miss rule

[Ian Ferguson]

Hi,
I have been playing snooker for some 30 yrs now to a reasonably high standard ( 2 century breaks), but, no one in that time has been able to give me a difinative answer as to why a player cannot be called a 'miss' if his opponent is 48 up with only 1 red left. What is the actual reasoning as why a player cannot be called 'miss' just because he has amassed a substantial lead. If I were in a position where my opponent needed 4 snookers, and he got one, I would make it look like I tried to hit ball on, but also making sure I left cue ball in a situation where my opponent hopefully couldnt get another. I saw this this done in this years world champs. The player simply made it look like he tried, but left cue ball pretty safe. Knowing that no 'miss' would be called. Please explain why that rule is being used. As I see it, the player needing the snookers has little or no incentive to lay hard snookers, knowing that no 'miss' will be called. Seems a tad unfair. Please enlighten me.
thank you
Ian Ferguson

[thinsy]

Hi Ian,

If this situation was reversed and a miss could be called don't you think it would be unfair that from one snooker an opponent could make many misses and thus the other player would be able to win the frame from playing only one snooker when he actually needed four!

The miss is a difficult rule to uphold in any event because there is no real definition of what is or isn't a miss (apart from it seems that if you don't hit it, its a miss). Okay for 'Pros' but in your local leagues a very tough rule...

[DawRef]

Miss Rule

Ian

Actually, he could be called for a Miss. The opening line of Section 3 Rule 14 states:

" The striker shall, to the best of his ability, hit the ball on......" and should be read in conjunction with Section 2 Rule 20.(http://worldsnooker.com/about_the_rules.htm) (Click on Corporate tab, then Rules tab).

If he was snookered on the final red and just tapped the ball from behind the snookering ball, the referee would be quite entitled to call 'Foul and a Miss', as he has made no intention to hit the ball on (see above).

There is a long explanation in John Street's book on pages 85 and 86, and I'm only going to put a part of it here (relevant I hope to your question), and relates to Section 3 Rule 14(b) (for definition see link above).

"A player who is 36 points in front with only one Red left knows his opponent needs a snooker, the Red, a high value colour plus all the colours to win the frame. The player who is 36 in front is not going to miss it if he can help it, because if he does his opponent can win without the need of a snooker. If he failed to make contact, a Miss will not be called."

Also remember that Section 3 Rule 14(e) states :
"All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee". So if the referee decides that the player deliberately missed the ball on, then he will call 'Foul and a Miss'.

Hope this answers your question.

[thinsy]

Also remember that Section 3 Rule 14(e) states :
"All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee". So if the referee decides that the player deliberately missed the ball on, then he will call 'Foul and a Miss'.

Hope this answers your question.

So does this mean that all the professional referees think that the professional players miss deliberately

.............

[Ian Ferguson]

miss

thanks for the swift reply, but its still very very vague. Like I said I have been playing many years and I still find that rule strange. I just dont see the advantage to the player needing snookers. The player leading has it all going for him. But thank you anyway for getting back to me.

[The Statman]

Basically, the "no Miss when a player needs snookers" part only applies assuming the player has made a reasonable attempt. If it is blatantly deliberate, such as just tapping the cue-ball, a Miss can still be called.

No, the referees are not saying that the player has deliberately missed it - more that he made safety, rather than hitting the red, his top priority.

Often you see a player try to rest on a red on the top cushion which is harder to hit than an alternative. Obviously he is trying to hit the red, but he is trying in such a way as to minimise his opponent's chances of being left on, rather than maximise his chances of making contact.

In short, a Miss should be called if...
: he fails to hit the ball on when he is able to hit one directly (i.e. if a ball is available it must be hit)
: he does not hit his intended shot hard enough (i.e. attempt not good enough)
: he does not go for the easiest ball to hit, or not by the easiest route (i.e. attempted shot was more difficult than necessary)
: in some situations, if he has to use side and uses too much.
...as long as snookers were not needed before or after the shot.

If a miss is a deliberate one (i.e. no effort was made at all) then a Miss can be called at any time.

That is a very basic outline and John Street's book is a must as it explains it exceptionally well. I don't know if it's still available, but I will call him when I get back from Sheffield and let you know.

[jimbo]

"A player who is 36 points in front with only one Red left knows his opponent needs a snooker, the Red, a high value colour plus all the colours to win the frame. The player who is 36 in front is not going to miss it if he can help it, because if he does his opponent can win without the need of a snooker. If he failed to make contact, a Miss will not be called."

That's fine... but if 3 or 4 snookers are needed, the player in front can safely deliberately miss with little consequence. Maybe they should change the rules so that a miss *will* be called unless the foul takes the player out from needing snookers?

jimbo

[WALTER-ITALY]

talking about snooker required situation in my opinion isn't right what a player ,for example,34 points up can made a 4 penalty points and keep out the last red of the table leaving only 27 on the table at his opponent (i'm talking about a NON deliberate faul sure bat professionals are so able

[DawRef]

talking about snooker required situation in my opinion isn't right what a player ,for example,34 points up can made a 4 penalty points and keep out the last red of the table leaving only 27 on the table at his opponent (i'm talking about a NON deliberate faul sure bat professionals are so able

If the player was 34 points up, snookered on the last red, deliberately hit the yellow, which then went on to pot the red, the referee would be quite entitled to:
(i) call foul and a miss,
(ii) replace all balls, and
(iii) warn player if he done that again he would award the frame to his opponent under Section 4 Rule 1(b) and/or (c).

Don't have me reffing you if you decide this course of action during a frame - you have been warned!!!!!

Also if a player, 34 points up, can easily pot the last red, he is unlikely to go in off or foul, as his opponent would then need two four point penalties to tie the frame once the red is potted.

[Billy]

Staying on the subject of the miss rule, can anyone explain why the WPBSA flatly refuses to do anything about altering it when the rule doesn't have a SINGLE supporter?

[stegorjus]

If the player was 34 points up, snookered on the last red, deliberately hit the yellow, which then went on to pot the red, the referee would be quite entitled to:
(i) call foul and a miss,
(ii) replace all balls, and
(iii) warn player if he done that again he would award the frame to his opponent under Section 4 Rule 1(b) and/or (c).

I'm interested to know what DawRef might have done in the Davis/Parrot game if the red had been knocked in with the black. For those who didn't see it, Parrott could only hit the black and appeared to attempt to pot a red with the black so as not to leave it over the pocket. This would have removed an easy starter for Davis at a cost of 7 points. There was no miss as he hit the nominated black first. In fairness to John, he said later that he was trying to move the red rather than pot it.

[DawRef]

Miss Rule

I actually didn't see it. However, you have asked me for an answer and here it is.

If I thought that JP had deliberately tried to knock the red in to stop SD having an easy starter, then I probably would have warned him under Section 4 Rule 1(b), with the further proviso that if done again I would award the frame to SD and furthermore another repeat I would award the match.
What the referee has to decide in that instance is was JP playing a deliberate foul? (Did the BBC ak the ref?) He has't time to discuss or weigh up the situation, he has to decide there and then. (how long ago did this happen? Isn't there another discussion thread in this and another forum?).

----------------------
Billy

Here is a synopsis from John Street's book about the Foul and Miss Rule.

The Miss rule has been in the rule book since 1936, but referees very rarely implemented it. There was an 'Official Decision' in 1978 which stated that the referee could ask the player to play again after missing a ball, but he would score any points he made from that break - a bit unfair to his opponent.
This Foul and Miss Rule is entirely new, but was adopted and adhered by many players (professional) years before it was introduced to the rule book for all players in 1985.
What it means is, that if the striker can see the ball on, he must hit a ball on. He doesn't have to hit the ball he can see, as long as he hits a ball that is or could be on.
What the striker cannot now do, if snookered, is just tap the cue-ball from behind the snookering ball. At one time that was considered a fair stroke. Not so now.
So, if the cue-ball is in the jaws of a pocket with the pink and black in front of him and red is a ball on, he cannot just tap the cue-ball into the pocket and give away 4 points. He has to make a fair attempt at hitting a red, even if it means giving away 6 or 7 points.

Also remember that Section 3 Rule 14(e) states:
'All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee.'

So if the referee decides a fair attempt was made, he(she) won't call Foul and a Miss.

Hope this helps.

[Billy]

That all makes sense, DawRef, and I'm fully aware of how the miss rule works, but the point I was making is that players and commentators alike have been expressing their dislike of it for a couple of years now, so why are the WPSBA refusing to review how it currently works?

[WALTER-ITALY]

If the player was 34 points up, snookered on the last red, deliberately hit the yellow, which then went on to pot the red, the referee would be quite entitled to:
(i) call foul and a miss,
(ii) replace all balls, and
(iii) warn player if he done that again he would award the frame to his opponent under Section 4 Rule 1(b) and/or (c).

Don't have me reffing you if you decide this course of action during a frame - you have been warned!!!!!

Also if a player, 34 points up, can easily pot the last red, he is unlikely to go in off or foul, as his opponent would then need two four point penalties to tie the frame once the red is potted.

Sorry i have some difficult to talk in english.... my question was about the case of player 34 pts. up knock out of the table .undeliberately,the last red after a regular shot...i seen this situation in china open

[DawRef]

Miss Rule

Walter-Italy

I'm afraid that is just 'rub-of-the-green'. The red stays in the pocket. If the red were to come back up, where would it go? I'm afraid it is one of those situations where a foul benefits the player committing it.

Billy

I do not know. Perhaps you could try asking World Snooker, but I doubt you'd get an answer.