Do you use the miss rule when you're playing?

[hegeland]

The thing that caused me to ask this question was the increasing number of beginners who have taken up the game after having watched it on Eurosport. They then assume the same rules are applied in unrefereed amateur games, thus they continue call a foul and a miss until the player succeeds in hitting the ball. I know of course this is not the correct way to interpret the rules, but I was curious to know whether you use the miss rule or not and at what level you think it's appropriate to start playing by that rule.

[drlog147]

they were going to use the miss rule in our league but the meeting held for it got so heated it was abanded and not put forward lol god knows what would have happened if it was ever passed and put into pratice there would be a riot at every match

[Semih_Sayginer]

voted yes..

[snooky147]

I always applied the miss rule when I played, simply because I played to A reasonable standard.

[poolqjunkie]

This is how I understand it.
It depends on the skill level of the players. For a player who cannot normally hit a simple one cushion escape, it is pointless to implement the foul and miss rule, since the foul and miss rule assumes that the players have the ability to strike most snookered ball with good knowledge on cushion angles. The foul and miss rule is not always used on snookers, it depends on the difficulies of the snooker--if the ref believes that sufficient effort has been made, or if the snooker is impossible to strike, this rule will not be called.
If this rule is called, and a player misses after 3 tries, then he will loss the game. Is that correct? I think this might creat a lot of problems in beginner level snooker.

[dottcom]

I always applied the miss rule when I played, simply because I played to A reasonable standard.

I agree, it all comes down to honestly at the end, if you play at a reasonable standard you should know when it is a "miss".

This is what we do at our club. Its a miss if your cue ball doesn't have enough weight to pass the object ball. Also the cue ball has to be within 10cm or thereabouts.

[The Statman]

The Miss Rule has had exactly the effect that the top post describes. Or, rather, the way it is seen on telly does.

There is nothing wrong, in principle, with the Rule. It is there for a purpose and can serve that purpose well. However, you are right that the casual, no-hoper player who just wants a laugh with some mates on a Wednesday night, seems to be under the impression that if his friend fails to escape a snooker that would tset even the top professionals, then he should carry on trying till he gets it right. I sometimes think they are under the further impression that there is no matter of choice – for example, the escape fails but leaves an unmissable opening (even by their standards) and still the ball is replaced.

However, that is not really what this thread is about.

Yes, I do use it when playing socially. As I am a qualified ref, you might expect that, but it goes beyond that: Some of the promising youngsters down the club genuinely offer to have balls replaces when they see that their effort was not satisfactory. Generally, in local tournaments, blatant shots that would be called a Miss are offered by the striker. It is very useful for upcoming, promising players to play, as far as possible, in the sort of environment that they would were they to move on to better things in the game.

In the league, the problem is not so much the differing standards of player that is the problem, but the differing standards of refereeing (and who can blame the average team player from finding the refereeing aspect of the fixture a chore?). That is not even to questsion the impartiality of the ref; merely his ability to do the job.

Our league chose to implement the Miss rule only if you can see a ball on, full ball. This absolves the referee from any subjective opinion while still acknowledging that the Rule exists. I have no doubt that some teams disregard it altogether, but I feel that what our league has done is a fairly good compromise. It can be handled pretty easily; it does not require any judgement on the part of the referee (except the factual matter of whether a ball could be hit full-on); and it at least uses the Rule.

If you don't care for the long-winded story, the direct answer's Yes.

[Sarmu]

If this rule is called, and a player misses after 3 tries, then he will loss the game. Is that correct? I think this might creat a lot of problems in beginner level snooker.

No one seem to picked this up, but I dont' think this is correct, you only loose the frame with 3 misses only if you can hit both extreme side of the object ball

[The Statman]

No one seem to picked this up, but I dont' think this is correct, you only loose the frame with 3 misses only if you can hit both extreme side of the object ball

You are partially right – you don't have to hit both extreme edges (as is the case for a free ball judgement), only be able to hit the ball on full in the face. But, as you say, if you can onoly see it partially, you can have as many tries as you like.

[dannyd0g]

No one seem to picked this up, but I dont' think this is correct, you only loose the frame with 3 misses only if you can hit both extreme side of the object ball

yeah - 3 strikes and out doesnt apply if you are snookered on all balls. It only applies if you arent actually snookered on all balls but are attempting a certain shot, through choice, for tactical reasons of safety.

I guess that could have been worded better, but hopefully the meaning is clear.

[Sarmu]

Thanks for correction Statman

[poolqjunkie]

You are partially right – you don't have to hit both extreme edges (as is the case for a free ball judgement), only be able to hit the ball on full in the face. But, as you say, if you can onoly see it partially, you can have as many tries as you like.

Thank you so much for the info. I stand corrected.

[Alex0paul]

I voted no but if an opponent blatantly missed the ball on purpose then I would call him/her up on it.

[PaulTheSoave]

I voted no as we play on a below par level. Another reason is not putting a 29year friendship on the line. Though it is an idea to introduce it for our next match. It can make a match more intriguing, but on the other hand the points gained by a miss (on our level of play) could be a deciding factor who wins the frame in the end, upon the fouls cashed on whites going in off, off the table and even picking up the white which happened in the last match. (not me).

(This happened as my opponent thought the white went in off, had a black out as it was on the table and put it in the D, course I docked him the frame for unsportsman behaviour)

[missneworleans]

Well in most times I use it. But sometimes rules are so diffucult so I don't risk