Foul And Miss Rule

[kevy62]

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

As a matter of interest, how long did this frame take to complete?
as it must have been quite a while, if the referee was replacing the balls each time a miss was called.. lol

[mattyshinobi22]

not every table had a ref, so the guy i was playing kept replacing

[kevy62]

not every table had a ref, so the guy i was playing kept replacing

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

Sorry but i replied to this post in a rush & failed to spot a simple infraction!

you cannot be called a miss against you,
when your opponent needs snookers!

60 odd ahead with no reds left on the table, your opponent would be screwed , as a miss can only be called if there are enough points on the table for him to win by his own efforts! the fact that he needed snookers to catch up, means the miss rule can't be used.

This would mean if you fail to hit the ball on, the cueball would have to be played from where it lies ,
(only exceptions, cueball in off or freeball , put you back in)
in any case if you were that far ahead , i assume you have the nessesary skills to scrap the remaining balls anyway.

it would seem an appeal is in order ?

[PaddyLowson]

About the lad who lost 50 pts without a ref

That seems really unfair.

If I ever play with a mate without a qualified ref we agree before hand whether to implement the miss rule, to be fair we usually do but to a level that if the attempt is less than the width of a ball away then we say just foul. - I'm hoping to train as a ref soon and will look at how I'd implement it.



It can be said that the rule should be rid of but its needed to ensure people play the game fairly and never foul to their advantage. Only one instance now where I can see someone fouling to advantage and thats if someone's snookered with a red over the pocket and they are 35 in front and the red's over a pocket, if they do any foul and knock the red in then the worst they'll be is 28 with 27 on. In that circumstance the red should be replaced. As I say for this, I think its unfair because if someone's gaining from their own decision its unfair. As I say I only play miss if a mate agrees with me. - Other than that its just the foul.


Anyone else think Eirian Williams was spot on on Sunday

[The Statman]

It can be said that the rule should be rid of but its needed to ensure people play the game fairly and never foul to their advantage. Only one instance now where I can see someone fouling to advantage and thats if someone's snookered with a red over the pocket and they are 35 in front and the red's over a pocket, if they do any foul and knock the red in then the worst they'll be is 28 with 27 on. In that circumstance the red should be replaced. As I say for this, I think its unfair because if someone's gaining from their own decision its unfair.

Ah but, of course, although their opponent will need snookers, it is far more of an advantage for that player to knock the red in but NOT foul; they would be 36 in front with 27 on, and their shot on a colour. So in fact they have gained not by the foul but by the red going in, which is the aim of the game, after all.

[PaddyLowson]

Ah but, of course, although their opponent will need snookers, it is far more of an advantage for that player to knock the red in but NOT foul; they would be 36 in front with 27 on, and their shot on a colour. So in fact they have gained not by the foul but by the red going in, which is the aim of the game, after all.

I'm talking about when they are snookered and that if they hit the red, which is over the pocket it is likely the white would be unable to avoid going in-off which would mean 31, with 27 on

[The Statman]

I'm talking about when they are snookered and that if they hit the red, which is over the pocket it is likely the white would be unable to avoid going in-off which would mean 31, with 27 on

Yes I appreciate that. But, if the white had NOT gone in, he would be 36 up with 27 on, and on a colour. So it is a bit spurious to say the player has gained an advantage by the white going in. Yes his opponent needs snookers but, without the in-off, he would have needed at least two and maybe three – therefore I would suggest that he has still gained a disadvantage by the white going in. The other player should be grateful for the in-off in that he now needs only one snooker to tie, whereas it looked like he would have been 36 (plus any colour) behind with 27 on.