Foul And Miss Rule

[pearce]

In the Australian Championships held last weekend, Shawn Budd a prior champion in the seventh game of best of seven, snookered his opponent behind a ball near the top cushion and with most of the reds still on the table all in a pack as if they hadn' been broken. Five foul and miss's were called after failed attempts. On the sixth attempt no red was contacted,but only a foul was called. When queried, the ref said that was his decision and the tournament director was called but would not overturn the decision saying it was the referees perogative. Shawn went on to lose by a few points. What do people on the Forum think about this decision

[Templeton Peck]

I'd say it's most definitely the wrong decision. If most of the reds are on the table (especially in pack formation) then it should be possible to hit at least one without undue difficulty because you have so many options and such a large margin of error. If over half the reds are still on the table I think calling a 'miss' should be mandatory.

[Kyra]

I don't know how good the cue ball was snookered. Perhaps it was very difficult to hit the pack of reds (if not impossible) because the cue ball was "locked" between the cushion and one of the baulk clolours. After 5 misses I think the shot must have been very diffucult. The ref probably decided that the player's last attempt was good enough in this situation and didn't call the miss.
IMO the decision to call a miss or not doesn't depend on the number of reds on the table. If the cue ball is completely surrounded by e.g. the baulk colours or ends up very close to a ball not On, it might be near to impossible to hit the pack of reds. If the referee is satisfied with the attempt, it's ok not to call a miss.

[The Statman]

In the Australian Championships held last weekend, Shawn Budd a prior champion in the seventh game of best of seven, snookered his opponent behind a ball near the top cushion and with most of the reds still on the table all in a pack as if they hadn' been broken. Five foul and miss's were called after failed attempts. On the sixth attempt no red was contacted,but only a foul was called. When queried, the ref said that was his decision and the tournament director was called but would not overturn the decision saying it was the referees perogative. Shawn went on to lose by a few points. What do people on the Forum think about this decision

A difficult one. If the pack is almost undisturbed, then I would expect almost always that a Miss would be called.

However, as noted above, it depends on the difficulty of the shot. If there was only one route available from which an angle needed to be 'created' to reach the reds, then a Miss is well and truly down to the referee's judgement.

It is quite possible to call a Miss on four occasions and the fifth one to be not called, if it was a better attempt and as much as the player could be expected to do.

At the end of the day, there are two important points:

1) The tournament director was absolutely right not to overturn the referee's decision. The referee is the sole judge of fair play and his decision is final. I would draw an exception here where there was no qualified referee in charge and a Rule query came up that nobody at the table could resolve.

2) Whether a player won or lost a frame, eventually, cannot have any bearing on the discussion as this is not information the referee had available at the time he made the call.

[kevy62]

A difficult one. If the pack is almost undisturbed, then I would expect almost always that a Miss would be called.

However, as noted above, it depends on the difficulty of the shot. If there was only one route available from which an angle needed to be 'created' to reach the reds, then a Miss is well and truly down to the referee's judgement.

It is quite possible to call a Miss on four occasions and the fifth one to be not called, if it was a better attempt and as much as the player could be expected to do.

At the end of the day, there are two important points:

1) The tournament director was absolutely right not to overturn the referee's decision. The referee is the sole judge of fair play and his decision is final. I would draw an exception here where there was no qualified referee in charge and a Rule query came up that nobody at the table could resolve.

2) Whether a player won or lost a frame, eventually, cannot have any bearing on the discussion as this is not information the referee had available at the time he made the call.

I know this may seem strange, but i actually do agree with your conclusion, although slightly confused at the same time?

The reason i feel this way, is why on earth do we get called misses against us even if only missing by fractions of an inch, i thought there was no such ruling as an impossible shot in snooker? (but we know that there is)

Surely it would be unfair for the referee to make a decision, based on a players lack of ability to escape from a snooker situation.

Miss rule: The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and a "miss." The incoming player (1) may play the ball(s) as they lie, or (2) may request that the ball(s) be returned to the original position and have the offending player play the stroke again. Note: if the ball on cannot possibly be hit, the striker is judged to be attempting to hit the ball on.

If the miss rule is enforced just once, then logic would dictate that it then "must" be enforced for every foul following the first miss call, until the player fails to foul, why would a referee, then decide to not give a miss, even if the offending player did in fact get closer to the ball on? it would still be a miss? wouldn't it?

Please excuse my lack of tact in the frasing of the question, but i just fail to grasp this one at all, lol

[pearce]

Foul And Miss

I agree with everything said. It does'nt matter if the player wins or loses and the referee has the right under the rules. What bothers me is that if the ref deemed the player had the ability to hit a red on five occasions, you would think it would be an automatic miss and also the rule allows the ref to influence the outcome of the match which is wrong.

[tallguy]

Maybe the referee downgraded his assessment of the players ability in between !! Can the ref actually do that ? I don't think there would be anything in the books that would prevent it per se.

[The Statman]

I know this may seem strange, but i actually do agree with your conclusion, although slightly confused at the same time?

The reason i feel this way, is why on earth do we get called misses against us even if only missing by fractions of an inch, i thought there was no such ruling as an impossible shot in snooker? (but we know that there is)

Surely it would be unfair for the referee to make a decision, based on a players lack of ability to escape from a snooker situation.

Miss rule: The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and a "miss." The incoming player (1) may play the ball(s) as they lie, or (2) may request that the ball(s) be returned to the original position and have the offending player play the stroke again. Note: if the ball on cannot possibly be hit, the striker is judged to be attempting to hit the ball on.

If the miss rule is enforced just once, then logic would dictate that it then "must" be enforced for every foul following the first miss call, until the player fails to foul, why would a referee, then decide to not give a miss, even if the offending player did in fact get closer to the ball on? it would still be a miss? wouldn't it?

Please excuse my lack of tact in the frasing of the question, but i just fail to grasp this one at all, lol

But consider this scenario. You are snookered tight behind the yellow. You are trying to play off one cushion and have to judge the side correctly to find a smallish gap between, say, blue and pink which are close together – and then to come off two further cushions before reaching the reds. It may be the easiest route available.

On the first attempt, the player may misjudge it and go straight into the blue – or even graze the yellow straight away. Now, no matter how difficult, you would expect a player to manage to at least avoid the ball that the white is laying against, and probably manage to get past the blue. On the second attempt, he may judge it correctly but underhit – a Miss would be justified in that case. Now, on the third attempt, he might get past the yellow, through between blue and pink, off the second and third cushions and miss the reds by the diameter of a gnat's left testicle.

If the referee called a Miss on that third attempt, his own testicles may encounter a disadvantageous communincation from the player's cue!

This is an extreme example, but suggesting that one attempt is 'Miss-worthy' does not set a precedent for subsequent better attempts – only for subsequent poorer ones.

[The Statman]

Surely it would be unfair for the referee to make a decision, based on a players lack of ability to escape from a snooker situation.

Surely that is exactly what the referee is required to do according to the Rule: "The player shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on."

Nobody else's ability – his ability. And each shot must be judged on its own merits, not on the merits of previous shots.

Have a look at my comments in this thread: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ead.php?t=9776 and I think you'll agree this is a helpful guide to calling Miss. For each situation I have provided a player's remedy as well as the reasons for calling Miss.

If you can't see the diagram, here it is:

[Kyra]

But consider this scenario. You are snookered tight behind the yellow. You are trying to play off one cushion and have to judge the side correctly to find a smallish gap between, say, blue and pink which are close together – and then to come off two further cushions before reaching the reds. It may be the easiest route available.

On the first attempt, the player may misjudge it and go straight into the blue – or even graze the yellow straight away. Now, no matter how difficult, you would expect a player to manage to at least avoid the ball that the white is laying against, and probably manage to get past the blue. On the second attempt, he may judge it correctly but underhit – a Miss would be justified in that case. Now, on the third attempt, he might get past the yellow, through between blue and pink, off the second and third cushions and miss the reds by the diameter of a gnat's left testicle.

If the referee called a Miss on that third attempt, his own testicles may encounter a disadvantageous communincation from the player's cue!

This is an extreme example, but suggesting that one attempt is 'Miss-worthy' does not set a precedent for subsequent better attempts – only for subsequent poorer ones.

That's a great explanation. I think this should make it more clear why it is possible to not call a miss after several attempts.

[kevy62]

Surely that is exactly what the referee is required to do according to the Rule: "The player shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on."

Nobody else's ability – his ability. And each shot must be judged on its own merits, not on the merits of previous shots.

Have a look at my comments in this thread: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ead.php?t=9776 and I think you'll agree this is a helpful guide to calling Miss. For each situation I have provided a player's remedy as well as the reasons for calling Miss.

If you can't see the diagram, here it is:

I really liked the post you suggested to read & your answers are both honest & direct & a very helpful guide too, i did already think I understood the rule in general, but (IMHO) don't actually think that a referee should be able to influence the outcome of a frame, based on whether he thinks a player has, either the ability to escape from a snooker, or for that matter the inclination to do so.

I may be barking up the wrong tree here to suggest this, but wasn't it for this exact reason, that quite some time ago , all professional referee's in the UK, were instructed to automatically call every single failed attempt to escape from a snooker, or failure to contact the ball on, call out a miss?

perhaps you can clarify this point if possible, as i think it relates directly to the original question, sorry to be a pain Statman, lol.

[mattyshinobi22]

i hate this rule

i lost 50 odd points to this rule at weekend when i entered yorkshire handicap.

i was snookered at side of the green and i needed to hit the yellow. which was covered half ball with the brown. one attempt i got within a hair.

' foul and a miss.'
i was 60 odd up and ended up needing snookers and losing the frame

[kevy62]

i hate this rule

i lost 50 odd points to this rule at weekend when i entered yorkshire handicap.

i was snookered at side of the green and i needed to hit the yellow. which was covered half ball with the brown. one attempt i got within a hair.

' foul and a miss.'
i was 60 odd up and ended up needing snookers and losing the frame

ouch, that really does suck :snooker:

[mattyshinobi22]

yeh, gonna say it was handicap, it isnt like we are pros.

i just wanna get outa the snooker, not thinking of at the slightest of putting my self in an advantagous postion

[The Statman]

I just wanna get outa the snooker, not thinking of at the slightest of putting my self in an advantagous postion

... Clearly!