TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[Gerry Armstrong]

If a player did that then I'd award the frame for ungentlemanly conduct.

That's fine when their is a referee present, but what do you do in an amateur game with no referee? You can't as the non-striker award yourself a frame for ungentlemanly conduct.

[Souwester]

so what happens if there isn't a clear path to the ball on?

Then Section 3 rule 14 para (e) comes into play: (e) All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee.
Bearing in mind the Section 2 definition of a Miss: 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.
I'd call a Miss regardless of the difference in scores if I didn't think the player had made a good enough attempt to hit it.

As an example: if a player pots a red but lands up with the cue ball in the jaws of a pocket with reds blocking any path to a colour, then if the player played the cue ball straight into the pocket, then I'd call that for a miss regardless of the difference in scores.

Normally referees will stop calling misses on attempts to get out of a snooker once snookers are required, but if the referee believed that a stroke was not a genuine attempt to get out of the snooker, then a miss can be called.

[wildJONESEYE]

If a player did that then I'd award the frame for ungentlemanly conduct.

but you cant put a rule to counter a rule.

currently that would be a miss and the yellow replaced but with the new rule it wouldn't.

[Souwester]

but you cant put a rule to counter a rule.

currently that would be a miss and the yellow replaced but with the new rule it wouldn't.

Sorry but section 4.1 overrides anything else.

SECTION 4. THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
In the event of:
(a) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the selection of a stroke; or
(b) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(c) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to ungentlemanly conduct; or
(d) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(e) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(f) award the frame to his opponent; or
(g) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious award the game to his opponent

If a referee has warned the Player under (e) above, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above, the referee must either:
(a) award the frame to his opponent; or
(b) in the event that the further conduct is sufficiently serious, award the game to his opponent.

If a referee has awarded a frame to a Player's opponent pursuant to the above provisions, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above by the Player concerned, the referee must award the game to the Player's opponent.
Any decision by a referee to award a frame and/or the game to a Player's opponent shall be final and shall not be subject to any appeal.

2. Penalty
(a) If a frame is forfeited under this Section, the offender shall:
(i) lose the frame; and
(ii) forfeit all points scored and the non-offender shall receive a number of points equivalent to the value of the balls remaining on the table, with each Red counting as eight points and any colour incorrectly off the table being counted as if spotted.
(b) If a game is forfeited under this Section, the offender shall
(i) lose the frame in progress as in (a); and
(ii) additionally lose the required number of unplayed frames to complete the game where frames are relevant; or
(iii) additionally lose the remaining frames, each valued at 147 points, where aggregate points apply

[wildJONESEYE]

thats just it refs are scared to have opinions thats why we are having this discussion about changing the miss rule in the first place.

[Gerry Armstrong]

The rule is fine as currently implemented for the pros, just ask one if you're not sure.

The issue is in amateur snooker, and the biggest issue is most matches are not refereed and therefore the guy constantly wanting to put you back as per the pro interpretation of the rule is your opponent and not a referee.

[Souwester]

Well rather than change the rules, maybe the NGBs should be lobbied to improve the judgement skills of their referees?

[Gerry Armstrong]

I don't know about anywhere else but the vast majority of NGB matches in Scotland, including the MT events with a MT place up for grabs, do NOT have a referee.

[wildJONESEYE]

I don't know about anywhere else but the vast majority of NGB matches in Scotland, including the MT events with a MT place up for grabs, do NOT have a referee.

who needs them they are un opinionated robots get a kid out of the audience to take balls out and call him the Ball boy far cheaper.

[ace man]

If you really must change the rules for the better, I would just reward the incoming player with a free ball option after foul whether he sees the ball on or not. Except in the event of cue ball in off, there a traditional shoot from D rule would apply with a free ball option only if you really couldn't see the ball on.
Anyone likes this? Amateur and pro game would be played in the same manner, referees or not. Miss rule gone. No complex replacing of balls necessary. Would this ruin the game? I think not.


Ball in hand anywhere is too pool like. So I vote no. It also doesn't make any sense without requirement to touch a cushion with either the cueball or one of the object balls on every shot, so rolling up behind a baulk colour would not be seen anymore, some tradition lost. People will see the benefit of fouling deliberately at times to gain an advantage like in pool. To me, this isn't in spirit of the game.

Ball in hand just in D I don't get at all. It's almost like let's make a change for changes sake.

[Terry Davidson]

Well, here in Canada everyone has decided to interpret the 'MISS RULE' as the 'MUST HIT' rule and that's no matter how difficult the hit is or how close the striker came to the ball on.

With very few exceptions, like the 6-red handicap I play in where there is no Miss Rule enforced, but in our ranking tournaments with no referees it is interpreted as 'Must Hit' with no exceptions and no discretion on anyone's part.

I still say the Miss Rule as it stands if entirely fair for the pros and the referees should be able to make a discretionary call, but again they have near perfect conditions to play on.

Big difference for amateurs with slow cloths, bad cushions, light cueballs and god know what else

Terry

[Krypton]

If you really must change the rules for the better, I would just reward the incoming player with a free ball option after foul whether he sees the ball on or not.

The free ball after every foul is, especially on pro level, WAY TOO MUCH a benefit.

Opening of a Frame, only one or two reds played away from the pack, one player missing a red on a safety shot (thin cut). Free ball with the cueball close to the D. Instead of giving away 4, and continuing a safety exchange - as it was and HAS to be - now the frame is gone in fact, as the other guy can sipmly pot green, make position for the blue, hammer the pack from there and clear up.

A free ball after every foul is NOT a solution, it's rubbish. So is ball in hand anywhere on the table, by the way...

[bigbreak]

If a player did that then I'd award the frame for ungentlemanly conduct.

Highlighting the big problem...........playing the game without referees

[nrage]

Picture the scenario; you're snookered behind the brown on the last red, about 18 inches into the table from a top corner pocket, with a relatively easy escape route, the colours are on their spots and you're 20 in front. You play the first attempt wanting to catch it fine to leave the white on the top cushion - and miss. Balls replaced, you try again with a bit of compensation after the first attempt but still fail. It is replaced again and you know that the next effort will be punished not by replacement but ball in hand for your opponent.

So you're now 12 ahead. A hit in the red is likely to leave it up; a failure will leave the white in the D with a long pot and a potential clearance opportunity.

I think this is an acceptable situation for the rules to leave you in, given your opponent played a very good snooker (or you'd have hit the red).

I reckon you will decide, instead of making any attempt at the escape, you will blatantly just play the cue-ball into one of the baulk colours to send it safe on the side cushion. Your opponent will still have cue-ball in hand and still have an easyish long pot - but his chances of clearing up are greatly lessened.

Good point. I can see an argument for and against allowing this.

[against]
It does seem a bit unsporting to make no attempt at all to hit the ball on, and a rule could be introduced, or added to the unsportmanlike conduct rule where a player will loose the frame if it's 'obvious' he wasn't trying to hit the ball on, or if his shot choice could not possibly have hit the ball on - and he should have known it. These rules are very subjective though, but their existance should 'scare' players into at least making an attempt at the ball on.

[for]
Ok, so they can play 1 maybe 2 colours safe. Is that so bad? The opponent gets either ball in hand in the D, or plays from where it lies, and can still possibly clear up, or play another good safety. The important thing is that skill is required from both players (to play balls safe without leaving anything on, to clear up) in either case, and the game will still be interesting, and those are the important considerations right?

[bigbreak]

Well rather than change the rules, maybe the NGBs should be lobbied to improve the judgement skills of their referees?

Oh come on Sou. Another very subjective statement

I wish you wouldn't keep referring back to the referees involvement. the game should be able to be played without you, and the rules should reflect that.