foul and a miss

[muzicman147]

I cannot see this happening it would be impossible to be surrounded by reds and needing to hit a colour unless you put yourself there.

I would agree with you, but I saw this happen twice last season.

[sharkster63]

If its impossible to hit a red, I think the current rules are good enough.

[Eferata]

Hi guys, I am quite new to this forum. I decide to ask my question followed n this topic.
I am told by some good snooker players that if u are stuck onto a very difficult snooker, though it is still
Possible to hit on(luck is needed). And the player tried his very best to hit the ball on, can we still call foul and a miss? I find it a bit strange if foul and a miss can be called until the player require snooker. Foul and a miss is supposingly to prevent players from playing "cleverly". However at the same time if it is misjudge, then a lucky tough snooker can help to win the game. My explanation is quite btief. If u guys are not clear, just reply not clear. I will explain further.

Snooker lover,
Eferata

[SnkrRef]

I understand what you are saying.

At professional level, World Snooker (or WPBSA?) have instructed their referees to take a very harsh line with regard to calling F&M, such that it is very rare that any failed attempt to get out of a snooker is not called F&M.

As you go down the snooker ladder to those with much less ability, the referee must always have regard for the ability of the player and the difficulty of the snooker when deciding whether a miss should be called. There has to be a lot more leniency when refereeing a local club player who makes the occasional break of 30, compared to refereeing a player who regularly knocks in century breaks.

However, that's the crux of the problem: it relies on a subjective decision of the referee. One referee's decision will be different from that of another, and that's one of the reasons the professionals are so strict, because it very largely eliminates the subjectivity of the decision making.

[DeanH]

welcome to TSF Eferata
in your scenario - snookered on ball-on, no penalty points needed required; then if the attempt fails, then yes - by the rules - a Foul and a Miss could be called.

The first paragraph of the F&M rule states:
"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a
ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless: ..."

"best of his ability" and "consider" are the words that can cause confusion.

In the pro game, the players are deemed to have the ability to get out of very difficult snookers, and so F&M will be called nearly all the time.
In the amateur games, this gets tougher to judge.

But if the attempt is "considered" by the ref was to the best of their ability the Miss wont be called, still a Foul, penalty points awarded and the non-player has two choices, play himself, or ask the offending player to play; the only difference with a Foul and a F&M is that with a Foul (i) the non-offending player cant ask for the ball(s) replaced, and (ii) the count to "3 and frame lost" is not in action.

edit, beaten by SnkrRef again - dangnamit!

[Eferata]

SnkrRef,
Thanks for your explanation. Totally agree. However, there always players who always want to be the "I am always right man". Really thanks for clearing my doubt.

Snooker lover,
Eferata

[Eferata]

DeanH,
Thanks for your explanation also.

Snooker lover,
Eferata

[golferson123]

Any rule in a sport that is bent or altered to suit to the level of play is a false rule. There are the rules of golf the rules of football the rules of tennis ect you are offside or not the balls in or out. The spectacle of refs shuffling the balls about after a foul and a miss rule make me cringe how on earth did this sport develop with all these cheating players not playing to "the best of there abilities". If a rule cannot encompass all players of a sport then its a bad rule

[chessking]

Any rule in a sport that is bent or altered to suit to the level of play is a false rule. There are the rules of golf the rules of football the rules of tennis ect you are offside or not the balls in or out. The spectacle of refs shuffling the balls about after a foul and a miss rule make me cringe how on earth did this sport develop with all these cheating players not playing to "the best of there abilities". If a rule cannot encompass all players of a sport then its a bad rule

It does seem to be a cure in search of a problem.

Im no rule expert, but couldent the f&m rule be done away with, and use the "ungentlemanly" option to correct a player that in the referee's opinion did not play the ball "to his ability"?

[SnkrRef]

But the Miss rule has actually been in the rules since way back when. My 1987 rule books defines a Miss as :

A miss is when the referee considers the striker has not endeavoured to hit the ball on.

S3 'Mode of Play' sub-section (l) goes on to say:

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 miss.

The penalty, was, of course, to play from the original position if requested by the non-offender.

The 1995 rule book s3.14 didn't fundamentally change the rule, although it prescribed that a miss WILL be called in some circumstances and WILL NOT in others. It remains silent about misses being called when snookered.

The miss rule never really caused any debate until the 1995 rule book was published, but only in more recent years has it seemingly become so contentious. It's the interpretation made by WPBSA/WS that have caused the controversy, because they believe all professional players can get out of virtually any snooker. As I've said before, at amateur level, referees must consider the ability of the player and the difficulty of the snooker, just as they always have done. Nevertheless, players, spectators and indeed amateur referees (some of whom also officiate at WS events) have had their opinions tainted by the strictness of what they see on the professional circuit, and apply the same stringent standards when it is not warranted.

I'm a firm believer that the main body of the rules (particularly section 3) should be used to the fullest extent possible, and that S5 which gives referees the power to make decisions in the interest of fair play, should only be used as a last resort. Again, as I've said before, each referee will be making a subjective decision under S5, and they will vary enormously from one referee to another. Indeed back in the mid-80s it was common for players to comment 'oh I hope I get so-and-so to referee my match, he's really lenient' and also to the contrary. There should be as much consistency from one referee to another, and reliance on S5 for decision-making won't allow that.

[SnkrRef]

I must admit I do find it frustrating that some players, especially the less experienced and the younger juniors, will have the balls replaced even though they have been left an easy pot. I had one such case at an event I refereed last weekend, and really couldn't see why the young player wouldn't want the easy opening red. As it happened, on the next attempt the player hit the open red and knocked it safe, leaving the other player with no opening opportunity.

Back in the mid-90s there was a short period where the official guidance to all referees was that if an easy pot was left then no miss was called. That didn't last long because, once again, it was a very subjective call for the referee, and decisions differed wildly between them.

[golferson123]

I agree its sad to see young players doing that their just copying what they see. I've allways wanted the roll up snooker stopped not because i dont think it has merits but because what then follows. My main gripe with the foul and a miss rule is the introduction of mulligens into snooker i know golfers who refuse to play a shot again even when playing on their own!. As for the basis of foul and a miss "best of their abilities" if players played to that standard they would never miss a pot! They miss plenty of those so missing snookers is no big deal it doesnt mean their cheating. I've said it before that one day it will be deciding frame in the world championship all square on points someone will fluke a ball come below baulk and dribble up to a colour and watch as miss after miss is called until his opp needs snookers that outcome would be disasterous. We need to take that into account when rules are introduced