TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[snooker mad]

In the Manchester Snooker League that I play in, the league has a slight variation of the miss rule. If you are snookered and you miss no miss is called. A miss is only called when you can hit part or all of the object and you miss it. 3 misses and frame over and 60 points loss.

[pottingpinks]

I would think that

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

is the best way forward personally, I would imagine any player would be very loathe to offer up the ball in hand option so the third attempt would almost certainly be played with complete intent to hit the ball in question.

[Krypton]

But then, that would be too much a penalty on professional level and you'd need a second wording/rule for their level.

[recoil]

Leave it as it is.

I'm getting fed up with all this messing with tourn. formats, HB prizes and now even the rules.
Let's hope the new board will not change the World Championship into a shoot-out event.
(even though they started messing with it too)

[simon dent]

I agree that referees calling 'misses' automatically is daft.

At pro level where they rely on results to make a living, the miss rule is harsh when automatically given. Better judgement when a player has 'missed' is needed.

The problem I have at amateur level the miss rule is nearly used identically to the pro level which is very harsh.

I may not take a miss because it is clear the opponent is trying to hit the ball and if more players overuled the refs decision to take the miss we will find that the players will set the level of expectation themselves.

Right now we have players who take the miss to stack up the points.

I have changed my view on the rule. At first I thought it was a level playing field for all but it really isn't. Remember when the idea of the strength of the shot being sufficient to go passed the ball on seemed to come into play to determine if was a miss, that has fallen by the wayside.

What happened to the good old fashioned foul from actually failing to get out of a snooker where the opponent is trying to hit the ball. Its not a foul if he leaves nothing!

Right now the miss rule is basically inisting that the ball on be hit and that is not fair when you are trying to hit it.

So keep the rule but apply it better.

[vmax4steve]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, we have a game where the players call their own fouls and yet are considered cheats when failing to get out of a snooker. Get rid of the miss rule and go back to how it used to be, with the exception of when a ball on can be hit. Then it's three attempts and you're out.

[Souwester]

Alan Chamberlain was in attendance at a meeting of European examiners and tutors, and the point was strongly made that the rules need to be able to be sensibly enforced in social games where unqualified players referee themselves, as well as top pro level. Hopefully due consideration will be given to this matter.

[simon dent]

I would think that

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

is the best way forward personally, I would imagine any player would be very loathe to offer up the ball in hand option so the third attempt would almost certainly be played with complete intent to hit the ball in question.

I tentatively agree with this principle, I think 3 misses is harsh on fast cloths, slide etc and this maybe should be made to 5, but it will cut short the protruded situation of continual 'foul and a miss' and you know players will try to hit it and keep it safe.

I dont think you can get rid of the rule. Ive seen too much 80's snooker to see that no miss rule is simply unfair. Players can miss intelligently.

I agree thast most players call fouls and misses on themselves but we are talking about a rule to be used at competetive level. Ball in hand in the D may not give any advantage whatsoever. Ball in hand on a free position table for me is just too easy. So I would opt for the D unless there is a better option that I havent thought of?!

[cazmac1]

Am I the only person that actully enjoys watching someone pull off a great shot coming of two, three or even four cusions and leaving the ball safe. Even if it does sometimes take a few attemps.

[bigbreak]

Am I the only person that actully enjoys watching someone pull off a great shot coming of two, three or even four cusions and leaving the ball safe. Even if it does sometimes take a few attemps.

No, I like watching that as well, and that should always be an option

[bigbreak]

Alan Chamberlain was in attendance at a meeting of European examiners and tutors, and the point was strongly made that the rules need to be able to be sensibly enforced in social games where unqualified players referee themselves, as well as top pro level. Hopefully due consideration will be given to this matter.

he will need some help

[wildJONESEYE]

Am I the only person that actully enjoys watching someone pull off a great shot coming of two, three or even four cusions and leaving the ball safe. Even if it does sometimes take a few attemps.

absalutly spot on...

ive watched snooker for 30 years man and boy the game is already much faster than it was in the 80s by miles. even todays grinders are faster than some fast players of the 80s so why the need to speed things up even more

[stephen povey]

Its about time this was sorted out, 2 or 3 times in the last year i was playing in local handicaps where the miss rule was SUPPOSSED to be in force... so i laid a real cow of a snooker ..when behind in frames, called a miss only to be told no mate we don,t do that here,so alladvantage was lost and of course i lost too. 3 attempts and ball in hand i would have had everry chance of winning!The point is that there is no standardisation of the rules, for me 3 attempts and ball in hand seems the fairest wat to go in the amateur game at least and probably in the pro game too. Lets hope its done quickly too!

[dantuck_7]

The problem with that line of thinking is that it would almost turn some frames into the situation seen in 9-ball where if a player is able to get 3 fouls in a row then its loss of frame. Its just too much of a radical change, as the Statman mentionned earlier we are perhaps looking for one rule to cover every situation.

[wildJONESEYE]

The problem with that line of thinking is that it would almost turn some frames into the situation seen in 9-ball where if a player is able to get 3 fouls in a row then its loss of frame. Its just too much of a radical change, as the Statman mentionned earlier we are perhaps looking for one rule to cover every situation.

Part of the sport would be lost forever more and more hit and hope would be played. and players wouldn't bother trying to work out a skillful way to escape out of a snooker and even if they will try to work it out the chances of it being completed successfully would be non existent.