Ssb - something a-miss

[MySockPuppet]

Jason Ferguson, the chairman of the WPBSA, has written to the players to ask their opinions on changing the miss rule.

At the recent Shootout event in Blackpool players had ball in hand (i.e. anywhere on the table) after every foul.

This meant there was no need for the miss rule and some players felt it made a refreshing change.

Ferguson has asked the players to consider the following:

1. Retain the miss rule as it is – YES / NO

2. Abolish the miss rule in place of the following:
For all fouls or failing to hit the ball on:
a. Ball in hand in the “D” Only
b. Ball in hand with a free table

3. Ball in hand with a free table after 3 misses have been called

4. I would be willing to trial amended rules for one ranking event.

5. Any other comments

The rule was introduced in its current form because players in years gone by were not making good enough attempts to make contact in escaping from snookers.

But the miss rule still sits uneasily with many. It was never intended to produce snookers that can be worth 30 or 40 points.

One of the main problems as I see it is that it is applied uniformly no matter what the position of the balls.

So the rule is the same if there is 15 reds on – where it is easier to make contact – just as when there is just one red on.

Make no mistake, though: laying snookers and getting out of them is one of the main skills in the game. To abandon that is to effectively negate a side of snooker that should be lauded.

For this reason, the ball in hand alternative seems a leap in the wrong direction but I would offer a couple of caveats to that.

Firstly, it would be far less draconian a rule than the current three misses and you lose the frame automatically. At least with ball in hand the opposing player would actually have to pot the balls they needed.

Second, ball in hand is no guarantee that the frame would be over. It would to a large degree depend on how many balls were left on the table (and where they were) but also on the ability of the player with ball in hand to clear up.

Given the option to put the cue ball where they like actually puts them under pressure: in their minds they’ll be thinking they really must make the most of this chance.

Having the cue ball in the D after a miss may not be any advantage at all. In fact, it may be a disincentive for the striker to make contact because cue ball in the D may not leave a pot on.

People say the referees should have more discretion when it comes to calling a miss but I’m not sure they want it.

At the moment they operate under the strict letter of the law. If they are given more wriggle room over what is a miss and what isn’t then they are laid open to much greater scrutiny – by players, TV commentators and the audience.

It could even lead to a situation as exists in football where referees are routinely accused of favouring one team over another.

Personally, I have no problem with the miss rule being scrapped for one tournament a year by way of giving that event a particular identity.

But should the miss rule be changed for all events?

It isn't perfect but at least right now everyone - players, referees and spectators - know where they stand and it protects a certain skillset required to play top level professional snooker.

So on balance, I would say that its current application is the worst possible solution.

Apart from all the others.


More...

[chasmmi]

A foul should stay a foul if the wording really means that every foul would be ball in hand or whatever. Potting a long red and cannoning in the pink as well shouldn't be penalized any more than it currently is.


The ball in hand for a miss foul situation I can see the ups and downs in that nowadays players are essentially waiting for a player to miss and leave the white pretty much where they would want it to be in a ball in hand situation. making ball in hand automatic just removes the thirty point bonus they may recieve in the process.


Personally I still feel if things are to be changed then the best option is that if the foul is a run of the mill foul (in off etc) then it stays as is. If the player is adjudged to have played a miss as the current rule stand then it is foul, 7 away and a free ball.

Otherwise it would be a legitimate tactic to try and run the white to baulk with every pot of a red and then roll up behind the yellow and hope for the nice easy ball in hand situation.

Also if a player is supposedly good enough to tactically miss an object ball by 1mm off three cushions in order to leave nothing on, then they can probably orchestrate a decent looking escape attempt that just happens to foul but luckily put the black safe in the process and thus nullify ball in hand.

[Luke Hooper]

i think after 3 misses a ball in hand rule is good....

however, the down side to this would lead to people just trying to put someone in the hardest of snookers and essentially would try to win the frame like that.... (which i guess isnt a bad thing, as thats what hte game is called...)

im all for the 3 misses and a ball in hand situation....

[wildJONESEYE]

People say the referees should have more discretion when it comes to calling a miss but I’m not sure they want it.

tough if they want it or not that what it should be about.

[thinsy]

What about the times you see them trying to escape 4 or 5 times and miss then take a second route on their next attempt and escape first time?!?!?! The player doesn't always chose the easiest route therefore a miss should be called until they hit or take the easier option!

[bigbreak]

What about the times you see them trying to escape 4 or 5 times and miss then take a second route on their next attempt and escape first time?!?!?! The player doesn't always chose the easiest route therefore a miss should be called until they hit or take the easier option!

There is nothing wrong with the written rule, only the application of it. And the application of it encourages the player to play deliberate misses in the first instance

[Souwester]

Leave it alone!

To my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rule as it is currently written. The problem comes in its application.

I really cannot see how anyone can argue against the calling of a miss (and the consequences) where there is a direct path to part or all of a ball on. Losing a frame for missing a ball which you can see full ball on the three consecutive occasions seems perfectly fair to me. In fact in 15½ years of refereeing under the current rules, I actually had to award a frame for three misses only yesterday, the second time I'd ever done it! It was a top flight amateur match. The last red was tight on the yellow cushion about 12" down from the baulk cushion. The cue ball was roughly half way between green and green side cushion, and full ball contact was just about available. There was absolutely no excuse for not hitting it and conceding the frame was the fair penalty for trying to hit the red in such a way as to not leave it easily potable.

The problem comes when deciding whether attempts to get out of a snooker should be called for a miss. Most snooker commentators (and I use that in the loosest sense to include those participating in these forums) concentrate on what Section 3 rule 14 says, but it is often overlooked that a Miss is actually defined in Section 2 Definitions:
20. Miss
A miss is when the cue-ball fails to first contact a ball on and the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball on.


So, the basic premise is 'has the player made a good enough attempt to hit *a* ball on'? Not the particular ball he's chosen to go for, but any ball on.

Looking now at Section 3 Rule 14, 'Foul and a Miss', it starts by saying "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS.."
Sub para (a) deals with the general stuff about what happens when a miss is called, (b) deals with the clear path scenario, (c) with full ball contact, (d) with fouls after the balls have been replaced, so dealing with misses when the player is snookered are dealt with by para (e)...
(e) All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee.

So the referees already have the discretion. It's just that professionals have been instructed to enforce to more or less do away with the discretion. At amateur level though, referees *have* ton use their discretion. They have to have regard for the difficulty of the snooker, the difficulty of alternative escapes, and most importantly the ability of the player.

The best refs in the amateur game will know when to call a miss and when not to. Yes it's subjective, but by and large the players seem happy with the calls that are made, and rarely do you hear cries of favouritism.

I've watched a lot of referees in action and have assessed quite a number and generally I think they make pretty sound calls. Their ability to accurately replace balls doesn't always match up to their judgement calls though!

[bigbreak]

Totally agree with all that Souwester.

But the biggest problem is in the amateur game, with or without referees, where they all want to play like the pros.

Facts that we have to deal with outside the pro game;-

1. Some players do not understand the rule, and the difference between its application in the pro-game and the amateur game.

2. Some players do understand it and abuse it.

3. Some players do understand it and don’t abuse it.

Items 1. and 2. cause us problems.

Historically, the miss rule is basically there to punish and/or prevent the deliberate miss as we used to know it and now never referred to. That focus has been lost, due to the way that the rule is applied by the pro game.