The miss rule... again.

[black21920]

I play in 2 leagues, 1 uses the miss rule and the other doesn't. There was an occasion when I snookered an opponent with a fairly straightforward 1 cushion escape and he deliberately missed, he quite openly asked the referee before playing his shot whether the miss rule was in place, after the ref told him no he proceeded to play his shot and never came within 3 feet of hitting the ball leaving it planted on the bottom cushion. I gained no real advantage other than to put him back in again as the pink was now in a safe position, if I were able to pot the pink it would have been frame over as I was 4 points up before he took the shot, the foul only cost him 6pts so it left him 10 pts behind, he duly potted the pink and black after a short exchange of safety play and went on to win the game. Personally I think the ref should have made him replay the shot and docked him 6 points for ungentlemanly conduct but as the miss rule isn't enforced in that league the ref maybe thought there was little he could do. So with that in mind I think the referees should be able to apply the miss rule where he feels that the player has deliberately missed to use it to his advantage, even in leagues where it isn't enforced. I can categorically say that shot would never have happened in the other league where the miss rule is applied.

[Londonlad147]

So with that in mind I think the referees should be able to apply the miss rule where he feels that the player has deliberately missed to use it to his advantage, even in leagues where it isn't enforced.

The phrase 'and the referee was satisfied that the miss was not intentional' are used in the miss rule. Their inclusion means the referee can always call a miss, regardless of scores, if he thinks the miss WAS intentional.

[bluenose1940]

Just my two pennuth black21920, but I hate bad sportsmanship, hopefully your opponent will have had his 'card marked' and future opponents will be aware of his ungentlemanly conduct. Can't imagine for a minute that he would call his own fouls!

[acesinc]

I play in 2 leagues, 1 uses the miss rule and the other doesn't. There was an occasion when I snookered an opponent with a fairly straightforward 1 cushion escape and he deliberately missed, he quite openly asked the referee before playing his shot whether the miss rule was in place, after the ref told him no he proceeded to play his shot and never came within 3 feet of hitting the ball leaving it planted on the bottom cushion. I gained no real advantage other than to put him back in again as the pink was now in a safe position, if I were able to pot the pink it would have been frame over as I was 4 points up before he took the shot, the foul only cost him 6pts so it left him 10 pts behind, he duly potted the pink and black after a short exchange of safety play and went on to win the game. Personally I think the ref should have made him replay the shot and docked him 6 points for ungentlemanly conduct but as the miss rule isn't enforced in that league the ref maybe thought there was little he could do. So with that in mind I think the referees should be able to apply the miss rule where he feels that the player has deliberately missed to use it to his advantage, even in leagues where it isn't enforced. I can categorically say that shot would never have happened in the other league where the miss rule is applied.

The biggest problems I note with the Foul and a Miss rule as it is written is: 1) Relies strictly on referee's judgement...and this is fine at the professional level, but at the amateur level, the "amateur referees" are generally even less qualified as "professional" referees than the amateur players are qualified as "professional" players, if you catch my meaning. And 2) the quality of players of the game range from "professional" to "can't walk and chew gum at the same time" so it is basically impossible for one rule to encompass all of those varying skill levels fairly.

Can there be a real solution? I think so and I believe the answer is to NOT have a single all-encompassing rule, but instead have a variety of, shall we say, "potential" rules, and which of those rules is called upon in a particular scenario will be decided by the players themselves, and NOT left to the judgment of the referee. This solution I must say is not my own idea; I read it elsewhere and I was astounded by how it absolutely ingeniously balances the problem of the amateur versus the professional FAAM. So the wording of an actual newly proposed Rule would be subject to debate but the concept goes like this:

In ANY stroke in which the Ball On is not first contacted with the cue ball, then FAAM WILL be called every single time (even if it is "impossible" to make contact, which the current Rules consider to be an exception to the FAAM). This would apply at all skill levels. The major change to this FAAM rule then would be in the options that the players have after the FAAM is called. In this version of the rule, the incoming striker has exactly the same options as before, that is, he can play the shot as is, he can put the fouling striker back in for the shot at hand, or he can ASK to have the balls replaced to their original position. That is the difference....he only ASKS for the balls to be put back. As to whether they are ACTUALLY replaced then would be up to the fouling striker because after the incoming striker makes that request, now the fouling striker will have options. Either: 1) He can agree to the request and have the balls put back and try again, or 2) He can say no, the object balls will remain as they have come to rest but you, Mr. Incoming Striker can now have Ball In Hand anywhere on the table to play your shot (like is done in the Shootout). Now, there are those that say that a fouling striker should NOT have a say in his own penalty, but I say that if the fouling striker actually CHOOSES to give his opponent BIH, that is a pretty extreme penalty that he has chosen.

Do you see the beauty of this? It leaves the answer up to the PLAYERS not the referee. The fouling player must assess whether he is good enough to get out of the snooker without too many attempts, and also, the fouling player must assess whether his opponent is good enough to run more than maybe a couple of balls if he has the advantage of Ball In Hand. If the incoming striker gets the advantage of BIH, he can either choose to attempt a large break or he can use this advantage to lay another even more devious snooker. Of course, fouling professional players will nearly always choose option # 1 because they would rather die than give their opponent BIH. Amateur players know that their opponent is not likely to run a high break even with BIH so they will go with option # 2 if they think the snooker is particularly difficult and would require many attempts to escape.

This "new rule" would still allow for the judgment of the referee that the striker shall "endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on" as in the Rule currently and if the referee considers that the striker did not make an honest effort at contact (as in the post I quoted above) then the Referee reserves the right to force a reset of the table position with FAAM.

I have read of many leagues that either use the FAAM rule, or don't use the FAAM rule, or use some modified version of the FAAM rule, but this decision is always cantankerous and often causes rift between the players. This simply proves that the FAAM rule as it is currently written is not viable for all levels of snooker. I would encourage any League Operators to consider this proposed version of the FAAM for your league and if it proves to have positive feedback, then perhaps the "official" Rules can eventually be changed so as to adequately cover ALL levels of the game.

[Odrl]

Would this rule apply even if snookers were required?

If so, it would encourage players to play on when needing a lot of snookers, because there is either a chance to have the balls replaced and force multiple fouls from a single snooker, or put the white in the best possible position to immediately play another snooker.

I don't think Selby would ever concede a frame if this rule was applied. :wink:

[acesinc]

Would this rule apply even if snookers were required?

If so, it would encourage players to play on when needing a lot of snookers, because there is either a chance to have the balls replaced and force multiple fouls from a single snooker, or put the white in the best possible position to immediately play another snooker.

I don't think Selby would ever concede a frame if this rule was applied. :wink:

A couple things to TRY to answer your question. First, remember, this is not actually my idea; it is just a concept that I have heard about and I believe it is an utterly ingenious idea. As far as I am aware, this has not been implemented anywhere, in any league, but in my humble opinion, it sure ought to be. League Operators, at least give this a try and see how it works out. And league players, talk to your League Operators about this and try to convince them to incorporate it into the League Rules, especially if FAAM has been troublesome for you in the past.This is the only way that change can possibly come about. Second, as this is still only a concept, Odrl, I can only give you my own opinion as to how your scenario should play out under this suggested rule change. There is nothing set in stone about this, but I do believe the answer to your question is self-evident.

In reading over my earlier post again, I have to say that I misspoke when I said, "In ANY stroke in which the Ball On is not first contacted with the cue ball, then FAAM WILL be called every single time..." because I do believe that when a frame is in the snookers required stage, there is absolutely no conceivable reason why the leading player would PURPOSELY miss contact. Remember the ultimate reason for the FAAM rule....it is simply to make sure that a player must absolutely make his best effort to contact the ball on. And in the case of "snookers required", you can already be darn sure that the striker is making his absolute best effort to not foul. So with that said, the rule in that circumstance should remain exactly as it is now. You can rest assured that Selby could not drag a frame out any longer than he currently does.

To me, one of the most beautiful aspects of this solution is that for the Professional game, things will really remain exactly as they are currently, and everybody seems to be pretty happy with the way things are right now in the professional game. Let's be honest, a professional will almost NEVER concede Ball In Hand to his opponent if he has a choice in the matter so the way FAAM would play out would be exactly as it does now. Where the problem with the current FAAM rule occurs is only in the amateur game which is being officiated by amateur referees. This rule change then takes the judgment out of the hands of the amateur referee and just leaves it up to the players. In fact, since resolution of the FAAM is left up to the players, a referee is not even needed to play out the FAAM anymore! (Except to maybe be the final authority as to where balls get replaced to since the players may not agree on that point.) So as I look at it, this is really a win-win.....the professional game for all practical purposes remains the way it is (even though the way the Rule is written would be altered), but now the amateur game has a solution to a common problem within league play. And if the powers that be were to incorporate this concept into the Official Rules, then both Professional and Amateur could play under exactly the same rule set, it would not be necessary for leagues to make up their own rules in this regard as they must do now.

[Billy]

Have you forgotten where you are?

Yes. Stupid me.

[itsnoteasy]

A couple things to TRY to answer your question. First, remember, this is not actually my idea; it is just a concept that I have heard about and I believe it is an utterly ingenious idea. As far as I am aware, this has not been implemented anywhere, in any league, but in my humble opinion, it sure ought to be. League Operators, at least give this a try and see how it works out. And league players, talk to your League Operators about this and try to convince them to incorporate it into the League Rules, especially if FAAM has been troublesome for you in the past.This is the only way that change can possibly come about. Second, as this is still only a concept, Odrl, I can only give you my own opinion as to how your scenario should play out under this suggested rule change. There is nothing set in stone about this, but I do believe the answer to your question is self-evident.

In reading over my earlier post again, I have to say that I misspoke when I said, "In ANY stroke in which the Ball On is not first contacted with the cue ball, then FAAM WILL be called every single time..." because I do believe that when a frame is in the snookers required stage, there is absolutely no conceivable reason why the leading player would PURPOSELY miss contact. Remember the ultimate reason for the FAAM rule....it is simply to make sure that a player must absolutely make his best effort to contact the ball on. And in the case of "snookers required", you can already be darn sure that the striker is making his absolute best effort to not foul. So with that said, the rule in that circumstance should remain exactly as it is now. You can rest assured that Selby could not drag a frame out any longer than he currently does.

To me, one of the most beautiful aspects of this solution is that for the Professional game, things will really remain exactly as they are currently, and everybody seems to be pretty happy with the way things are right now in the professional game. Let's be honest, a professional will almost NEVER concede Ball In Hand to his opponent if he has a choice in the matter so the way FAAM would play out would be exactly as it does now. Where the problem with the current FAAM rule occurs is only in the amateur game which is being officiated by amateur referees. This rule change then takes the judgment out of the hands of the amateur referee and just leaves it up to the players. In fact, since resolution of the FAAM is left up to the players, a referee is not even needed to play out the FAAM anymore! (Except to maybe be the final authority as to where balls get replaced to since the players may not agree on that point.) So as I look at it, this is really a win-win.....the professional game for all practical purposes remains the way it is (even though the way the Rule is written would be altered), but now the amateur game has a solution to a common problem within league play. And if the powers that be were to incorporate this concept into the Official Rules, then both Professional and Amateur could play under exactly the same rule set, it would not be necessary for leagues to make up their own rules in this regard as they must do now.

I think this should be a hint to how good an idea this is.
Leagues shouldn't be making up their own rules, the rule is clear enough and covers all abilities, if in the referees opinion the player has made his best effort at getting out of the snooker, no miss. As you get better so does your ability to escape from snookers, and so the rule will be more strictly applied to you,Pros and many many good amateurs are good enough to hit everything so they play must hit. Ten breakers can't hit most things so a reasonable effort is good enough, doesn't matter what the ref calls a reasonable effort as long as he's making the same calls for both players, they are playing on an even field. I honestly don't know why folk make such a big thing of this, maybe players should button it a bit and accept the refs decision as final, this is the way I was brought up in all the sports I played. If you can't get out of snookers, go and practice it, it's another part of the game, if you dont want to practice well don't moan when you keep missing.