TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[andy carson]

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)

I wouldnt have it ball in hand anywhere on the table, restrict it to either behind the baulk line or in the D

[147Alexandra]

As an alternative to ball in hand, in the amateur game, why not consider awarding a free ball as an option to the incoming player, whether or not the miss was intentional, and whether or not it was a fair attempt.

[wildJONESEYE]

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?

how would it couse more problams ?

you would get close to the object ball no miss called after 2 shots as apose to 12 or left a ball on .....these players are only human all thats needed a genuine atempt that gets close to the ball.

in other sports the ref has to make his own judgement calls. by having a blanket rule in place its taking the judgement and common sense from the referees responsibility which it should be about. otherwise whats the point of having refs a trained monkey with no qualifications could do the job.

Take Balls from Pockets and shout out miss a lot.

[nrage]

After reading this..
http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...74&postcount=1

I think either "3. Ball in hand with a free table after 3 misses have been called" or a slightly more limiting "Ball in hand (in the D only) with a free table after 3 misses have been called"

In this way, a good snooker (that results in 3 misses) will get you 12 points minimum, but you still have to win the frame by potting the remaining balls. Limiting the ball in hand to the D will makes it slightly less likely that the frame will easily be won following the 3 misses, but that is still possible.

I think 12 points and, at least, the ability to get your hand on the table for a pot or safety is the right amount of advantage to gain from a good snooker and it's enough of a danger that the player will most likely not want to miss on purpose.

[cazmac1]

I wouldnt have it ball in hand anywhere on the table, restrict it to either behind the baulk line or in the D

I could live with the the ball in the D.

[wildJONESEYE]

I could live with the the ball in the D.

thats the only alternative.

with Ball in hand anywhere you can just see players playing for snookers instead of attacking on a 50/50 shot because if the snooker hard enough by attempt 3 there will be a hit and hope or Ball in hand in a better position for a frame winning break.

[bigbreak]

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).

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

[Odrl]

how would it couse more problams ?

Well, players could then play a complicated escape with no risk involved until they got "close", usually within a couple of attempts, even when it would be much easier for them to play a legal shot by choosing another route. That's what the current miss rule is mainly trying to prevent, isn't it?

[bigbreak]

Well, players could then play a complicated escape with no risk involved until they got "close", usually within a couple of attempts, even when it would be much easier for them to play a legal shot by choosing another route. That's what the current miss rule is mainly trying to prevent, isn't it?

I would say not Odri, but that is what the WPBSA and the referees are misguidedly trying to prevent.

In fact their application of the rule encourages players to play deliberate misses in the first instance as practice shots to find the line they need to hit the ball and leave the position safe. Most pros couldn't care less how many points they give away to get the ball safe.

Having spoken to a couple here I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pros vote for no change.

The rule doesn't need changed only the application of it. But a solution is needed for the deliberate miss or the tactical foul as it's known in today's parlance

[FOXMULDER]

Problem is: change one rule, and you open the gates for other changes.

Before you know it snooker could be a totally different game, designed for those kind of people who think Power Snooker and Shoot Outs are the way forward...

[Monique]

Problem is: change one rule, and you open the gates for other changes.

Before you know it snooker could be a totally different game, designed for those kind of people who think Power Snooker and Shoot Outs are the way forward...

Sheer nonsense. All sports evolve and changing one rule, for well documented reasons and after carefully weighting pros and cons would be a normal evolution. Not saying that the miss rule HAS to change, maybe not, but opposing all changes "par principe" is just inept.
Rules of snooker HAVE evolved over the last years. I'm not sure you even noticed it.

[The Statman]

This is an interesting subject and it has a lot of complicated implications.

The Rule is basically saying that the player must attempt to the best of his ability to hit the ball on.

If there is a whole pack of reds hittable off the side cushion (or even two or three cushions) then it is a very big target. If the player decides to try to nestle onto an isolated red off many cushions to leave it safe, then by definition he is not trying his best to hit a red! These should be, and are, called a Miss all day long and the prerogative rests entirely with the player as to how many points he is prepared to give away to guarantee safety.

The other situation is where we are down to the last red (or the colours) and the player has a one-cushion escape - I believe in the pro game refs are instructed to call all failures at one-cushion escapes no matter how close it comes. This is more contentious and perhaps the instruction should be more leniency.

However, the problem with restricting the number of calls that a single scenario can be called is this:

If the player knows that only the first two (or however many) attempts will be replaced, then the Rules are actively inviting him to deliberately not hit at the third attempt. So a Rule that ostensibly exists to uphold the principle of sportsmanship by not deliberately fouling, actually ends up encouraging it.

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 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.

The scenario could just as easily be snookered behind the black on one of the baulk colours - in fact that's probably an even better illustration.

If someone turns round and says, well a blatant deliberate miss will still be allowed to be called, then you are putting the exact subjectivity into it that you are trying to remove and the boundaries of what look like deliberate (or not) misses will gradually become redrawn.

I'm not necessarily saying that the Rule is perfect as it is, but the ramifications of any changes need to be studied very carefully to ensure that it doesn't stifle the general principles of the game and turn it into a strategically completely different game.

[bigbreak]

Your last paragraph sums it up for me Statman.

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, They also should provide 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.

WPBSA haven't given this enough thought and the survey given to the pro players is naive and premature

[Souwester]

... 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. 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...

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

[Souwester]

I can see no reason to change the rule, and have posted a much longer response on the 'other' topic!