TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[T.C.]

It was the pro players who wanted a miss calling for anything that missed, that's why you see everything called on tv. This gave them 100% continuity in the rule regardless of who was the ref.

There wasn't a problem with Higgins/ronnie match, Higgins just wasn't clear on the rules and the ref made a slight mistake.

Most amateur leagues don't use it because a qualified ref is not available at each fixture. It is used more in cup semis and finals tho where a qualified ref can officiate. Believe me it makes a difference if you have been thru the referees training and examination!

[wildJONESEYE]

Well, you are misrepresenting the rule here. It's not about "trying to miss on purpose", it's about trying your best to play a legal shot. Why should you get an advantage by playing a foul, when another shot would have given you a better chance of playing a legal shot? That's what it's basically all about, and I don't think there is anything particularly unfair about it.

no im interpreting it perfectly the referees are not enforcing it perfectly...

if its close to the red no miss end of its not rocket science they are complicating a simple rule.....

the miss was brought in to stop players with the glancing escape that miss everything and end up on the balk cushing. but now its punishing players for making brilliant attempts from snooker just because they happen to just miss.

[wildJONESEYE]

They want to change the rules based on Snooker-For-Yobs in Blackpool.

Hearn is a southern philistine with no class or respect for the history and traditions of the game.

Snooker is going to the dogs and the sheep are celebrating the 'change', remaining oblivious to the long-term effects.

Lets Get one thing streight here Barry Hearn and World Snooker has nothing at all to do with rules of the game thats to do with the WPBSA under the chairmanship of Ex Pro Jason Ferguson which has ex Ref Alan Chamberlain on the Board

[superaussie]

i was never a fan of alan chamberlian in terms of his attitude

But he was the only ref to show common sense with the rule

[bigbreak]

I agree with Wild!...

It's a wee bit ironic and hypocritical for Jason Ferguson to be alluding to a perceived problem that could easily be resolved by him anyway by withdrawing any instructions that are given to the referees to keep calling misses come what may.

It's also a bit ironic and hypocritical that a player is put back in until he leaves something on. Obviously for his opponent the shot before wasn't good enough but the next one was.

The fact is that the rule is not operated properly by the pro game, and as a result causes problems elsewhere.

[Tricue]

Have to say this is VERY interesting...
Some of you may remember the post below which I started back in early January... it looks like the old saying 'no smoke without fire' is true and my 'source' could have been sort of correct!

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=28944

Anyway, just to re-state my own opinion. I think there are 3 inherent problems with the miss rule...
1. The word 'MISS' could/should be changed as it implies a deliberate miss and although this may sometimes be the case it is not always, so change the word to 'no-hit' or something similar.
2. The amateur and professional games using the same rules. I think in the amateur game 1 'no-hit' and then ball in hand would work while the pros could have 3 'no-hit' attempts and then ball in hand in the D.
3. The rule that states that the 'miss' rule isn't in play when either player needs a snooker also needs to change as this weighs the situation heavily in favour of the player leading.

Anyway, thats my twopence worth... I'm off to watch the Higgins/Maguire final session now. What will be, will be.

[bigbreak]

Have to say this is VERY interesting...
Some of you may remember the post below which I started back in early January... it looks like the old saying 'no smoke without fire' is true and my 'source' could have been sort of correct!

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=28944

Anyway, just to re-state my own opinion. I think there are 3 inherent problems with the miss rule...
1. The word 'MISS' could/should be changed as it implies a deliberate miss and although this may sometimes be the case it is not always, so change the word to 'no-hit' or something similar.
2. The amateur and professional games using the same rules. I think in the amateur game 1 'no-hit' and then ball in hand would work while the pros could have 3 'no-hit' attempts and then ball in hand in the D.
3. The rule that states that the 'miss' rule isn't in play when either player needs a snooker also needs to change as this weighs the situation heavily in favour of the player leading.

Anyway, thats my twopence worth... I'm off to watch the Higgins/Maguire final session now. What will be, will be.

well...that's not 100% accurate

[best1966]

the way its enforced is though......if a player comes a cigarette paper width from the object ball common sense said hes not trying to miss on purpose.

It's easy to put the blame on the refs and say they don't have the balls to make a common sense call, but in the majority of cases the players are trying to hit the extreme edge of a ball from a snooker to send the cueball away from the object ball, thus sometimes missing by, as you say, a cigarette paper. I reckon if the ref said to any of the pro players if you hit a ball on i'll give you £1,000, they'd hit it. In most cases they miss it because they don't want to leave the ball on, available to pot. Which is the reason the miss rule was brought in in the first place.

Nothing that i've seen over the last few seasons has made me want the rule changing. Snooker is a great sport and should be left as it is, the powers that be are considering the change because the younger viewer nowadays has little or no patience. if you want a quick cuesport, I suggest you watch or play pool and leave our game alone!!

[Odrl]

no im interpreting it perfectly the referees are not enforcing it perfectly...

if its close to the red no miss end of its not rocket science they are complicating a simple rule.....

the miss was brought in to stop players with the glancing escape that miss everything and end up on the balk cushing. but now its punishing players for making brilliant attempts from snooker just because they happen to just miss.

Are you saying it would be better if the miss call came down to whether the attempt was close or not?

Surely that kind of oversimplification would create more problems than it would solve?

[bigbreak]

no it should come down to whether he tried or not

[andy carson]

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

agree with this really

at refs discresion after 3 misses whether player can carry on attempting, ie, if its obvious there is an easier line to hit a ball regardless of if it would then be left "on" if that line was used, then ball in hand and ball on to be played at,but not a free table, or opponent is put back in from where ball ends up (ie it can not be replaced a fourth time)

[Tricue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricue
Have to say this is VERY interesting...
Some of you may remember the post below which I started back in early January... it looks like the old saying 'no smoke without fire' is true and my 'source' could have been sort of correct!

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=28944

Anyway, just to re-state my own opinion. I think there are 3 inherent problems with the miss rule...
1. The word 'MISS' could/should be changed as it implies a deliberate miss and although this may sometimes be the case it is not always, so change the word to 'no-hit' or something similar.
2. The amateur and professional games using the same rules. I think in the amateur game 1 'no-hit' and then ball in hand would work while the pros could have 3 'no-hit' attempts and then ball in hand in the D.
3. The rule that states that the 'miss' rule isn't in play when either player needs a snooker also needs to change as this weighs the situation heavily in favour of the player leading.

well...that's not 100% accurate

Hi bigbreak, can you clarify?
I have to admit I always thought this was strange but this is the way it was explained to me... Can you explain... thanks

[bigbreak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricue
Have to say this is VERY interesting...
Some of you may remember the post below which I started back in early January... it looks like the old saying 'no smoke without fire' is true and my 'source' could have been sort of correct!

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=28944

Anyway, just to re-state my own opinion. I think there are 3 inherent problems with the miss rule...
1. The word 'MISS' could/should be changed as it implies a deliberate miss and although this may sometimes be the case it is not always, so change the word to 'no-hit' or something similar.
2. The amateur and professional games using the same rules. I think in the amateur game 1 'no-hit' and then ball in hand would work while the pros could have 3 'no-hit' attempts and then ball in hand in the D.
3. The rule that states that the 'miss' rule isn't in play when either player needs a snooker also needs to change as this weighs the situation heavily in favour of the player leading.




Hi bigbreak, can you clarify?
I have to admit I always thought this was strange but this is the way it was explained to me... Can you explain... thanks

The best way is for you to read the rule and study it to understand it and come to your own conclusions. Interpretations can difffer. You can read the rules on the World Snooker website

[cazmac1]

I'm against any rule change. Especially any change in the rule that would allow any player to pick the white up and place it anywhere on the table. It would lead to deskilling the game.
Take this scenario in to consideration. The shot to nothing is rarely played by the top pros they play the shot and play to get on a colour. I could see the shot to nothing making a big come back especially with the poorer long potter. As it would be in there interest to play the long pot and try and get the white to the baulk cushion as they can then play the role up in the hope they can eventfully get the ball in hand. Any change to the miss rule would have to ban this kind shot (baulk colours only)

[Tricue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricue
Have to say this is VERY interesting...
Some of you may remember the post below which I started back in early January... it looks like the old saying 'no smoke without fire' is true and my 'source' could have been sort of correct!
http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=28944
Anyway, just to re-state my own opinion. I think there are 3 inherent problems with the miss rule...
1. The word 'MISS' could/should be changed as it implies a deliberate miss and although this may sometimes be the case it is not always, so change the word to 'no-hit' or something similar.
2. The amateur and professional games using the same rules. I think in the amateur game 1 'no-hit' and then ball in hand would work while the pros could have 3 'no-hit' attempts and then ball in hand in the D.
3. The rule that states that the 'miss' rule isn't in play when either player needs a snooker also needs to change as this weighs the situation heavily in favour of the player leading.


Hi bigbreak, can you clarify?
I have to admit I always thought this was strange but this is the way it was explained to me... Can you explain... thanks

The best way is for you to read the rule and study it to understand it and come to your own conclusions. Interpretations can difffer. You can read the rules on the World Snooker website

Hi again big break...
I have just read the rules and they say clearly that...
" If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless either player needed snookers before, or as a result of, the stroke played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional."

so again this is one part (along with the other two parts above) of the rule that I believe also needs to be changed (especially for the amateur).