home refs not being impartial its not the interpretation its the fact some home refs try to gain an advantage from the miss rule by abusing it and this is what causes the arguments.

[luke-h]

Does it? I'm not so sure.I am a Grade 1 referee and also a League Secretary. With my referee's hat on I partly agree with you, but with my secretary's experience I can assure you that it is nowhere near as clear-cut.

Our League has found it necessary to modify the Miss rule NOT because of the different abilities of the players, but because of the proficiency of refereeing. It is not possible to expect a teammate from the home side to referee a game to the standard and impartiality that would allow the evenhanded and calm application of the Rules. It just causes more arguments than it solves.

We therefore voted, many years ago and with no complaints since, that the Miss is called when a player at least has full-ball contact available on a ball on, but not at other times. As a referee, that goes squarely against the grain but, all things considered, it is not possible to expect anything more without the great potential for arguments on what is supposed to be an enjoyable social Thursday night out.

The big problem with having a limit to the number of times a ball can be replaced is that it effectively condones the deliberate miss on the last permissible attempt. A limit of three has been suggested before - but all that will happen is that the player will play the same shot three times, give away 12 points, but leave exactly the same situation as he would have done without the Miss, only eight points worse off.

The bottom line is that, without qualified impartial officials, this is the best we can come up with as a League and I must say, it works well and there is no appetite to change it.

I don't play in my local league this season but i have heard they abolished the miss rule, i am hearing from a few decent players that all this has done is made people more or less cheat, people making no real effort to get out and it's causing mayhem. the miss rule should be there for everyone no matter what skill level they are, as i can almost guarantee that the less skilled player will play more snookers than the decent players so it evens itself out.

[The Statman]

By the way, I do not agree that EVERY one-cushion escape should automatically be called a Miss.

It may be true that everyone should have the ability to get out of a one-cushion snooker. But the Miss rule only talks about a good enough attempt, that is not quite the same as needing a successful attempt every time.

Anyone who has ever missed a straightforward black off the spot will admit that, even though we have the ability to play easy chots, we will not always manage to do it!

[SnkrRef]

Anyone who has ever missed a straightforward black off the spot will admit that, even though we have the ability to play easy chots, we will not always manage to do it!

Now there's an idea.... why don't we allow multiple attempts at playing the easy pots, until we do it successfully...

[Cov86]

We play the miss rule in our top division but unfortunately it is not consistently applied by all. The top players understand it fully as amateurs and won't call one when reffing if, for example someone is faced with a 2 cushion escape and they get within 6'' or so and the attempt had enough power in it.

The less knowledgeable call it for everything and it causes a lot of friction. There argument sometimes is that ''it was a 1 cushion escape". The fact there might be 10 feet of table between the 2 balls and loads of side was required isn't taken into consideration. My worst gripe here is there are some players who when left plum in the balls with an easy starter will take the miss instead to try and get as many fouls as possible.

I've never played league but I have to say that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. If there is an easy starter on they should play it.

The miss rule is to stop the pros trying to get an edge with deliberate misses, it shouldn't be applied in such a way that amateurs are "scoring" more points than they would by actually trying to pot the balls.

I like the idea of a 3 miss rule but only for harder (2+ cushions or lots of side required) escape shots.