TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA [Archive]

View Full Version : TSB - Miss rule canvasing by The WPBSA

ferret

19th February 2011, 04:28 PM

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 (http://www.thesnookerblog.com/2011/02/miss-rule-canvasing-by-the-wpbsa/)http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheSnookerBlog/~4/nmhfiD9hpuc

More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheSnookerBlog/~3/nmhfiD9hpuc/)

jrc750

19th February 2011, 04:35 PM

Odrl

19th February 2011, 04:45 PM

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

19th February 2011, 04:51 PM

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

19th February 2011, 05:08 PM

Trial any suggested rule change in the Premier League

Odrl

19th February 2011, 05:17 PM

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

19th February 2011, 05:18 PM

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

19th February 2011, 05:29 PM

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

19th February 2011, 06:53 PM

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

20th February 2011, 12:26 AM

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

20th February 2011, 02:13 AM

northerner

20th February 2011, 03:29 AM

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

20th February 2011, 03:33 AM

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

jrc750

20th February 2011, 03:35 AM

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

20th February 2011, 09:58 AM

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 :rolleyes:

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.

Odrl

20th February 2011, 10:22 AM

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

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.

Hm, that's two people using basically the same phrase now. I do try to watch as much snooker as possible, but maybe I missed it. So, what exactly happened "recently" that requires the rule to be changed?

I can only think of the Higgins-O'Sullivan incident from last season's UK Championship, but that's already been addressed. Has there been another controversy?

wildJONESEYE

20th February 2011, 11:52 AM

Hm, that's two people using basically the same phrase now. I do try to watch as much snooker as possible, but maybe I missed it. So, what exactly happened "recently" that requires the rule to be changed?

I can only think of the Higgins-O'Sullivan incident from last season's UK Championship, but that's already been addressed. Has there been another controversy?

the miss rule at the moment is a load of rubbish because the refs aren't using or cant use their brain.

there is nothing wrong with the rule as its written down but the way its being enforced takes a lot to be desired.

virtually telling a player hit that or you will be here all night.

Ball in Hand anywhere on the table after 3 misses is a NO NO thats just a Amateur way to enforce rules of a Sport its like football getting rid of the goalkeeper during a penalty.

if they going with 3 miss and ball in hand then from the D or Balk Line so what if its a tactical foul the game moves on instead of 14 misses because the ref hasn't the balls to make the right decision.

superaussie

20th February 2011, 12:00 PM

i would take the current miss rule over the ball in hand anywhere over the table any day of the week

it ruins snooker if that silly rule ball in hand anywhere is brought in :(

Gerry Armstrong

20th February 2011, 12:02 PM

i would take the current miss rule over the ball in hand anywhere over the table any day of the week

it ruins snooker if that silly rule ball in hand anywhere is brought in :(

Me too. I personally don't think there is any problem with the Miss Rule in the pro game, it's the amateur game playing the pro version of the rule that's the big problem!!

wildJONESEYE

20th February 2011, 12:19 PM

Me too. I personally don't think there is any problem with the Miss Rule in the pro game, it's the amateur game playing the pro version of the rule that's the big problem!!

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.

jhr145

20th February 2011, 12:21 PM

Me too. I personally don't think there is any problem with the Miss Rule in the pro game, it's the amateur game playing the pro version of the rule that's the big problem!!
Your right Gerry I dont think the Miss Rule as used in the Pro game was ever meant for the amateur game.

Gerry Armstrong

20th February 2011, 12:24 PM

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.

I don't think the pros have any issue with the way it is enforced. One of the top Scottish professionals recently described the current Miss Rule as "perfect" and stated he has never had an issue with any miss ever called against him.

As I said above, applying the same rule to amateur players is where it all starts to go wrong.

superaussie

20th February 2011, 12:44 PM

i like the idea after 3 misses that on the 4th one their opponent can put white in the d and play from there

:cool:

Odrl

20th February 2011, 12:58 PM

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.

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. ;)

cueman

20th February 2011, 01:14 PM

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. ;)

This is my view as well. A lot of the time a player is trying to get out of a snooker with the sole intention of not leaving anything should he miss. Therefore that is the reason the miss rule was brought in, to stop players gaining a tactical advantage by aiming to hit a ball which doesn't leave the opponent with a pot.

These players are more than good enough to cope with the current rule, the only grey area seems to be when a player is snookered on the last red or an individual colour whereby that is the only ball to hit, which I think then should be down to a refs discretion as to whether the player has made a good enough attempt to hit the ball, again dependant on the difficulty of the snooker itself.

pigeonslayer

20th February 2011, 01:41 PM

I think the problem that we amateurs have with the rule when applied to us is that for years the word 'deliberate' was often used prior to the word 'miss' - so rather than being an intrepretation of ability, by calling a miss [EDIT: in our mind] the referee is more questioning the intentions of the player.
I think this is extremely difficult rule to get right - why should the player who laid a great snooker not be able to extract the harshest penalty from his opponent - but on the other hand - should one snooker be allowed to turn a frame on its head? My opinion is 'Yes - why not' - no one complains when a player pulls off a really difficult pot and goes on to clear up - everyone applauds the skill. So why not apply the same weighting to making an escape as difficult as possible - after all it is called 'SNOOKER'.

jb134

20th February 2011, 01:56 PM

Can any changes be done retrospectively and Dennis Taylors name be removed from the trophy?

thinsy

20th February 2011, 02:03 PM

My views are that the rule should stand as it is but maybe a little discression from the referees... However, what you must remember is that the pro's are playing to get out of snookers using 2-3 or even 4 cushions when there is an easier escape of just one or two cushions! This in my opinion is why the rule should be enforced, its not about how close you get to the ball your trying to hit but how easy the escape COULD be!! If the player is not trying the easiest escape then the miss should be called until he hits the ball or takes the easier route... The discression needs to be used when the easiest escape from a snooker is very difficult!

magicman

20th February 2011, 02:15 PM

The miss rule has always needed revising from the moment it was first created. How can you have amateur leagues choosing to totally ignore a rule of the game and then say the miss rule is fine as it is? As the miss rule stands you can miss-cue on a third attempt at a ball on, and lose a frame. How can it ever be said that that player didn't attempt a legal shot when by missing he would concede the entire frame? You lose a frame by missing and yet the miss rule is still applied? In this scenario how could it EVER be an advantage to miss?

Referee's discretion is a big no go area as well imo. At least the rule as it is currently, means each player knows he must hit the ball or it's replaced. Rules need to be definitive not an opinion.

Make your opponent play from where the ball lies, play yourself from there, or choose ball in hand from the 'D' only after 3 misses have been called seems the fairest way to me. This gives a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 21 points away and still leaves the player who is snookered the option of going for two attempts at a safer red. If by missing a third time he would be leaving an easy chance from the D then he must make sure he hits the object ball on his last attempt.

FOXMULDER

20th February 2011, 02:34 PM

Following the success of the Ceasarcasino.com Snooker Shoot Out
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.

T.C.

20th February 2011, 04:46 PM

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

20th February 2011, 06:43 PM

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

20th February 2011, 06:48 PM

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

20th February 2011, 06:50 PM

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

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

bigbreak

20th February 2011, 07:46 PM

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

20th February 2011, 08:14 PM

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/showthread.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

20th February 2011, 08:37 PM

best1966

20th February 2011, 08:52 PM

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

20th February 2011, 09:53 PM

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

21st February 2011, 12:31 AM

no it should come down to whether he tried or not

andy carson

21st February 2011, 12:39 AM

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

21st February 2011, 11:09 AM

bigbreak

21st February 2011, 11:18 AM

cazmac1

21st February 2011, 01:58 PM

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

21st February 2011, 02:29 PM

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).

andy carson

21st February 2011, 03:14 PM

147Alexandra

21st February 2011, 04:24 PM

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

21st February 2011, 04:34 PM

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

21st February 2011, 04:54 PM

After reading this..
http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=558774&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

21st February 2011, 04:57 PM

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

21st February 2011, 05:01 PM

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

21st February 2011, 05:01 PM

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

21st February 2011, 05:35 PM

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

21st February 2011, 05:46 PM

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

21st February 2011, 08:25 PM

Monique

21st February 2011, 10:41 PM

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

21st February 2011, 11:03 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 12:40 AM

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

22nd February 2011, 12:49 AM

... 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

22nd February 2011, 12:49 AM

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

Gerry Armstrong

22nd February 2011, 12:51 AM

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

That's fine when their is a referee present, but what do you do in an amateur game with no referee? You can't as the non-striker award yourself a frame for ungentlemanly conduct.

Souwester

22nd February 2011, 01:01 AM

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

Then Section 3 rule 14 para (e) comes into play:  (e) All other [I]misses will be called at the discretion of the referee.
Bearing in mind the Section 2 definition of a Miss:  20. Miss
A [I]miss is when the cue-ball fails to first contact a ball on and the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball on.
I'd call a Miss regardless of the difference in scores if I didn't think the player had made a good enough attempt to hit it.

As an example: if a player pots a red but lands up with the cue ball in the jaws of a pocket with reds blocking any path to a colour, then if the player played the cue ball straight into the pocket, then I'd call that for a miss regardless of the difference in scores.

Normally referees will stop calling misses on attempts to get out of a snooker once snookers are required, but if the referee believed that a stroke was not a genuine attempt to get out of the snooker, then a miss can be called.

wildJONESEYE

22nd February 2011, 01:03 AM

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

but you cant put a rule to counter a rule.

currently that would be a miss and the yellow replaced but with the new rule it wouldn't.

Souwester

22nd February 2011, 01:14 AM

but you cant put a rule to counter a rule.

currently that would be a miss and the yellow replaced but with the new rule it wouldn't.

Sorry but section 4.1 overrides anything else.

 SECTION 4. THE PLAYERS
1. Conduct
In the event of:
(a) a Player taking an abnormal amount of time over a stroke or the selection of a stroke; or
(b) any conduct by a Player which in the opinion of the referee is wilfully or persistently unfair; or
(c) any other conduct by a Player which otherwise amounts to ungentlemanly conduct; or
(d) refusing to continue a frame;
the referee shall either:
(e) warn the Player that in the event of any such further conduct the frame will be awarded to his opponent; or
(f) award the frame to his opponent; or
(g) in the event that the conduct is sufficiently serious award the game to his opponent

If a referee has warned the Player under (e) above, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above, the referee must either:
(a) award the frame to his opponent; or
(b) in the event that the further conduct is sufficiently serious, award the game to his opponent.

If a referee has awarded a frame to a Player's opponent pursuant to the above provisions, in the event of any further conduct as referred to above by the Player concerned, the referee must award the game to the Player's opponent.
Any decision by a referee to award a frame and/or the game to a Player's opponent shall be final and shall not be subject to any appeal.

2. Penalty
(a) If a frame is forfeited under this Section, the offender shall:
(i) lose the frame; and
(ii) forfeit all points scored and the non-offender shall receive a number of points equivalent to the value of the balls remaining on the table, with each Red counting as eight points and any colour incorrectly off the table being counted as if spotted.
(b) If a game is forfeited under this Section, the offender shall
(i) lose the frame in progress as in (a); and
(ii) additionally lose the required number of unplayed frames to complete the game where frames are relevant; or
(iii) additionally lose the remaining frames, each valued at 147 points, where aggregate points apply

wildJONESEYE

22nd February 2011, 01:21 AM

thats just it refs are scared to have opinions thats why we are having this discussion about changing the miss rule in the first place.

Gerry Armstrong

22nd February 2011, 01:23 AM

The rule is fine as currently implemented for the pros, just ask one if you're not sure.

The issue is in amateur snooker, and the biggest issue is most matches are not refereed and therefore the guy constantly wanting to put you back as per the pro interpretation of the rule is your opponent and not a referee.

Souwester

22nd February 2011, 01:24 AM

Well rather than change the rules, maybe the NGBs should be lobbied to improve the judgement skills of their referees?

Gerry Armstrong

22nd February 2011, 01:27 AM

I don't know about anywhere else but the vast majority of NGB matches in Scotland, including the MT events with a MT place up for grabs, do NOT have a referee.

wildJONESEYE

22nd February 2011, 01:31 AM

I don't know about anywhere else but the vast majority of NGB matches in Scotland, including the MT events with a MT place up for grabs, do NOT have a referee.

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.

ace man

22nd February 2011, 02:14 AM

If you really must change the rules for the better, I would just reward the incoming player with a free ball option after foul whether he sees the ball on or not. Except in the event of cue ball in off, there a traditional shoot from D rule would apply with a free ball option only if you really couldn't see the ball on.
Anyone likes this? Amateur and pro game would be played in the same manner, referees or not. Miss rule gone. No complex replacing of balls necessary. Would this ruin the game? I think not.

Ball in hand anywhere is too pool like. So I vote no. It also doesn't make any sense without requirement to touch a cushion with either the cueball or one of the object balls on every shot, so rolling up behind a baulk colour would not be seen anymore, some tradition lost. People will see the benefit of fouling deliberately at times to gain an advantage like in pool. To me, this isn't in spirit of the game.

Ball in hand just in D I don't get at all. It's almost like let's make a change for changes sake.

Terry Davidson

22nd February 2011, 02:16 AM

Krypton

22nd February 2011, 08:16 AM

If you really must change the rules for the better, I would just reward the incoming player with a free ball option after foul whether he sees the ball on or not.

The free ball after every foul is, especially on pro level, WAY TOO MUCH a benefit.

Opening of a Frame, only one or two reds played away from the pack, one player missing a red on a safety shot (thin cut). Free ball with the cueball close to the D. Instead of giving away 4, and continuing a safety exchange - as it was and HAS to be - now the frame is gone in fact, as the other guy can sipmly pot green, make position for the blue, hammer the pack from there and clear up.

A free ball after every foul is NOT a solution, it's rubbish. So is ball in hand anywhere on the table, by the way...

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 11:14 AM

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

Highlighting the big problem...........playing the game without referees

nrage

22nd February 2011, 11:27 AM

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 think this is an acceptable situation for the rules to leave you in, given your opponent played a very good snooker (or you'd have hit the red).

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.

Good point. I can see an argument for and against allowing this.

[against]
It does seem a bit unsporting to make no attempt at all to hit the ball on, and a rule could be introduced, or added to the unsportmanlike conduct rule where a player will loose the frame if it's 'obvious' he wasn't trying to hit the ball on, or if his shot choice could not possibly have hit the ball on - and he should have known it. These rules are very subjective though, but their existance should 'scare' players into at least making an attempt at the ball on.

[for]
Ok, so they can play 1 maybe 2 colours safe. Is that so bad? The opponent gets either ball in hand in the D, or plays from where it lies, and can still possibly clear up, or play another good safety. The important thing is that skill is required from both players (to play balls safe without leaving anything on, to clear up) in either case, and the game will still be interesting, and those are the important considerations right?

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 11:40 AM

Well rather than change the rules, maybe the NGBs should be lobbied to improve the judgement skills of their referees?

Oh come on Sou. Another very subjective statement

I wish you wouldn't keep referring back to the referees involvement. the game should be able to be played without you, and the rules should reflect that.

The Statman

22nd February 2011, 11:40 AM

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.If a player did that then I'd award the frame for ungentlemanly conduct.That's fine, Souwester, and I agree that this is a route open to the referee.

But would you do this in the current set-up where a Miss can continue to be called? I doubt you would; I suspect you'd simply call the Miss. In another post, you said you'd call a Miss even on a player who needed snookers, if you thought the failure was deliberate, but made no mention of warning the player for ungentlemanly conduct.

I'm not convinced that it is easy to call for ungentlemanly conduct over the subject of shot selection. There's no reason that it shouldn't, but it's a potentially dangerous route to go down.

The Statman

22nd February 2011, 11:42 AM

Good point. I can see an argument for and against allowing this.

[against]
It does seem a bit unsporting to make no attempt at all to hit the ball on, and a rule could be introduced, or added to the unsportmanlike conduct rule where a player will loose the frame if it's 'obvious' he wasn't trying to hit the ball on, or if his shot choice could not possibly have hit the ball on - and he should have known it. These rules are very subjective though, but their existance should 'scare' players into at least making an attempt at the ball on.

[for]
Ok, so they can play 1 maybe 2 colours safe. Is that so bad? The opponent gets either ball in hand in the D, or plays from where it lies, and can still possibly clear up, or play another good safety. The important thing is that skill is required from both players (to play balls safe without leaving anything on, to clear up) in either case, and the game will still be interesting, and those are the important considerations right?I'm not sure if they are the most important considerations.

One of the most important considerations, for me anyway, is that the Miss rule is supposed to guard against deliberately fouling, and then encourages it.

wildJONESEYE

22nd February 2011, 11:51 AM

Well, here in Canada everyone has decided to interpret the 'MISS RULE' as the 'MUST HIT' rule and that's no matter how difficult the hit is or how close the striker came to the ball on.

With very few exceptions, like the 6-red handicap I play in where there is no Miss Rule enforced, but in our ranking tournaments with no referees it is interpreted as 'Must Hit' with no exceptions and no discretion on anyone's part.

I still say the Miss Rule as it stands if entirely fair for the pros and the referees should be able to make a discretionary call, but again they have near perfect conditions to play on.

Big difference for amateurs with slow cloths, bad cushions, light cueballs and god know what else

Terry

yes it is interpreted as the Must Hit rule not only in canada but in the Professional Game.

but come on if a shot is a cigarette paper from the ball its quite obvious it was a fair attempt and no miss rewarded.

then theres option for the in coming player to play it himself or put the guy back in.

you cant interpret the rule as must hit we all know the player can hit a ball on but thats not the object of the game setting up your opponent for a frame winning clearance.

you got to attempt the right shot to keep the table safe when you leave it.

nrage

22nd February 2011, 11:51 AM

I'm not sure if they are the most important considerations.

One of the most important considerations, for me anyway, is that the Miss rule is supposed to guard against deliberately fouling, and then encourages it.

In that case, you prefer the [against] block above? If the miss rule is changed, we'd need another rule to continue to guard against deliberate fouling.

Incidently, what's the basis/reason for guarding against deliberate fouling? I think it's because a deliberate foul is seen as cheating, and therefore unfair. And that's what I was trying to get at in the [for] comment above. If the deliberate 'foul' to play a colour safe wasn't seen as 'unfair' (because they gain very little advantage - due to new/eixsting rules perhaps) and there wasn't a rule specifically forbidding it, then it wouldn't be 'cheating' .. it would just be a tactical decision weighing another attempt at the ball on vs playing the colour safe vs something else.

The Statman

22nd February 2011, 11:57 AM

Yes you're right.

I'm firmly in the 'no change' camp but I'm just saying that any propoesd change should be examined very carefully to see exactly what consequences it would have.

If it is felt that the change in strategy is an acceptable one, no problem - but make sure you know that it's there!

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 12:01 PM

I'm not sure if they are the most important considerations.

One of the most important considerations, for me anyway, is that the Miss rule is supposed to guard against deliberately fouling, and then encourages it.

Totally agree as posted earlier, and I think a lot of people miss this point. The other most important consideration is to have a set of rules for the game which are prescriptive enough to avoid the need for a referee.

In a document of 6,600 words the rules mention "referee" 67 times, "player" 69 times and "snooker" 27 times.

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 12:07 PM

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 12:52 PM

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, there also has to be 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.

The current rule, when a player is snookered, as operated by the pro game gives far too much bias to the non-striker and causes far too many copy cat problems at amateur level of competition. It has no place and no understanding at social level either.

For me the most important aspect is that the rules of the game should be able to be implemented at all levels without interpretation being an issue, without referees being present, and without the non-striker having so much bias

Rightly or wrongly, I still have the mindset, albeit an old one, that if I call a miss when my opponent is playing out of a snooker then it’s tantamount to calling my opponent a cheat, in that he didn’t try to hit the ball on. However the real deliberate miss must be dealt with

When a player is snookered, the miss rule is treated like a retail experience in the pro game.

The player who is well snookered is trying to purchase a safety, and the price is the number of points he gives away during his attempts to hit the ball on.

In order to achieve this safety he will probably not be taking the easiest option out of the snooker, and therefore the miss will be called each time and the price will be paid.

More often than not he eventually hits it after a few shots and gets the safety. Top pros can afford to do that in a frame, but most amateurs and social players cannot.

The refs in the pro game are also under instruction over and above the rules to apply additional criteria to the rule.

The whole activity now is built around a player’s expectation to be left in the balls after he lays a snooker. It has nothing to do with anyone’s judgement of an opponent’s ability to hit the target.

By the same token the player playing out of the snooker has an expectation to leave the cue ball safe and has a right to have that expectation as well, so he chooses the shot which he feels can deliver for him.

Ironically, he will probably play the same shot that his opponent would play if he was in the same situation !! That lays the foundation of agreement on the best shot to play in the circumstances

At the moment. a player is put back in because he hasn’t left anything on, not because he hasn’t hit the ball, or flouted the rule! The operation of the rule is a contradiction, and even boring and embarrassing sometimes.

The rules and outcomes should be the same for any player regardless of ability.

Facts that we have to deal with outside the pro game;-

1. Some players do not understand the rule, and the difference between its application in the pro-game and the amateur game.

2. Some players do understand it and abuse it.

3. Some players do understand it and don’t abuse it.

Items 1. and 2. cause us problems.

Historically, the miss rule is basically there to punish and/or prevent the deliberate miss as we used to know it and now never referred to. That focus has been lost.

Let’s look at 3 factual points:-

1. The pros (and even our top amateurs) are already prepared to “purchase an escape" with their numerous attempts at escaping from a snooker. The only problem is no-one knows how much the attempted safety is worth until they have completed their attempts

2. The non-striker is not guaranteed the reward of being left on, and often isn’t left on anyway after all the faffing about with miss calls.

3. However, the non-striker still thinks that he is entitled to more than the minimum 4 points for a "well layed snooker" and he may well have a point, but the rules do not recognise great snookers!.

Perhaps the rules should be changed to reflect the above.

The most simple, and worse deliberate miss (tactical foul) is tapping the white out into the open from behind the snooker.

But would it be such a bad thing if the miss was dealt with differently, in a better manner than present, by a prescriptive remedy

It’s better to strive for prescriptive rules in the game, rather than leaving it to some arbitrary judgement of players or referees, perhaps then we would get rid of all the misunderstandings, interpretations and arguments.

The present focus is on whether a player made a good enough attempt getting out of a snooker, and being put back in because he didn’t leave anything on if he missed

Perhaps the focus should be shifted and centred on constructing a rule that, at the same time, rewards a good snooker, but also let’s the snookered player judge the value of the escape by giving him a choice of options at the time in order to limit his liability, and also removes the interpretation/judgement aspect by second and third parties.

So how about a rule that allows a player to buy his way out of trouble (purchase an escape) if he thought he was in a great snooker, and also rewards his opponent for laying the “great snooker”

A player who is snookered would be allowed to have a choice depending on how difficult HE deemed the snooker to be, and regardless of how anyone else judged his ability, and his endeavours to hit the ball on.

He could attempt to hit the ball on and take his chances or he could purchase an escape by either:-

1. playing out of the snooker by way of two cushions to leave the white ball above the baulk-line in a position of his choice thereby incurring a penalty of say 16 points.

2. refusing his turn, concede say 12 points and his opponent plays from in hand within the D

If he chose to play for any ball on and missed, then a foul and a miss would be called no matter what, having passed on the option to purchase an escape.

However he could always go back to the option at any time during the process and purchase an escape with the escape points added to that already conceded in misses.

If he chooses option one the result is still subject to all other rules after a foul stroke except a miss.

The onus would be on the snookered player to determine how difficult the escape is and value it accordingly, and the miss declaration is mandatory and not subject to anyone’s discretion.

There is still an element of risk in the choices which is reflected in the points liability.

In all of this the play is determined and controlled by the striker, he alone being the judge of how difficult the snooker is and proving it by his subsequent actions and choices, and the number of points he gives away.

The referee is taken out of it as far as judgement of ability is concerned and the non striker’s effort is recognised and taken into consideration.

Just a thought, but I think it is better than the WPBSA tick the box choices.

However, before any rule change is made. I would like to see the WPBSA retract the instructions to referees and let them apply the rule properly and see how that goes for a wee while

nrage

22nd February 2011, 01:23 PM

Terry, the the game is the same no matter the conditions and the rules should have nothing to do with conditions or ability.

True, except where the rules specifically call for the referee to take into account the players ability (and/or conditions), as in the miss rule.

20. Miss
A miss is when the cue-ball fails to first contact a ball on and the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball on.

In other words, if under the conditions, or given the players ability, their attempt was good enough the referee should not call 'miss'

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 01:35 PM

True, except where the rules specifically call for the referee to take into account the players ability (and/or conditions), as in the miss rule.

20. Miss
A miss is when the cue-ball fails to first contact a ball on and the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball on.

In other words, if under the conditions, or given the players ability, their attempt was good enough the referee should not call 'miss'

but they do

nrage

22nd February 2011, 01:37 PM

but they do

.. and the probably should, in the pro game. But in lower levels they should, ideally, be using their judgement and not calling miss. So, is the 'problem' with the miss rule simply it's implementation, and not the rule itself?

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 01:46 PM

.. and the probably should, in the pro game. But in lower levels they should, ideally, be using their judgement and not calling miss. So, is the 'problem' with the miss rule simply it's implementation, and not the rule itself?

it sure is

nrage

22nd February 2011, 01:50 PM

it sure is

Though, I can cetainly agree that on principle it would be better if there was no room for judgement/opinion in the ruling. The Q is, is it possible to come up with a rule that does that, and doesn't just 'feel' wrong for snooker. I didn't like your suggestions above for alternate rules because for me, part of the game of snooker is attempting to escape from them and any rule which discourages that, seems wrong to me.

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 01:58 PM

there-in lies the conundrum:)

nrage

22nd February 2011, 02:12 PM

there-in lies the conundrum:)

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?

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 02:18 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 02:47 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 02:53 PM

... 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

22nd February 2011, 02:56 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 02:57 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 03:03 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 03:46 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 03:56 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 03:58 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 04:10 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 05:50 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 05:54 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 05:56 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 06:04 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 06:38 PM

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.

bigbreak

22nd February 2011, 06:58 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 07:04 PM

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

22nd February 2011, 07:40 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 01:15 AM

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

23rd February 2011, 05:04 PM

wildJONESEYE

23rd February 2011, 05:18 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 05:42 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 05:51 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 05:59 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 06:15 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 06:44 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 10:46 PM

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

23rd February 2011, 11:28 PM

jamesa54321

24th February 2011, 12:38 AM

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

24th February 2011, 01:25 AM

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.

snooker mad

24th February 2011, 02:41 PM

In the Manchester Snooker League that I play in, the league has a slight variation of the miss rule. If you are snookered and you miss no miss is called. A miss is only called when you can hit part or all of the object and you miss it. 3 misses and frame over and 60 points loss.

pottingpinks

24th February 2011, 04:42 PM

Krypton

24th February 2011, 04:49 PM

But then, that would be too much a penalty on professional level and you'd need a second wording/rule for their level.

recoil

24th February 2011, 05:13 PM

Leave it as it is.

I'm getting fed up with all this messing with tourn. formats, HB prizes and now even the rules.
Let's hope the new board will not change the World Championship into a shoot-out event.
(even though they started messing with it too)

simon dent

26th February 2011, 11:37 AM

I agree that referees calling 'misses' automatically is daft.

At pro level where they rely on results to make a living, the miss rule is harsh when automatically given. Better judgement when a player has 'missed' is needed.

The problem I have at amateur level the miss rule is nearly used identically to the pro level which is very harsh.

I may not take a miss because it is clear the opponent is trying to hit the ball and if more players overuled the refs decision to take the miss we will find that the players will set the level of expectation themselves.

Right now we have players who take the miss to stack up the points.

I have changed my view on the rule. At first I thought it was a level playing field for all but it really isn't. Remember when the idea of the strength of the shot being sufficient to go passed the ball on seemed to come into play to determine if was a miss, that has fallen by the wayside.

What happened to the good old fashioned foul from actually failing to get out of a snooker where the opponent is trying to hit the ball. Its not a foul if he leaves nothing!

Right now the miss rule is basically inisting that the ball on be hit and that is not fair when you are trying to hit it.

So keep the rule but apply it better.

vmax4steve

26th February 2011, 10:58 PM

I've said this before and I'll say it again, we have a game where the players call their own fouls and yet are considered cheats when failing to get out of a snooker. Get rid of the miss rule and go back to how it used to be, with the exception of when a ball on can be hit. Then it's three attempts and you're out.

Souwester

26th February 2011, 11:42 PM

Alan Chamberlain was in attendance at a meeting of European examiners and tutors, and the point was strongly made that the rules need to be able to be sensibly enforced in social games where unqualified players referee themselves, as well as top pro level. Hopefully due consideration will be given to this matter.

simon dent

27th February 2011, 11:44 AM

I would think that

Ball in hand with a free table after 3 misses have been called

is the best way forward personally, I would imagine any player would be very loathe to offer up the ball in hand option so the third attempt would almost certainly be played with complete intent to hit the ball in question.

I tentatively agree with this principle, I think 3 misses is harsh on fast cloths, slide etc and this maybe should be made to 5, but it will cut short the protruded situation of continual 'foul and a miss' and you know players will try to hit it and keep it safe.

I dont think you can get rid of the rule. Ive seen too much 80's snooker to see that no miss rule is simply unfair. Players can miss intelligently.

I agree thast most players call fouls and misses on themselves but we are talking about a rule to be used at competetive level. Ball in hand in the D may not give any advantage whatsoever. Ball in hand on a free position table for me is just too easy. So I would opt for the D unless there is a better option that I havent thought of?!

cazmac1

27th February 2011, 12:17 PM

Am I the only person that actully enjoys watching someone pull off a great shot coming of two, three or even four cusions and leaving the ball safe. Even if it does sometimes take a few attemps.

bigbreak

27th February 2011, 03:38 PM

bigbreak

27th February 2011, 08:53 PM

wildJONESEYE

28th February 2011, 12:40 AM

Am I the only person that actully enjoys watching someone pull off a great shot coming of two, three or even four cusions and leaving the ball safe. Even if it does sometimes take a few attemps.

absalutly spot on...

ive watched snooker for 30 years man and boy the game is already much faster than it was in the 80s by miles. even todays grinders are faster than some fast players of the 80s so why the need to speed things up even more :confused:

stephen povey

28th February 2011, 02:29 PM

Its about time this was sorted out, 2 or 3 times in the last year i was playing in local handicaps where the miss rule was SUPPOSSED to be in force... so i laid a real cow of a snooker ..when behind in frames, called a miss only to be told no mate we don,t do that here,so alladvantage was lost and of course i lost too. 3 attempts and ball in hand i would have had everry chance of winning!The point is that there is no standardisation of the rules, for me 3 attempts and ball in hand seems the fairest wat to go in the amateur game at least and probably in the pro game too. Lets hope its done quickly too!

dantuck_7

1st March 2011, 06:19 PM

wildJONESEYE

1st March 2011, 09:05 PM

The problem with that line of thinking is that it would almost turn some frames into the situation seen in 9-ball where if a player is able to get 3 fouls in a row then its loss of frame. Its just too much of a radical change, as the Statman mentionned earlier we are perhaps looking for one rule to cover every situation.

Part of the sport would be lost forever more and more hit and hope would be played. and players wouldn't bother trying to work out a skillful way to escape out of a snooker and even if they will try to work it out the chances of it being completed successfully would be non existent.

Sean Newman

5th March 2011, 09:57 PM

There's no reason to put a limit on it. Simply the player has 'missed' has the option to continue trying to hit the object ball or at any point offer 'ball in hand'.
This would work I'm sure. I'll give you an example, recently in league play I was snookered on the last red when 34 in front (35 on). Most of the balls including the red were in very safe positions. The most I could realistically leave was a red and a pink but the snooker was hard and the ref had the 'must hit' philosophy. I ended up giving 52 points away for just one snooker when the balls were safe...totally crazy.
The rule was introduced to stop the striker gaining an advantage by missing. I think 52 points away in this situation is absurd. This is a situation where the rule has changed the game for the worse.
Also amauteur players have a different philosophy. Even if I had escaped the snooker and left an easy red and pink to follow, why should my opponent pot them for 7 points when he can put me back 13 times for 52?
I regularly come across this now playing in the league. Players play for 'misses'. They would struggle to make a 24 break when the balls are over the pockets but now they can put you back 6 times with no danger. It's just not right.

Chen

16th March 2011, 03:49 PM

The main problems I see with the miss rule are,

1. A lot of referees don't know what positions are easy to escape from and what positions are difficult to escape from, or are afraid to call it honestly.

2. A lot of players tend to take advantage of this situation even though they know their opponent has made a good attempt.

3. Nobody much wants to see someone give away 20 or 30 points when it is obvious to most people watching that the player was doing their best. I've seen this many times in the womens IBSF.

What if it was changed to something along these lines, all failed attempts to hit a ball on are called a foul and miss, with the normal exception if snookers are required before or as a result of the shot, as well as any impossible snookers to escape from, as in cue ball surrounded by balls not on.

However add a new rule that whenever your opponent asks to have the balls replaced, the offending player, if he thinks he made a good attempt, can ask his opponent to try and do better.

If he does better he can play the next shot from where they finish or ask his opponent to play next shot.

If he does not get any closer, the other player has the same options.

This would still allow a player to keep playing out of a snooker the safest way a number of times, if this worked the miss rule would be applied more honestly by the players themselves.

Obviously more details needed. Any thoughts?

The Statman

16th March 2011, 04:03 PM

How about - after three misses, the oncoming player can have the balls replaced OR the penalty points for the shot - but not both!

Chen

16th March 2011, 04:09 PM

That would still not cover the situation where the player made 3 good attempts. Innocent until proven guilty.

The Statman

16th March 2011, 04:18 PM

Well ok - not after three misses, just whenever!

thinsy

16th March 2011, 04:19 PM

How about - after three misses, the oncoming player can have the balls replaced OR the penalty points for the shot - but not both!

Personally, I think the rule is fine for the Pro-game. And doesn't need changing!

I think it's harder to judge in the amateur game because you tend to have a lesser qualified referee judging a lesser talented player!! This causes huge problems on many occasions!!

However, this is the best alternative I've heared so far (could maybe stretch it to 5 misses). Most snooker escapes would be achieved by pro's within 5 attempts therefore would not alter the pro-game drastically!!

The amateur game would benefit from stopping the greedy players, who like to win a frame because of one safety shot, from succeeding!!

And, of course, if the player feels he can play from the position left to lay another snooker he can do so and begin to gain more points from there!

thinsy

16th March 2011, 04:26 PM

That would still not cover the situation where the player made 3 good attempts. Innocent until proven guilty.

One thing that always gets ignored is:

Just because a player gets close to a ball he is ATTEMPTING to hit doesn't mean he has made his best attempt!!!

I would not consider getting close to a 4 cusion escape snooker acceptable when there is an easy 1 cusion escape on!!!

Chen

16th March 2011, 04:37 PM

Well ok - not after three misses, just whenever!

This would keep it nice and simple, which I like.

But I can see a snookered player making 10 attempts from a very difficult position, while his opponent waits for the safe on ball to be disturbed.

Good that no points a given away but may be time consuming.

brazil70

28th March 2011, 07:18 PM

My opinion is that snooker should have exactly the same rules at all levels whether at the crucible or a friendly knock about at the local club, with no grey areas. The problem with the miss is that in local league it is often a matter of opinion whether miss or not, and many do not play the rule at all, in our league it is enforced strictly. I believe that as in original post experiment perhaps in one or two tournaments at least delete miss except for when a full ball on is seen, unless snookers required by either player. The 7 point suggestion for all fouls was to make it a little less beneficial to miss, and the deliberate foul is simply a tactical option, which players would rarely use as 7 pts away, but it is same for all and would put an interesting tactical edge on frames. I am sure that after numerous frames any anomalis would become apparent. I hope some professionals and the powers that be read these forums for ideas, but then what is our opinions worth.

Original Source: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=566481#post566481#ixzz1Hv4lMC00
TSF - TheSnookerForum.com

wildJONESEYE

29th March 2011, 06:16 PM

FOXMULDER

29th March 2011, 06:35 PM

The main problem is: the referee's are supposed to use discretion but they almost-never do so. They just call everything a "miss".

I'm sure some form of video technology exists to measure how close the cue ball comes to the object ball. All they would need to do then is set a threshold of - say - 3mm, and use the software to see how close the cue ball came. There could be no arguments.

FOXMULDER

29th March 2011, 06:44 PM

Also, there should be no such thing as a subjective rule.

If one referee calls a shot a miss that another referee wouldn't, that is fundamentally unfair. If two players play a similar shot in two different matches, one may be penalised and the other not.

Every rule should be objective and undebatable.

brazil70

29th March 2011, 07:40 PM

Hi So be it, would be no worse than rule before the miss was implemented in early nineties, it would be very interesting how thing would develop.