TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[bigbreak]

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?

yes it does, for the three misses that are called. And I have already taken a position outlined above to put the striker in control of his destiny, and take it away from the ref and his opponent......if we change the rule

[thinsy]

With the three miss and in the D rule the striker ends up with options to 'cheat'..... If he looks at the shot and feels that the safest place on the table is playing from the D surely he will miss three times on purpose rather than risk leaving an easier shot on?

Unfortunately, I can't see any soloution any better than we already have. In the pro game all players are capable of escaping from any snooker, the only reason they do miss is because the are trying to play an exact pace or angle to leave no easy shot!

The problem with the rule is in the amateur game. I've personally had a situation that cost me a match because the referee was not aware of how difficult the snooker actually was!!

It's harder for a referee to judge an amateur that it is a pro!!!

[The Statman]

... 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?

Again, the problem might be that the player on his third attempt would aim to leave the cue-ball where there is no attractive pot, rather than concentrate on hitting the red.

One possible solution would be to limit it to three misses (I think perhaps 4 might be a better option), as long as the final attempt is closer than any of the first three.

If the fourth attempt is not the closest, further misses may be called until the player gets closer than on any previous attempt.

[dantuck_7]

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

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?

Deliberately playing a colour safe should still be called a 'miss'... as there is one section of the rules already where a miss can still be called against someone even if they are at the snookers-required stage - where the attempt is blatantly not an attempt!

So, on the last attempt if the escape is obviously unsatisfactory, what would happen?? Miss-called again?


Awarding a free-ball seems too much of a penalty in my opinion, someone could be 43 in front with two reds left, they are then faced with a difficult snooker, give away between 12 and 21 from the 3 failed escapes, then a possible 8 points from the free-ball, the player who could only previously tie the frame now needs blue or pink for the frame. It seems to much of a quick turn-around!

[thinsy]

It all gets very complicated.... The referee will need to carry a tape measure in his pocket too now!!!! Really, leave it as it is

[147snookerking]

i personally think the miss rule is great as it is. However there are some pointers to note that would make the rule even better these are listed below.

1. The rule was originally brought in to stop players trying to cheat by just nudging the cueball onto a cushion or not even attempting it to gain an advantage.

2. Also lets look at this sensible and say what is a genuine attempt. i.e would you say if someone has to come of 2/3 cushions and got within 2cm of the ball on is that a genuine attempt? or does that mean the player didnt not make a genuine attempt and should be called a miss?

3. Personally i think the miss rule these days as been took completely out of proportion and really needs looking at to the ruling of a genuine attempt as i think these days at professional level its never a genuine attempt unless you hit the ball on. This is where i think the rule is wrong for the simple reason the rule states that it shall not be a miss if the referee feels it was a genuine attempt. So where is the logic in saying you got to hit the ball on or its not a genuine attempt. That is contradicting the rule has it states that if the referee feels a genuine attempt has been made a miss will not be called but really it should say if your snookered you have to may contact with the ball on or a miss shall be called as i see this is really the case at the professional level its hit the ball on its a miss.

4. Going back to the gaining advantage issue with people not making a genuine attempt. Lets just reserve this slighty if you are the player that is snookered and know it is virtually impossible to get out of going to the extreme of say hitting 5/6 cushion escape (i know its the extreme) and you just miss it does that not mean that the non-stiker that had put you in the snooker be gaining an advantage now because if it is virtually impossible the referee will call a foul and a miss all day untill snookers are then required. Is this really fair? Does this mean really that the foul and a miss rule is in place to give advantage to the non-stiker other than the stiker getting advantage for not making a genuine attempt. Whats your thoughts on that situation.

5. However, lets look at this as an example. You all will remember this incident, Jan Verhaas last season called a miss on a professional snooker player (cant remember the player he called it on) that had to come off 5 cushions to hit the red ball that was on and missed it by only a cigeratte paper. Is this really a miss or was it a genuine attempt?

6. Who is really at fault with the misconception of the rule the referee, players or people in general.

What is your thoughts to the comments i made.

[bigbreak]

147snookerking:-

1. agreed
2. not a miss
3. agreed
4. yes there is a bias to the non-striker
5. genuine attempt
6. this is the crux of the matter. The refs are instructed by the pro game to adopt the "must hit" process.

In light of 6 above we have confusion below pro level. The pros couldn't care less about how many points they give away to purchase the safety, deliberately missing while they get the line. That's why I don't think they will adopt any 3 miss limit. They will not want to give up the 4 or even 5 miss opportunity to buy their way out of trouble.

I don't see any problem in the pro game. I just want to see a prescriptive set of rules for all levels that can be applied without a ref.

The problem we have is that WPBSA own the rules, having got them when the the old BSCC went bust,

Scottish snooker is trying out a 3 miss limit in all events under 21, and over 40s, where the white is played from where it lands. It's not a change to the rule, just an instruction to the players and the refs to behave themselves!

[The Statman]

5. However, lets look at this as an example. You all will remember this incident, Jan Verhaas last season called a miss on a professional snooker player (cant remember the player he called it on) that had to come off 5 cushions to hit the red ball that was on and missed it by only a cigeratte paper. Is this really a miss or was it a genuine attempt?

Just a quick note on this point. I don't recall the incident (please provide a link if there is coverage available! ?)

But - was there an easier route, or an easier red available? Without knowing this it is not possible to judge whether it was a fair attempt.

[147snookerking]

Just a quick note on this point. I don't recall the incident (please provide a link if there is coverage available! ?)

But - was there an easier route, or an easier red available? Without knowing this it is not possible to judge whether it was a fair attempt.

It was the only red left on the table and there was no easier route to hit the red admittedly after i think it was the third attempt the player did hit it.

[The Statman]

I don't think you will ever find a workable alternative of the Miss Rule which gets rid of subjective decision completely - without producing some kind of side effect.

The simple truth is that there are a number of different 'types' of shot which need to be covered in the same rule - multi-cushion escape with no alternative; attempt at an isolated red when there are others to go at. Even on the last red, two otherwise identical snookers are not necessarily of equal difficulty if one is in the open and the other is near a cushion giving a 'bigger' target.

One thing I think I would like to see, is the idea of not calling a Miss when snookers are required, extended to include ...or where snookers would be required after a further miss. (I.e., stop calling it one shot before it currently would be.)

[nrage]

yes it does, for the three misses that are called. And I have already taken a position outlined above to put the striker in control of his destiny, and take it away from the ref and his opponent......if we change the rule

I've not made myself clear. When I said "miss" I actually meant "foul". Basically I'm saying for every attempt to escape a snooker, that results in a foul, the balls are replaced and the player tries again until 3 attempts have been made.

I'm essentially calling all fouls from a snooker a 'miss' by current terminology.

[nrage]

Again, the problem might be that the player on his third attempt would aim to leave the cue-ball where there is no attractive pot, rather than concentrate on hitting the red.

He could, but his opponent would get a free ball in hand from the D in that case. Which is likely going to be very similar to leaving a pot on, at least it increases the chances there is a pot on.

[nrage]

With the three miss and in the D rule the striker ends up with options to 'cheat'..... If he looks at the shot and feels that the safest place on the table is playing from the D surely he will miss three times on purpose rather than risk leaving an easier shot on?

That's why I suggested a "free ball" from the D. This makes the chance of a pot being on much more likely. How many situations will there be, where the player would prefer to give away 12 points and a free ball, vs attempting to hit the ball on?

[The Statman]

That's why I suggested a "free ball" from the D. This makes the chance of a pot being on much more likely. How many situations will there be, where the player would prefer to give away 12 points and a free ball, vs attempting to hit the ball on?

The problem with this is, by calling a Miss automatically for a failed hit, there are always going to be occasions when there is a very tough escape and it is quite possible that it could be missed three times even with three genuine attempts. Then it would be too harsh a penalty.

And, we tend to think of the professional game, but thinking for a moment about our weekly club handicap comp, a not-so-good player snookered by a good opponent would often find this too harsh a penalty.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in this theoretical search for an alternative, we are looking for a one-size-fits-all Rule. I don't think you'll find one.

[nrage]

The problem with this is, by calling a Miss automatically for a failed hit, there are always going to be occasions when there is a very tough escape and it is quite possible that it could be missed three times even with three genuine attempts. Then it would be too harsh a penalty.

And, we tend to think of the professional game, but thinking for a moment about our weekly club handicap comp, a not-so-good player snookered by a good opponent would often find this too harsh a penalty.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in this theoretical search for an alternative, we are looking for a one-size-fits-all Rule. I don't think you'll find one.

I suspect you may be correct.

For our weekly handicap tournament we rely on people making an honest attempt, and we don't apply the miss rule. The oncoming player plays from where it lies, which may mean they get a free ball, alternately they can put the other guy back in (where it lies). It seems to work for us. Snookers result in 4-7 points, plus a good chance you'll be in the balls. If by some chance they leave it in a bad position, you just put them back in again.