The Miss Rule - Should it be scrapped?

[sArnie]

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.

That is the main problem about this rule: A qualified ref who is trained to be neutral would be very much needed in lower level tournaments, where each players abilities differ and require the ref to decide with good judgement. That does not mean, that aplying F&M rules in a international tournament would not require good judgement.

Normally a member of the home team refs and there is always a possibility, that a person gives in to the temptation to bend this rule a bit in favour of the own team. In my experience that does not happen as often as one might think. Some even tend to enforce that rule harsher on their own team members, in order to avoid any touch of preferring the home team.

It is easiest, when the striker is fair enough to offer a miss, when he feels he could have done better, as miscuehamburg suggests, but that requires a strong sense of sportsmanship - which unfortunately may not be equally distinct in every player.

[The Statman]

Yes, I agree with all you say, sArnie.

[C-J]

It is easiest, when the striker is fair enough to offer a miss, when he feels he could have done better, as miscuehamburg suggests, but that requires a strong sense of sportsmanship - which unfortunately may not be equally distinct in every player.

I don't think many people will offer a miss imidiatly after they stroke.Most will loke at their opponent and make him the ref.Now you're hoping for him to be sporty(maybe you hope he feels uncomfortable with putting it back) but you put him in a difficult situation,especially when it's early in a frame and you don't really know each other.If he has it put back maybe later in the frame when he's on the wrong end it now leads to discussion or he could be afraid it will then cost him more(when he feels his opponent is better).So in fact,you really should call the miss on yourself....

[sArnie]

I don't think many people will offer a miss imidiatly after they stroke.Most will loke at their opponent and make him the ref.Now you're hoping for him to be sporty(maybe you hope he feels uncomfortable with putting it back) but you put him in a difficult situation,especially when it's early in a frame and you don't really know each other.If he has it put back maybe later in the frame when he's on the wrong end it now leads to discussion or he could be afraid it will then cost him more(when he feels his opponent is better).So in fact,you really should call the miss on yourself....

What all of this boils down to, is that a consent between both players is mandatory but not sufficient. The awkward point of calling miss too lightly or not often enough is a problem for both players. Offering a miss decision is the best way, and it is what I do, but I do not expect that from others.

If a discussion evolves it's gone wrong already. Whether the striker has offered a miss, does not matter at all: Once the referee (i.e. the other player) calls a miss, it is a decision, that has to be accepted. Asking for an explanation or disputing a decision is bound to cause a feeling of unfair behaviour on one side (or both sides), so it's always the best way, to have it as it's called by the ref.

If there's any reason to assume that the opponent, acting as a referee, bends the rules in order to gain an advantage for himself or his own team, starting a discussion is not going to help much. It may be an option to ask for another person to referee, but it should never be done during a frame or over a certain decision made.

Whatever happens, consider this: Bothering with a possibly wrong decision or even discussing about it, might do even more harm, than accepting it. Playing snooker is about concentration. Losing that can cost You and Your team a lot more than a few foul points.

BTW: This is what I hate most about professional(!) football players all over the world: Getting themselves into futile discussions with a referee. I have never seen a referee revoke his decision on that grounds. It simply doesn't help anybody at all.

[C-J]

Whatever happens, consider this: Bothering with a possibly wrong decision or even discussing about it, might do even more harm, than accepting it. Playing snooker is about concentration. Losing that can cost You and Your team a lot more than a few foul points.

This is true,but offering a miss decision will still give your oppenent a chance to get in your head a little bit(because you can hope he won't call it)

In the end it is the best way though,because it is to difficult to have an honest discussion with yourself at that moment.If you accidently hit the white everyone will call a foul on himself even if you're sure nobody saw it.Nothing to say to yourself that can make you go on.

[Martin76]

A good compromise at lower levels could be to only allow a predetermined number of misses to be called in a situation, for example two.
In this case it is sort of assumed that if you can't hit the ball after three attempts, you have at least given it your best shot. (I heard a rumor that they actually used this as a rule during the IBSF U21 WC.)

There could also be a complementary rule that if the opponent is of the opinion that the snookered player isn't choosing the easiest way out of the situation, he/she is obliged to point this out after the first attempt, and if the snookered player doesn't use this easier way the number of misses called doesn't have a limit. Just an idea...

It still doesn't solve the problem of what actually constitutes a miss, but it limits the damage a little bit for a player at a lower level of skill.

[sArnie]

This is true,but offering a miss decision will still give your oppenent a chance to get in your head a little bit(because you can hope he won't call it)

If You offer Your shot to be called foul&miss, every option is with Your opponent. He just might play on from what You left, so that is not any different from not counting that shot as a miss at all. What I mean is, at the moment You offer that miss You effectively made it one, whatever Your opponent does. As the foul points are added in any case it simply makes no difference whether Your opponent, does let You shoot again - accepting Your offer - or just plays on himself.

To come back to the original question: If there is no common grounds to decide on, which situation can lead to a F&M called, it should not be called at all. If both players or teams agree on accepting a F&M called under certain circumstances - like the FULL BALL playable variation statman suggested, for example - there has to be an agreement who is to decide. Like I wrote before: If the ref calls it a F&M under the conditions agreed upon beforehand, there's no way back and any discussion could possibly be regarded as "ungentlemanly conduct".

Snooker is about fair game through and through. I've not yet come by an opponent that wilfully misapplied that rule - or any other rule for that matter. If in any game outside a tournament I should find my opponent the exeption to the rule, instead of arguing, I'd rather concede and choose not to play with him again.

[C-J]

If You offer Your shot to be called foul&miss, every option is with Your opponent. He just might play on from what You left, so that is not any different from not counting that shot as a miss at all. What I mean is, at the moment You offer that miss You effectively made it one, whatever Your opponent does. As the foul points are added in any case it simply makes no difference whether Your opponent, does let You shoot again - accepting Your offer - or just plays on himself.

It doesn't make a difference if your opponent is in a reasonable position but if he is in a tricky position and lets you play the shot 7 times or so and now you're needing snookers it does.

[sArnie]

A good compromise at lower levels could be to only allow a predetermined number of misses to be called in a situation, for example two.
In this case it is sort of assumed that if you can't hit the ball after three attempts, you have at least given it your best shot. (I heard a rumor that they actually used this as a rule during the IBSF U21 WC.)

There could also be a complementary rule that if the opponent is of the opinion that the snookered player isn't choosing the easiest way out of the situation, he/she is obliged to point this out after the first attempt, and if the snookered player doesn't use this easier way the number of misses called doesn't have a limit. Just an idea...

It still doesn't solve the problem of what actually constitutes a miss, but it limits the damage a little bit for a player at a lower level of skill.

Theoretically, even three consecutive fouls could be an advantage for the striker, so it still has to be decided, whether or not the player did "to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on". Even more so, as this kind of limit would give the striker the possibility to make his last attempt the best, i.e. the one to leave the worst possible position.

This addition and Your suggestion to have the opponent point out the "easy way out" are well-meant. Actually they could be very useful to keep frustration down and learn about escaping snooker situations respectively. Both additions can take the edge of a rule difficult to apply so that keeping it in effect is possible.

As You stated Yourself, the general problem is not solved by any of this. It could provide a basis for players to become familiar with that rule and learn about its crux. This could be very useful, when beeing asked to ref a match where the foul&miss rule is used.

Check with statman or DawRef if this kind of limit for consecutive misses has ever been officially applied.

It doesn't make a difference if your opponent is in a reasonable position but if he is in a tricky position and lets you play the shot 7 times or so and now you're needing snookers it does.

Fouls points granted for a miss sure do matter. The bit You quoted, was based on the aasumption, that You've already offered the shot to be called F&M. In this case You've already granted Your opponent the option of letting You strike again. As every shot has to be revised for itself, You can always do a satisfactory attempt (according to the rule) in that next strike, thus avoiding the foul points.

[The Statman]

Check with statman or DawRef if this kind of limit for consecutive misses has ever been officially applied.

It never has, to my knowledge, but it is certainly an imaginative proposition to make the rule more appliable in lower-level matches.

[sArnie]

With this rule open to interpretation, you would think there would be more fall-outs over the baize.

"We sometimes make wrong decisions," Verhaas said, "but the players don't seem to argue."

"They sometimes complain after the match, but the players know us and know we're human and so we never have big arguments."

I found this on bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...es/6158266.stm) and it goes in the general direction I pointed out earlier. No arguing with the referee on a decision. It states that even players, who feel, that a certain decision might not have been correct, stay quiet and - if at all - complain after the match. Verhaas does admit to occaisonal wrong decisions. but "the players know us and know we're human".

Of course, that article refers to professional snooker and highly trained referees, but it describes true sportsmanship in both positions. And sportsmanship does not require professionals.

[C-J]

You can always do a satisfactory attempt (according to the rule) in that next strike, thus avoiding the foul points.

If you've only just missed it but you've offered a miss you have to hit it to avoid the foul points.Now maybe that attempt was actually very good and only your 7th attempt will better it.You're the only judge but as we agreed before we have to make or opponent the ref so i guess it is as it is.
In this situation i will not offer a miss only look at my opponent and in the club most will understand but in league or tournament it's different.

[sArnie]

If you've only just missed it but you've offered a miss you have to hit it to avoid the foul points.Now maybe that attempt was actually very good and only your 7th attempt will better it.You're the only judge but as we agreed before we have to make or opponent the ref so i guess it is as it is.
In this situation i will not offer a miss only look at my opponent and in the club most will understand but in league or tournament it's different.

Maybe I just miss the point of your argument, but having one shot called foul&miss has absolutely no influence on whether the next shot can be regarded as F&M. This is independent of who calls the miss.

If You try that same shot over and over again and leave that call for a miss to your opponent and referee, it may happen that he softens and decides to play on anyway, even if he regards your shot a miss. If you offer the miss yourself, you should offer an honest judgement and that does not change with any number of attempts. You may stop offering a miss decision if you come to the conclusion that your attempts probably won't get any better.

Whatever it is, none of this happens according to the written rule. As we're not talking about professional matches, that is by no means a problem. As I wrote earlier, a basic consent in which situations a miss may be called and a good share of understanding the intention of the foul&miss rule, are necessary to be able to apply it. In a standard social match at the local billard hall the last authority should be human reason, anyway.

[C-J]

What i ment is by leaving the decision to your opponent he can get to you.If you are in control it's either a miss or not and if your not calling the miss on yourself(we are honest,hence my example with the white) he can not have it put back.
But as i stated earlier sometimes it can be very hard to judge yourself honestly so here we need a ref and the circle is round again.

[sArnie]

What i ment is by leaving the decision to your opponent he can get to you.If you are in control it's either a miss or not and if your not calling the miss on yourself(we are honest,hence my example with the white) he can not have it put back.
But as i stated earlier sometimes it can be very hard to judge yourself honestly so here we need a ref and the circle is round again.

If your opponent or a member of his team is also the referee, partial decisions are always possible. But that just as well holds true for the solution, that a foul&miss has to be called by the striker. I say: nothing gained, nothing lost, or as you expressed it: "The circle is round again". I'd say we've got us an agreement there.