The Miss Rule - Should it be scrapped?

[dantuck_7]

Just wondering at what level you have seen the miss rule been used at?

I have found that probably half the people in the club where I play employ this rule. The standard is average and it just seems to me that people see the professionals playing this rule and try and use it themselves.

I myself try not to play with it, just because it would cause so many arguments. Were the balls replaced correctly, should that have been called a miss?! It would be horrendous to lose an important frame because of it.

Has anyone else had any experiences with it - where you think it has been used unfairly or perhaps a situation where it actually settled a problem.

[gingerale]

Interesting topic, dantuck_7.
Generally, as long as the Miss Rule is part of the game's rules it should be used in amateur matches as well. Scrapping it would be like playing (and preparing for tournaments) with only 10 reds methinks.
On the other hand, I've followed and been part of several "should that have been called a miss" situations and actually witnessed a match in which quite a lame player generously told a (talented, and at the time leading) freshman after quite an obvious miss "ah no, that's not a miss, not at your level" - acting like a referee and coach while being the opponent. So what? I was suggesting the game should have been continued including that miss regardless of the (supposed) player's skills (even though that's part of the disputable rule). The foul was clearly made deliberately as it had left the balls in a safe position but the opponent's reaction seemed to have a psychological effect on the freshman: "you can't do that". The question is how to practise and how to learn, and how to manipulate.
There are always arguments about specific situations, not only the Miss Rule, maybe every club should host a grade two referee.

[DawRef]

I assume you are referring to the 'Foul and Miss' rule (Section 3, rule 14) as opposed to the 'Miss' rule (Section 2, rule 20).

I agree with gingerale.

Before the 1985 re-write, the Miss rule was only applied in the professional game. Originally, if a player was tucked up behind a ball, completely snookered, he could just tap away and that would have been deemed a fair stroke. Not now. That was one of the reasons why the rule was bought in.

In the local league I referee in, we only apply the 'Foul and Miss' if the player fails to hit a ball on he can see. If he is snookered, then it is not applied. This is a league rule. However, if I referee in County or National, then the full miss rule is enforced.

As in most sports, players look to the referee to maintain fair play and consistency in making his (or her) decisions. In applying the Foul and Miss Rule, the referee should take in account the ability of the player(s). If the player(s) cannot even pocket a ball sitting on a pocket, he is hardly going to work out the angle(s) to get out of a snooker. However, if the player(s) are capable of knocking in 40+ breaks, then he should have no hesitation in applying the Foul and Miss.

Also, when replacing the balls after a F & M, both players have to agree that that is where the ball(s) were, and if they do not, the referee makes the decision for them and that decision is final.

[miscuehamburg]

The miss rule is part of the game. In my opinion it should be used at every level of play, of course accounting the individual level of skills. There are mainly three reasons for me to advocate this:
1 This rule prevents the player to gain advantage of a foul stroke, ie hitting the cue ball in a safe position.
2 It gives a reward for the player who manages to get his/hers opponent snookered.
3 Last but not least, it is a learning experience for the snookered one player. After his first miss, he often can escape on the second attempt, because he learns from the failure. Thus it is also rewarding to him.
What I do not like is somebody calling miss after he has fluke-snookered his opponent. This I consider as a bad manner and do not do it by myself, even if my opponent does it to me.

[Mask]

I agree with the miss rule, the problem lies with when its called.
I think that for the lesser players it should be only applied if it is a very obvious miss. Obviously the top players can get out of anything! So it should be called basically every time. Its a bit harsh for the rest of us at times though and as it has been said it can mean losing a frame/match. For example...a top player verses a club player....he will know that if he keeps on putting him in snookers the frame/match is his. In this case the better player can use the miss rule to his advantage in the opposite way.

[sArnie]

The miss rule is an important part of Snooker and should definitely not be donned. Every player knowing that a miss is not part of the rules, could be tempted to use that, to gain an unfair advantage. Let's assume a player has a simple way to reach the ball on with a short shot against a near cushion and decides against that shot in favour of a safety behind any ball. This could lead to a situation, where none of the players even tries to reach the ball on, in order not to leave an entry for the opponent.

Even for beginners I would have the F&M rule observed, because - as miscuehamburg stated under number 3 - it's a way of learning how to get out of a snooker. It's part of the game and should always be observed.

In my opinion, even at the lowest level of player expertise a foul it should generally be considered a miss, when only one cushion is needed to reach the ball and - according to the foul and miss rule - in any case, in which the striker does obviously not do his or her best to reach any ball on. If the players have different capabilities I'd have an appropriate basic agreement for each player.

In any case, fairness should always be part of the decision process. A basis as the "one cushion agreement" I proposed, should be agreed upon before a match is begun in order to avoid unpleasant discussions during the match. In the end the decision is with the ref - whoever has that role.

[matt01]

miss rule

The problem comes in when a referee doesn't apply the miss rule correctly. I almost lost a league match because the ref called a miss continuesly even though I was trying my best to get out of the snooker and couldn't. One of my team mates almost came to blows over the rule on another occasion (I think he had to much to drink on the night). I have even seen profesionals unable to get out of difficult situations and the ref just kept calling a miss.
Saying all that, I do think it has a place in the game.

[The Statman]

The problem with using the Foul and a Miss Rule at lower levels is not so much the lower abilities of the players but the lower levels of refereeing in a game which – naturally – does not have a qualified person officiating.

There is nothing wrong with the Rule itself. It states that (unless snookers are required etc.) if you CAN SEE part of the ball on you MUST hit it or a Miss will be called – quite black and white and not open really to interpretation. All other misses are at the discretion of the referee – that is the bit that causes the confusion.

I see players down the club for a casual knockaround, average break 9 if you're lucky, where one is in a difficult snooker and after a failed attempt the cue-ball is replaced and he has another go. This is the problem – it is seen on tv called more or less every time and the casual player does exactly the same thing.

No, there is nothing wrong with the rule as it stands. Just the exposure it gets on the telly.

I would recommend that you play to the slightly amended version that our league adopts – If you can see the ball on FULL BALL and fail, a miss will be called; otherwise it won't unless the referee assesses the shot as a blatant deliberate miss (e.g. snookered and the player just taps the ball rather than attempt any sort of escape).

[matt01]

good

Good posting statsman - as usual.

[sArnie]

The problem with using the Foul and a Miss Rule at lower levels is not so much the lower abilities of the players but the lower levels of refereeing in a game which – naturally – does not have a qualified person officiating.

Full ack on that statement. As I tried to point out it takes a clearly stated agreement to avoid discussions and a fair amount of gentlemanly behaviour from the ref.

No, there is nothing wrong with the rule as it stands. Just the exposure it gets on the telly.

I would recommend that you play to the slightly amended version that our league adopts – If you can see the ball on FULL BALL and fail, a miss will be called; otherwise it won't unless the referee assesses the shot as a blatant deliberate miss (e.g. snookered and the player just taps the ball rather than attempt any sort of escape).

The usage of this special rule during televised matches is indeed a reason for some casual observers to assume, a miss can be called at virtually any failed attempt. Even at the level those players have achieved that sometimes is a harsh decision. It is very much ok that way, because the professional referees do that 1. knowing both opponents' abilities and 2. have the expertise to apply that rule even-handed.

Your suggestion not to apply F&M if the striker can't see the ball on FULL BALL and on blatant deliberate misses is one possible solution. On the other hand I would like to see an encouragement for the striker to learn a way out of a snooker - even at lower levels. Just like a professional sometimes has to take some attempts to find correct angle and force for a shot, every player should be obliged to try. Having to try a shot using a cushion, motivates to practise this kind of shot and make yourself familiar with is possibilities and limitations.

[The Statman]

Your suggestion not to apply F&M if the striker can't see the ball on FULL BALL and on blatant deliberate misses is one possible solution. On the other hand I would like to see an encouragement for the striker to learn a way out of a snooker - even at lower levels. Just like a professional sometimes has to take some attempts to find correct angle and force for a shot, every player should be obliged to try. Having to try a shot using a cushion, motivates to practise this kind of shot and make yourself familiar with is possibilities and limitations.

I quite agree with your sentiment.

The reason that our league introduced this less stringent, if you like, application of the rule is, I suppose, a combination of (1) non-referees officiating; (2) not trying to spoil what is essentially a social occasion.

I certainly agree that the use of this Rule should be encouraged at all levels. My earlier post was almost worded in such a way that I was being critical of the 'tv application' of the Rule; that was not my intention. The Rule works well in the professional game, applied by experienced professional referees to experienced professional players. It is the apparent misconception that if that's how it's done on telly then that's how we should apply it down the club that needs addressing.

As I said, I have seen literally hopeless players having a leisurely game over a few beers, suddenly start replacing the cue-ball after every failed attempt. And there is no discussion as to whether either of them thinks the attempt was poor – it is taken for granted. They are not playing at a level serious enough that it makes the slightest difference to them and they happily get on with their beers and with their game. But it does demonstrate that, while it is quite appropriate for the professional game to have stringent guidelines issued to its referees as to how they should apply the written Rule, a lot of people have only ever seen the Rule in use on the television and have never actually looked at a Rule book in their lives.

Conclusion:
Do nothing with the rule in terms of tweaking, but broadcast sessions pointing out what the written rule actually states, and why (or, rather, to what effect) the more stringent interpretation in the professional game is used.

Then those who watch will understand its entirely appropriate use in the pro ranks, while not automatically bringing that to the social table.

==========

If you want to use the Miss Rule to its absolute perfect application, I come back http://www.thesnookerforum.com/snook...tion-4281.html post number 6; with a snazzy diagram in post no. 7 if it's still viewable.

[miscuehamburg]

The best way to apply the rule without a referee is when both players deliberately give misses to themselves if they think it is adequate. I know, it won't always work, but it's worth giving a try.

[C-J]

That's how i do it at my club and try to do it in the league,just eye contact and then a little nod should be enough..

[matt01]

hi

That's how i do it at my club and try to do it in the league,just eye contact and then a little nod should be enough..

Thats how I would like to play the game as well. The problem is that in our league one of the opposing team member act as the ref in away games. This means that if a miss happens , some refs are very strict in applying the rule (to the benefit of their team ofcourse). I personally feel that we are not pro's and if a player makes a genuine effort to play the ball "on", the ref should be more lenient.

[The Statman]

...
This means that if a miss happens , some refs are very strict in applying the rule (to the benefit of their team ofcourse).
...

That is why our league took its own interpretation (as I described earlier) – the referee (who as you rightly say is a member of the home team) has proper guidelines as to what he can call a miss.