TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[The Statman]

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 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.

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

That's fine, Souwester, and I agree that this is a route open to the referee.

But would you do this in the current set-up where a Miss can continue to be called? I doubt you would; I suspect you'd simply call the Miss. In another post, you said you'd call a Miss even on a player who needed snookers, if you thought the failure was deliberate, but made no mention of warning the player for ungentlemanly conduct.

I'm not convinced that it is easy to call for ungentlemanly conduct over the subject of shot selection. There's no reason that it shouldn't, but it's a potentially dangerous route to go down.

[The Statman]

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?

I'm not sure if they are the most important considerations.

One of the most important considerations, for me anyway, is that the Miss rule is supposed to guard against deliberately fouling, and then encourages it.

[wildJONESEYE]

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

yes it is interpreted as the Must Hit rule not only in canada but in the Professional Game.

but come on if a shot is a cigarette paper from the ball its quite obvious it was a fair attempt and no miss rewarded.

then theres option for the in coming player to play it himself or put the guy back in.

you cant interpret the rule as must hit we all know the player can hit a ball on but thats not the object of the game setting up your opponent for a frame winning clearance.

you got to attempt the right shot to keep the table safe when you leave it.

[nrage]

I'm not sure if they are the most important considerations.

One of the most important considerations, for me anyway, is that the Miss rule is supposed to guard against deliberately fouling, and then encourages it.

In that case, you prefer the [against] block above? If the miss rule is changed, we'd need another rule to continue to guard against deliberate fouling.

Incidently, what's the basis/reason for guarding against deliberate fouling? I think it's because a deliberate foul is seen as cheating, and therefore unfair. And that's what I was trying to get at in the [for] comment above. If the deliberate 'foul' to play a colour safe wasn't seen as 'unfair' (because they gain very little advantage - due to new/eixsting rules perhaps) and there wasn't a rule specifically forbidding it, then it wouldn't be 'cheating' .. it would just be a tactical decision weighing another attempt at the ball on vs playing the colour safe vs something else.

[The Statman]

Yes you're right.

I'm firmly in the 'no change' camp but I'm just saying that any propoesd change should be examined very carefully to see exactly what consequences it would have.

If it is felt that the change in strategy is an acceptable one, no problem - but make sure you know that it's there!

[bigbreak]

I'm not sure if they are the most important considerations.

One of the most important considerations, for me anyway, is that the Miss rule is supposed to guard against deliberately fouling, and then encourages it.

Totally agree as posted earlier, and I think a lot of people miss this point. The other most important consideration is to have a set of rules for the game which are prescriptive enough to avoid the need for a referee.

In a document of 6,600 words the rules mention "referee" 67 times, "player" 69 times and "snooker" 27 times.

[bigbreak]

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, the the game is the same no matter the conditions and the rules should have nothing to do with conditions or ability.

[bigbreak]

There has to be a pressing reason in order for a rule to be changed, and I haven’t heard one from the WPBSA.

In asking players to vote for proposed changes, there also has to be some background and guidance on the philosophy of the rule and the pros and cons of change. That also isn’t forthcoming from the WPBSA.

The current rule, when a player is snookered, as operated by the pro game gives far too much bias to the non-striker and causes far too many copy cat problems at amateur level of competition. It has no place and no understanding at social level either.

For me the most important aspect is that the rules of the game should be able to be implemented at all levels without interpretation being an issue, without referees being present, and without the non-striker having so much bias

Rightly or wrongly, I still have the mindset, albeit an old one, that if I call a miss when my opponent is playing out of a snooker then it’s tantamount to calling my opponent a cheat, in that he didn’t try to hit the ball on. However the real deliberate miss must be dealt with

When a player is snookered, the miss rule is treated like a retail experience in the pro game.

The player who is well snookered is trying to purchase a safety, and the price is the number of points he gives away during his attempts to hit the ball on.

In order to achieve this safety he will probably not be taking the easiest option out of the snooker, and therefore the miss will be called each time and the price will be paid.

More often than not he eventually hits it after a few shots and gets the safety. Top pros can afford to do that in a frame, but most amateurs and social players cannot.

The refs in the pro game are also under instruction over and above the rules to apply additional criteria to the rule.

The whole activity now is built around a player’s expectation to be left in the balls after he lays a snooker. It has nothing to do with anyone’s judgement of an opponent’s ability to hit the target.

By the same token the player playing out of the snooker has an expectation to leave the cue ball safe and has a right to have that expectation as well, so he chooses the shot which he feels can deliver for him.

Ironically, he will probably play the same shot that his opponent would play if he was in the same situation !! That lays the foundation of agreement on the best shot to play in the circumstances

At the moment. a player is put back in because he hasn’t left anything on, not because he hasn’t hit the ball, or flouted the rule! The operation of the rule is a contradiction, and even boring and embarrassing sometimes.

The rules and outcomes should be the same for any player regardless of ability.

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.

Let’s look at 3 factual points:-

1. The pros (and even our top amateurs) are already prepared to “purchase an escape" with their numerous attempts at escaping from a snooker. The only problem is no-one knows how much the attempted safety is worth until they have completed their attempts

2. The non-striker is not guaranteed the reward of being left on, and often isn’t left on anyway after all the faffing about with miss calls.

3. However, the non-striker still thinks that he is entitled to more than the minimum 4 points for a "well layed snooker" and he may well have a point, but the rules do not recognise great snookers!.

Perhaps the rules should be changed to reflect the above.

The most simple, and worse deliberate miss (tactical foul) is tapping the white out into the open from behind the snooker.

But would it be such a bad thing if the miss was dealt with differently, in a better manner than present, by a prescriptive remedy

It’s better to strive for prescriptive rules in the game, rather than leaving it to some arbitrary judgement of players or referees, perhaps then we would get rid of all the misunderstandings, interpretations and arguments.

The present focus is on whether a player made a good enough attempt getting out of a snooker, and being put back in because he didn’t leave anything on if he missed

Perhaps the focus should be shifted and centred on constructing a rule that, at the same time, rewards a good snooker, but also let’s the snookered player judge the value of the escape by giving him a choice of options at the time in order to limit his liability, and also removes the interpretation/judgement aspect by second and third parties.

So how about a rule that allows a player to buy his way out of trouble (purchase an escape) if he thought he was in a great snooker, and also rewards his opponent for laying the “great snooker”

A player who is snookered would be allowed to have a choice depending on how difficult HE deemed the snooker to be, and regardless of how anyone else judged his ability, and his endeavours to hit the ball on.

He could attempt to hit the ball on and take his chances or he could purchase an escape by either:-

1. playing out of the snooker by way of two cushions to leave the white ball above the baulk-line in a position of his choice thereby incurring a penalty of say 16 points.

2. refusing his turn, concede say 12 points and his opponent plays from in hand within the D

If he chose to play for any ball on and missed, then a foul and a miss would be called no matter what, having passed on the option to purchase an escape.

However he could always go back to the option at any time during the process and purchase an escape with the escape points added to that already conceded in misses.

If he chooses option one the result is still subject to all other rules after a foul stroke except a miss.

The onus would be on the snookered player to determine how difficult the escape is and value it accordingly, and the miss declaration is mandatory and not subject to anyone’s discretion.

There is still an element of risk in the choices which is reflected in the points liability.

In all of this the play is determined and controlled by the striker, he alone being the judge of how difficult the snooker is and proving it by his subsequent actions and choices, and the number of points he gives away.

The referee is taken out of it as far as judgement of ability is concerned and the non striker’s effort is recognised and taken into consideration.

Just a thought, but I think it is better than the WPBSA tick the box choices.

However, before any rule change is made. I would like to see the WPBSA retract the instructions to referees and let them apply the rule properly and see how that goes for a wee while

[nrage]

Terry, the the game is the same no matter the conditions and the rules should have nothing to do with conditions or ability.

True, except where the rules specifically call for the referee to take into account the players ability (and/or conditions), as in the miss rule.

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.


In other words, if under the conditions, or given the players ability, their attempt was good enough the referee should not call 'miss'

[bigbreak]

True, except where the rules specifically call for the referee to take into account the players ability (and/or conditions), as in the miss rule.

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.


In other words, if under the conditions, or given the players ability, their attempt was good enough the referee should not call 'miss'

but they do

[nrage]

but they do

.. and the probably should, in the pro game. But in lower levels they should, ideally, be using their judgement and not calling miss. So, is the 'problem' with the miss rule simply it's implementation, and not the rule itself?

[bigbreak]

.. and the probably should, in the pro game. But in lower levels they should, ideally, be using their judgement and not calling miss. So, is the 'problem' with the miss rule simply it's implementation, and not the rule itself?

it sure is

[nrage]

it sure is

Though, I can cetainly agree that on principle it would be better if there was no room for judgement/opinion in the ruling. The Q is, is it possible to come up with a rule that does that, and doesn't just 'feel' wrong for snooker. I didn't like your suggestions above for alternate rules because for me, part of the game of snooker is attempting to escape from them and any rule which discourages that, seems wrong to me.

[bigbreak]

there-in lies the conundrum

[nrage]

there-in lies the conundrum

So. What don't you like about the "3 misses followed by ball in hand in the D" option?

It does not require judgement/opinion.

It means, that for a good snooker, at any level, the striker can choose to play a difficult escape up to 3 times, or can attempt the difficult escape twice, then play the easy one. Or, if the likely result of the easy escape is worse than ball in hand in the D, they play the difficult escape 3 times.

Assuming 3 attempts are made, and fail, it results in at least 12 points. So, there is a limit to the points available for a good snooker. But, it's still substantial.

As the oncoming player following the 3rd failure you have 2 options:
- play from where it lies
- play from the D

In either case there may be a free ball, or a pot, or an easy safety (from the D you can get your hand on the table). So, in all cases you get points and some advantage. It my not be a match winning advantage, but why should it be, for just 1 snooker, albeit a good one.

It's the best solution I've heard so far..

.. the only trouble being that for the 3rd attempt they may (as someone mentioned) not attempt the escape, but play a colour safe, or some other tactical beneficial option.

.. and it may not be a blatant attempt, but a subtle one, and now we're back to using judgement to decide.

Perhaps, after 3 failures we make it free-ball in hand from the D. Or even, free-ball from where it lies. Hmm, that could work, what do you think?