What's the point of a foul and a miss?

[weepete]

Given that the non-offending player can ask the offending player to play again from where the white ball has ended up I'm really struggling to understand the context of why the foul and a miss rule was introduced, and why we virtually never see players asked to play again in the professional game?

[jrc750]

I think it was because the players were missing a red on purpose and hence not leaving a pot on, by virtually demanding that they hit a red the other player might at least get a decent chance of a pot, or get a few points whilst waiting for that chance

[weepete]

But surely if there is not a pot on after the foul and a miss, then either the non offending player can play a reasonsbly easy safety (given the grey area), or put the offending player back in where there is a chance of getting another decent chance of a pot?

[Billy]

But surely if there is not a pot on after the foul and a miss, then either the non offending player can play a reasonsbly easy safety (given the grey area), or put the offending player back in where there is a chance of getting another decent chance of a pot?

But there's always going to be situations where the offending player gains an advantage from a foul. You may say that's in the lap of the gods, but it's why the miss was introduced.

Example: P1 puts P2 in a snooker. There's 12 reds left on the table, fairly open. P2 attempts to escape from the snooker in such a way as to not leave a pot on should he miss. He does in fact miss, but leaves P1 in a situation where he can neither pot a ball or easily return to baulk. In other words he has neither a pot nor a safety shot available.

Ergo P2 has gained an advantage from a foul. Yes, P1 can put P2 back in to play and give him the problem, but... hold on, you may have a point here :distant:

[Londonlad147]

The basic 'miss' has been in the rules for absolutely donkeys years. It was there to be used if the referee thought the player had deliberately missed, and at one point if he called 'miss' the ref would automatically replace the balls, with no option for the non-offender playing from the position left.

By the early 1990s there were a number of top players who were very adept at getting out of tricky situations in baulk by playing side and top cushions to just miss the pack on the way back to baulk, and it was clear that on many occasions these were deliberate misses, and this led to what we have today being introduced in the 1995 rule book.

[weepete]

But there's always going to be situations where the offending player gains an advantage from a foul. You may say that's in the lap of the gods, but it's why the miss was introduced.

Example: P1 puts P2 in a snooker. There's 12 reds left on the table, fairly open. P2 attempts to escape from the snooker in such a way as to not leave a pot on should he miss. He does in fact miss, but leaves P1 in a situation where he can neither pot a ball or easily return to baulk. In other words he has neither a pot nor a safety shot available.

Ergo P2 has gained an advantage from a foul. Yes, P1 can put P2 back in to play and give him the problem, but... hold on, you may have a point here :distant:

Yeah, that's just why I'm wondering. I think this may be a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist other than in snooker player's heads. It's normally quoted that it's to prevent a deliberate foul, which I get but in my head that's already taken care of with the free ball or play again rule.

[Londonlad147]

Yeah, that's just why I'm wondering. I think this may be a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist other than in snooker player's heads. It's normally quoted that it's to prevent a deliberate foul, which I get but in my head that's already taken care of with the free ball or play again rule.

But if you can deliberately miss there will be situations, particularly when one player is significantly ahead, that having the options of putting the offender back in or taking a free ball if one exists, is not going to be of great help to the non-offender, and the offender has gained an advantage. For example, Player A who is 34 points ahead is snookered on the last red. If he makes a serious attempt at hitting it he's likely to leave it on, so he plays in such a way that he hits the colour to knock the red into a safe position, but leaving no free ball and no easy laying of a snooker for Player B. If put back in Player A can play safe. Thus Player A has potentially gained a significant advantage by playing a deliberate foul.

I've seen some matches where the miss rule hasn't been applied and some shots have been flagrant abuse of the rules, but because the miss rule can't be applied they get away with it.

[weepete]

But if you can deliberately miss there will be situations, particularly when one player is significantly ahead, that having the options of putting the offender back in or taking a free ball if one exists, is not going to be of great help to the non-offender, and the offender has gained an advantage. For example, Player A who is 34 points ahead is snookered on the last red. If he makes a serious attempt at hitting it he's likely to leave it on, so he plays in such a way that he hits the colour to knock the red into a safe position, but leaving no free ball and no easy laying of a snooker for Player B. If put back in Player A can play safe. Thus Player A has potentially gained a significant advantage by playing a deliberate foul.

I've seen some matches where the miss rule hasn't been applied and some shots have been flagrant abuse of the rules, but because the miss rule can't be applied they get away with it.

Thanks mate, that's a bit clearer now

[Tim65]

If you want to understand how this rule has changed the game just watch the deciding frame of the 1985 World Final & imagine how different it would have been with this rule in place.