TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[ferret]

A letter has been*received*by the players yesterday from Jason Ferguson canvasing them on a possible change to The Miss Rule, I have copies the contents of this letter below for you all to read, why not answer the 5 questions yourself and I will pass all of your answers onto Jason Ferguson, the main people ... Continue Reading

More...

[jrc750]

I think it should be;
3. Ball in hand with a free table after 3 misses have been called
But only as long as its not a very very hard to get out of snooker, this would obviously still need refs discretion

[Odrl]

Easy to answer this one, keep it as it is!

The first two ball in hand options are terrible ideas and would ruin the game. The third one is somewhat better, but there are exploits that the Statman has mentioned a number of times in his posts. On top of that, there is no need for it.

As for trialing this in a ranking event, hell no! The major events in professional snooker are not the place to try out experimental rule changes.

[jrc750]

Easy to answer this one, keep it as it is!....

Something has to change.....maybe all thats needed is to educate the refs on what is a hard to get out of snooker ???

[rambon]

Trial any suggested rule change in the Premier League

[Odrl]

Something has to change.....maybe all thats needed is to educate the refs on what is a hard to get out of snooker ???

To be honest, I don't think there is any need for change here. I can't remember a single scenario where something happened that was either unfair, or bothered me for any reason. We are talking about the professional game here of course.

But I do in principle agree with the second part of your post. If there is a problem, why not keep the general concept, and just give the referees more discretion in their decisions?

[PatBlock]

Leave it as it is, but direct the refs to use a bit more common sense. I don't like the miss rule, but only because there are occasions when it's patently clear to everyone and their dog that the player is trying their best, and coming very close time after time after time. Surely a professional ref has the experience needed to made such a judgment call.

-

[MattWilson]

Good to see the WPBSA are taking a more consultational approach to issues like this. A democratic decision making process is definitely a good idea.

In my opinion, ball in the D OPTION after 3 misses should be offered with the chance to continue to put the balls back.

MW

[Monique]

the main problem with the miss rule - IMO - is that the people who have to judge whether it's a good enough attempt, are rarely if ever top players themselves. So it might be difficult to judge correctly and to be fair and that can't really be taught. As it is the miss is called systematically in the professional events as soon as there is no contact. Some players will occasionally take the shot even if they don't get a clear advantage of it if they think their opponent made a good enough attempt. But you can't rely on that.
I think the ball in hand, free table, after three misses, or maybe five misses rather (*), is worth considering. It would certainly be a huge incentive for the players to try to reach.

As it is, I believe that 99%, at least, of the players try their utter best, this would no doubt make it 100%. If after 5 attempts they didn't reach, then for sure it's a very hard snooker. Moving on with the frame may then be the best option.

(*) or any number that would be deemed to be the right balance between the deserved advantage gained by the player laying the snooker and the dynamic of the game.

[the legend]

I have to say that from a amateur point of view i believe that a change to ball in hand would be the right choice.It is a regular problem in the grimsby league where i play and many other leagues that we do not even play the miss rule due to the large varience of abilitys.By changing the miss rule to ball in hand you would straight away have a rule that all players could apply.

[wildJONESEYE]

Ball in Hand anywhere on the table is a BIG FAT NEVER.

thats the most stupidest rule ever in any cuesport and it makes the miss rule at the moment look good.

thats not even a option as far as im concerned

[northerner]

I would like to see it like this:

A player who is snookered (A) may at any time opt to take a twelve point penalty and then be allowed to simply hit the white anywhere he likes. The opponent (B) may then either play from where the white finishes, or ask the first player (A) to play from there.

Thus we eliminate the nightmare of being trapped for so many points that it becomes a farce, and the player himself decides.

[João]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[jrc750]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

But it is broken ........and needs fixing
Edit: and if you don't think so then you obviously havn't been watching snooker lately

[Monique]

Ball in Hand anywhere on the table is a BIG FAT NEVER.

thats the most stupidest rule ever in any cuesport and it makes the miss rule at the moment look good.

thats not even a option as far as im concerned

Wild, you are going over the top again

The miss rule as it is isn't easy to enforce properly and anyone having watched snooker recently will know it needs soome kind of amendment.

Having ball in hand in the D is a "snooker like rule", that's what happens after an in-off. So a priori, one solution could be to go for the option to have ball in hand in the D after 3 misses (or any number of misses that offers a good tradeoff between the unfair penalties and keeping a true incentive to actually reach). However, depending on the table, ball in hand in the D could offer the non offending player an advantage ... or none at all. To the point that the offending player could choose to miss, knowing his opponent can only play from the D, rather that reach and risk to leave a much easier start.

It is already a problem with the in-off, that is sometimes the easiest path to baulk and one I'm sure that has been used by some on purpose.

Ball in hand from anywhere on the table would be a HUGE incentive to hit. But it could also be too much of an advantage in some cases.

Whatever the change should only apply to the "miss" rule, not to the "regular" fouls.