foul question

[s2chewy]

hi all,

i'm kind of new to snooker and just coming to grips with the rules.

my question is if my mate snookers me and i don't hit the ball im going for can he put the balls back where they was before i took the shot?

and if so and i keep missing how many times can he do that?

thanks

[RaNeN]

This is usually done is professional snooker.
This can be done until a very good attemt is made or you are out of the game.

[DawRef]

If the referee (or your 'mate') decides that a good enough attempt hasn't been made to hit the ball on, then he will call 'Foul And A Miss (Section 3, Rule 14).
You can be called for a Foul And A Miss until such times as you require a snooker (Section 3 Rule 14(b)).

[Belloz22]

you will tend to find that in ametur snooker, and friendlies, you will not play the full extent of the foul and miss rule. In my league, the only time a miss can be called is if the opponent can see the ball that he is playing, where as in professional snooker you can call a miss if you cannot see the ball you are playing directly, and you have not made a good enough attempt.

The reason it is tend to be left out in ametur and friendlies is because it can become awkward to reposition balls fairly, etc when there is no referee.

As with the miss rule, there are two outcomes. If you are playing the professional way, then you cannot call a miss again if the resulting foul as ment that you or your opponent now require a snooker, or a good attempt has been made to contact the object ball.

However with ametur and professional, if you miss the ball you are playing, and you can directly see it, then if you miss 3 times consecitivly, then the frame is called. It must be noted that you must be able to see the ball you are playing, and you foul 3 times in a row. In this case you will forfit the frame.

Hope this helps

[Joe99]

In discussing "Foul and a Miss" rule, the phrase "good enough attempt" often crops up.

Exactly what it means has never been clearly defined, but in any case it does not occur in the rules.

The rules require a striker "to the best of his ability, to endeavour to hit the ball on". Further down the rules refer to the possibility that a miss could be judged "intentional"

Does this mean that the referee must compare each shot against TWO benchmarks, so that shots fall into 3 classes:

(1) Acceptable shots
(2) "negligent" shots, i.e. best ability not used
(3) Intentional misses

or did the rule makers just happen to use two different forms of words to refer to what they intended to be a single dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable shots?

A class (2) shot could be one where the player had ignored an easier stroke available, but instead went for a potentially higher scoring stroke but failed. There being no suggestion that his failure was "intentional"

[The Statman]

Note that the player must, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. This is not quite the same as, to the best of his ability, hit the ball on. Otherwise virtually every shot would be called a Miss as eventually a player would succeed.

The referee must be satisfied that the player's shot was more concerned with hitting the ball than any other factor (safety, for example).

Therefore, when a player goes off three or four cushions to rest on a safe red even though there is a pack to aim for (or any easier red), then it is by definition a Miss because he has not played to the best of his ability to hit a red. He has had safety more in mind than playing a fair shot.

Here are my own personal guidelines, where no direct contact is available.

If ANY of these conditions applies, it is definitely a Miss, dependent on snookers required:

1 Has the player played for the easiest ball(s) by the easiest route? NO = Miss

2 Has the player played with insufficient strength for his intended route (underhit)? YES = Miss

3 Has the cue-ball made direct contact with the obstructing ball? YES = Miss

4 Has he put too much sidespin on for his intended route? YES = Miss

5 Has he put maximum sidespin on but it is still not enough? YES = Miss (the route is not available)

If the answer to ALL FIVE of these questions does not result in a definite Miss, then I judge whether the attempt is good enough. Bear in mind that the position of the balls will affect my decision (for example, a simple two-cushion escape is not so simple with very awkward cueing or with the spider or whatever, so a little more leeway may be in order); so will the intrinsic difficulty of the shot and the relative skill of the player.

I remember Graeme Dott being in trouble right behind the yellow, where the cue-ball was almost touching the baulk cushion and the yellow touching the cue-ball. He had virtually no angles to play with and he went off the jaws of the yellow pocket, came up the table and narrowly missed the loose pack of reds. No Miss was called, quite correctly, because he had literally no other possible route and on the curved face of the jaw cushions it was fiendishly difficult to judge.

[The Statman]

Perhaps a little artistic moment would be useful.

In this diagram, the player is snookered on the last red, behind the blue but with other colours awkwardly placed.

(Diagram appears as attachment below)

There are six possible escapes shown, and here is my verdict on each of them:

I am assuming that:
The scoreline is not close to either player needing snookers;
The player cannot hit the ball directly (otherwise it would be a Miss whatever);
The player is attempting to hit the red.

1 (one-cushion escape with side)
Verdict: Miss, assuming that the maximum possible left-hand side is being employed, even if other routes shown were not available.
Reason: Playing for a shot that is not available.
Player's remedy: Select different route.

2 (one-cushion escape with side)
Verdict: Miss, even if it were the easiest available route.
Reason: Too much left-hand side has been used.
Player's remedy: use less side.

3 (one-cushion escape)
Verdict: Miss.
Reason: Easiest route used, but underhit.
Player's remedy: Use same route but hit harder.

4 (one-cushion escape)
Verdict: No Miss.
Reason: Easiset route used; attempt was acceptable and passed close to the target. (NOTE: In the professional game, all failures-to-hit are called a Miss if one-cushion escape)

5 (two-cushion escape)
Verdict: Miss
Reason: Easier escape available (namely, route 4).
Player's remedy: Use alternative route.
(Verdict: No Miss, if no one-cushion route were available)

6 (attempted swerve around blue, but struck blue)
Verdict: Miss
Reason: Failed to avoid the snookering ball.
Player's remedy: Avoid blue.

[The Statman]

PS Why do the images appear as links now?

[Joe99]

Thanks Statman for your comprehensive posts.

One thing that I have been puzzled by is the routine foul and a miss call for a shot which was on track but just fell short (your case 3).

I acknowledge that this seems to be pretty universally accepted and I am not disputing the value of something that gives the referee an objective guideline to work with.

But where in the rules is there anything that states that a failure of distance is to be treated differently from a failure of direction?

As far as I can see, the only time the rules impose an obligation to "reach" is in the ball on impossible to hit situation.

Is there some "supplementary" set of rules or official set of guidelines for referees that a referee could refer to as the basis for his call in your case 3?

[The Statman]

There are guidelines.

Look at it this way: Direction can be misjudged in either direction, without suggesting that one side is more of a misjudgement than the other. However, distance can only be underjudged, not overjudged (i.e. if you overhit it it will still hit the ball).

Generally, I think it can be agreed that direction is more difficult to judge than speed, in that, if you underhit it, then by definition you are definitely prioritising safety over playing the red. Whereas, if you misjudge the direction, but it would have been hard enough, then that is not necessarily the case.

Basically, if you are capable of correctly judging the direction you are surely capable of hitting it hard enough.

What the Miss rule does, if you care to look at it like this, is it put the prerogative on the player to decide how many points he is prepared to give away before making sure of a hit and leaving a possible opening.

By which I mean: you are snookered and there is an easy but dangerous escape, and a difficult but safe escape. You are likely to play the more difficult one which, by definition, you might not get right. Now you can think to yourself, it's 0-0, the reds are everywhere, if I leave him in he's got a good chance - so I'm prepared to go for the difficult route 15 times before I think enough's enough (which would make me 60 points down). Or, well I'm already 38 behind, there's at least the yellow safe so any counterattack is not likely to result in loss of the frame straight away - so I'll go for the difficult route once or twice (eroding my lead minimally) and then just go for the easy route, by which time he'll still need the yellow and green to win the frame.

Or whatever.

[Joe99]

There are guidelines.

where are these "guidelines" documented?

thanks Statman for your patience in composing your post. I am at last starting to see the rationale the rule makers must have had in mind in introducing the "snookers required or not" condition into the rule.

[The Statman]

I don't know the guidelines exactly as such, but as far as I know, in the professional game, if there is a one-cushion escape (without the need for side) then it's automatic.

The bottom line is the question: Has the player tried to hit the ball above all other considerations, such as safety.

No problem; I have all the patience in the world! I actually feel that it is underexplained on telly; commentators say "Well that'll be called a miss all day" or whatever, without really explaining why. And when it is put into those terms (such as I have above), the goings-on on the television do not seem nearly so ridiculous.

Of course, in the snookers-required scenario, it is assumed that you would not want to need more snookers / leave your opponent needing fewer, otherwise of course it would get a bit ridiculous. Basically it is assumed that you would give it your best shot – unless it is a blatant non-attempt in which case the Rule does allow for the Miss still to be called.