TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

[bigbreak]

enrage........and that's the way it should be . That's what the play again rule is for..........if you don't like the position after your opponent has fouled

[best1966]

who needs them they are un opinionated robots get a kid out of the audience to take balls out and call him the Ball boy far cheaper.

You have such a low opinion of referees, are you John Virgo!!!

[DawRef]

You have such a low opinion of referees, are you John Virgo!!!

It wouldn't surprise me if this did originate from JV.

However, after reading thru several pages from the original question, I would like to point out that Section 2 Rule 20, a 'Miss', is irrelevant, IMHO, as it will always be a 'Foul and Miss'.

When I first started as a referee, the late John Street advised that if the cue-ball fell short of the object ball, irrespective of how difficult the shot was, a F & M should ALWAYS be called. However, if the cue-ball 'missed' by the preverbial gnats **** or cigarette paper, then it should be up to the discretion of the referee whether to call a F & M or not. If the player does miss by such a small margin, he should be good enough to make the necessary adjustment to hit the ball on with the next shot.

In the pro game, from what I understand, players are attemting to hit the object ball with the intent of NOT leaving a ball on. In the amateur game, most are just trying to hit the ball. This is where, IMO, the debate or argument lies as to calling a F & M.

Leave the rule as it is.

[wildJONESEYE]

You have such a low opinion of referees, are you John Virgo!!!

i just think a ref has to call it as they see it and have a opinion on the matter of did a player make a good enough attempt out of a hard snooker ...

there are obvious some shots that are misses and should be called as such but lets give the refs their brains back.

[scottishplayer]

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

I believe the players have not been asked to vote!! Only for their opinions.

[wildJONESEYE]

I believe the players have not been asked to vote!! Only for their opinions.

yes they are only asking for opinions from players but i think fans opinions have to be taken in to consideration as well TBH we are the people the rules are there to entertain....

we see it from a entertainment perspective and im telling it as it is for me ball in hand in 9 ball pool is a turn off.

[bigbreak]

I believe the players have not been asked to vote!! Only for their opinions.

apologies for the lax terminology in that sentence. I do refer to the survey in the last one however

[bigbreak]

yes they are only asking for opinions from players but i think fans opinions have to be taken in to consideration as well TBH we are the people the rules are there to entertain....

we see it from a entertainment perspective and im telling it as it is for me ball in hand in 9 ball pool is a turn off.

Don't worry Wild, that'll never happen. In my opinion the pros will want to keep it as it is, based on the feedback up here.

However, I'm more interested in the effect that the current application has on the amateur game, because we do have a problem there. The rules rely far too much on the references to referees.

[scottishplayer]

enrage........and that's the way it should be . That's what the play again rule is for..........if you don't like the position after your opponent has fouled

To simplify it by saying that's what the rule's for is silly......everyone knows a player has that option to take. To say it's ok not to make contact with a ball on and just put your 4 up is daft and would be giving players license to play the cue ball into an area of the table (after being in trouble and nearly hitting a ball on) where no player has any advantage. There's a word for that.......cheating. If there's a ball on which is easy to hit then it's quite straightforward..........hit it. No-one is saying a player has deliberately missed the ball on as that's not the point and can't be proven.........what can be proven is that the ball on hasn't been struck legally in which case it's quite simple, have another go and see if you can hit it this time (instead of probably pretending to make contact but just missing it and leaving the cue ball in a position with no advantage to either player) which is easy to do.

[scottishplayer]

Don't worry Wild, that'll never happen. In my opinion the pros will want to keep it as it is, based on the feedback up here.

However, I'm more interested in the effect that the current application has on the amateur game, because we do have a problem there. The rules rely far too much on the references to referees.

I totally agree with you that the there is a big problem with the rule in the amateur game, without refs it will always be a grey area until certain rules are cast in stone which takes players opinions away on what is and what isn't a miss

[bigbreak]

I totally agree with you that the there is a big problem with the rule in the amateur game, without refs it will always be a grey area until certain rules are cast in stone which takes players opinions away on what is and what isn't a miss

I'm pleased you agree, which saves me responding to your previous post.

I'm of the opinion that the rules can be framed to suit all levels if the problem is analysed properly and some focus is applied in the right area. However I can't see that happening with reliance on the WPBSA alone.

[miscuehamburg]

I would like to join the 'leave it as it is'-fraction. I doubt very much that ball in hand/in D after x misses would do the game any good, but create temptations to cheating (rolling colours on the cushion ie). The cases where a unjustfull miss has been called on an (nearly-) impossible shot in the last two decades are very rare in my experience.

[bigbreak]

I would like to join the 'leave it as it is'-fraction. I doubt very much that ball in hand/in D after x misses would do the game any good, but create temptations to cheating (rolling colours on the cushion ie). The cases where a unjustfull miss has been called on an (nearly-) impossible shot in the last two decades are very rare in my experience.

not in the amateur game, it happens every week

[jamesa54321]

yes they are only asking for opinions from players but i think fans opinions have to be taken in to consideration as well TBH we are the people the rules are there to entertain....

we see it from a entertainment perspective and im telling it as it is for me ball in hand in 9 ball pool is a turn off.

What's it got to do with us a fans of snooker. It's about the people making a living out of the game, it's their job, it's their livelihood, nothing to do with us the people who choose to watch the sport.

Name me another professional sport where they have asked the fans before changing the rules.

We should all have opinions but not the right to be consulted.

[wildJONESEYE]

What's it got to do with us a fans of snooker. It's about the people making a living out of the game, it's their job, it's their livelihood, nothing to do with us the people who choose to watch the sport.

Name me another professional sport where they have asked the fans before changing the rules.

We should all have opinions but not the right to be consulted.

BOLLOX

they are trying to implement a rule that will Quicken the sport up...to make it more entertaining supposedly how many snooker players pay to be entertained by snooker players ?

How many Snooker players tune in when they knocked out ?

this change in the rule or the way they going about it is not designed for their livelihood or there wouldn't be any discussion about it and definitely not regarding ball in hand cobblers.