Do the Rules Condone an Intentional Miss?

[reverse_side]

Question #1 to the Experts: A Pro has enough points on the table to win the frame, but is in a snooker that he* fails to get out of and is asked to re-take the original shot after the ref calls a foul-and-a-miss. He continues to play the same shot as it's the safest option to avoid giving his opponent an easy pot; the ref calls the foul-and-a-miss each time too.
What I'm curious to know, is if this player fouls enough to require snookers, he now can't be called for a miss, so what's stopping him from playing an even safer version of his original shot to make it 100% sure he won't give away an easy chance?
He couldn't just lag up to the nearest cushion as the rules cover this, "with sufficient strength...directly or indirectly towards the ball on", but he's not making any extra effort to hit the balls - he knows he may leave an easy shot and won't want to take any unnecessary risk.... especially important if it's 17-All in a Sheffield venue say!


Question #2 to the Experts: There's another situation with the miss-rule that's seems unfair; think about when a player is desperate for some penalty points (2,3 or 4 snookers say), lays a fantastic snooker that the incoming player needn't make that much of an effort to hit 'the ball on' because he can't be called a miss for virtually any attempt he makes. Isn't it bizarre that the incoming player can opt for a safe escape in the full knowledge that it's only a few points he'll lose out on at most; especially if he can leave some distance between the balls to make another snooker more difficult.

Make sense? Granted, the first situation aint gonna happen very often, but when it does, it'll cause a stink becuase it might deprive someone from actually winning a frame and therefore a match. The second situation is pretty frequent and it's such a shame that the escape penalty isn't more severe; especially when the Pro's can hit virtually anything anywhere - Angles McManus don't you know!

(* denotes both masculine and feminine, genders; wouldn't want to spoil our brownie point collection with; The "Power" Pollita! )

[Peter-d]

First, that part where the miss rule can't be applied when one of the players is in "snookers needed" position is only applicable if any of the object balls can be seen in a straight line.

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.

And second, the sufficient strength rule only comes in effect when the snooker is impossible:

...or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion, to have reached the ball on but the obstructing ball or balls.

So for Q1, assuming the snooker is perfect, then the
opponent could ask to replace indefinately. If the snooker is NOT perfect, the three misses to fofeit rule comes in effect.

For Q2, again if the snooker is perfect, the player can't take the easy way out and leave it safe, because he could be replaced. I can see however if the snooker is not perfect that a good player might take advantage of the situation and miss intentionally knowing he can miss more than once before his opponent can start working on a clearance. The danger would that the openent would have three choice: 1) Let him play his cleverly safe shot (especially if its a perfect snooker this time) or 2) Use the position to attempt to give the other an even better snooker. 3) There is also a chance that in missing intentialy, a free ball will be awarded.

BTW, I'm not an expert, but I think I know the rules pretty well.

[reverse_side]

Hmmm, but in all the tournament play I've watched Pete, if you're in a snooker, you can never be called for a Foul and a Miss (F&aM) if you either;

1. need a snooker(s) or
2. the foul causes you to need one (or more).

and therefore,

• The ref cannot keep calling a F&aM indefinitely because as soon as the player needs a snooker, the rules state he can't call one.

Also

• The player "can't take the easy way out and play a 'safe' escape because he'll be replaced", isn't true because he needs one or more snookers and the balls stay where they are and only 1 set of penalty points can be extracted.

But, I've read and re-read Section 3 part 14 and as you were suggesting, there's a ruling of having a "clear path in a straight line", and this is also the only place that needing snookers is mentioned as affecting whether a miss can be called or not????

I expected right at the beginning of the 'Foul and a Miss' rules section for it to explicitly say that the scores matter before you can call one; it doesn't. This unfortunately clouds the water still further in ways I never even dreamt of and makes it more difficult to even set the circumstances up to pose both questions - but thanks for highlighting that.

So for my second question, we'd still need an initial ruling about how being in a snooker affects a ref in calling the foul. The player at the moment based on years of TV coverage is penalised just once but no miss is called and the balls can't be replaced because he's, "in the required snooker stage" as Clive Everton would say. (one of the few phrases he uses that aren't poncey! "bottom of centre striking", that'll be backspin then Clive!)

If we assume that a Ref can't call a miss when you need 1 or more snookers before or after the penalty points have been applied, then there is a chance to make a much to safer attempt at an escape that you won't be punished enough even though the rules state you should make a "sufficient enough effort based on (your) ability". Ref's are intelligent enough (and probably proficient players; Len Ganley's best was 136!) to apply a common sense rule that addresses a deliberate miss. If a Pro was offered a £million pounds to escape from a snooker, we'd see a drastically different shot selection employed. Get John Virgo and some high profile players to discuss what should be done; at least my livelihood doesn't depend on this, theirs' does.

I still think a Ref should be able to call a F&aM irrespective of the scores.

(3 misses when you can see the ball-on and you lose the frame is another chance to tweak the rule so a miscue or something isn't classed as a frame and possible match loser; especially as the rules cater for an accidental foul before you play a shot, E.g. you trip up onto the table and smash the balls all over the place!).

Maybe I could email Paul Collier this post's html forum link..... he could register and we could persuade him to contribute to, "Ask the Ref"........ Giga Rep power.

[Peter-d]

This might be a little egocentric... but I think the rule is fairest when interpretted the way I did. And if the ref's as seen on TV have never called miss when one player is in need of snooker, then I like the think the refs were wrong . LOL

It would be great to have a ref's view on this. Worth the try.

[taz147]

From the countless thousands of frames I've played and tournys I've played and watched, a foul and miss can be called indefinitely. Also if you are snookered and you stop say 1 milimeter from hitting ball on it's an automatic miss, cuz you didn't shoot hard enough.

(3 misses when you can see the ball-on and you lose the frame is another chance to tweak the rule so a miscue or something isn't classed as a frame and possible match loser

Hehe I,ve played some guys that were very good at miscueing on purpose and made it look like a legit attempt. If I was a ref watching them I would never have thought they did it on purpose.
So 3 misses and its over even becuse of miscue should remain

Also if you and your opponent agree you can have the ref replace all the balls with a new set any time during a frame. Replacing each ball where they are at the time. Just another 1 of the quirky rules, same as angled ball..ball in hand within the "D" come on ...game over from there

[reverse_side]

So it seems that we're not all playing the game either using the same rules or even their interpretation; I've emailed Frank Callan's web site that has a Class One Referee (John Bell) available for advice - we'll see what response we get.

Just watching some of the Irish Masters yesterday, the situation of the Ref not being able to call a F&aM where the player failed to escape happened at least 3 times; a few more where they managed to escape... so I'm afraid they're playing to the rules that I explained initially where it can't be a miss if you need a snooker. Having said that (Henman!) it had an extra twist where it was actually Ronnie that was in the snookers required stage when he found himself in a snooker he didn't escape from.... BUT wasn't called a miss. This made me think that that as his opponent wasn't the player to need snookers, it should have been called a miss. (at least I know how to pronounce Failte now!)

3 miss frame penalty should be revoked, it's too harsh a ruling especially if it's the only option they've got and the extra pressure will cause extra anxiety.

Replacing a whole set of balls??? I'd imagine that common sense would prevail and the Ref would decide to finish the frame first and then look at which ball maybe causing a problem. We've an ex-Pro in our League that's paranoid about the balls we use; he brings his own! He's always measuring the size of the white with a ball either side and rocking his cue over the top... "light white" is his favourite phrase and even threw in the towel in a semi last year.

Miscuing on purpose? Why? Hustling?

Also, if you can't be called a miss when you can see the ball on if you need snookers and the Ref is sure it wasn't deliberate, then as long as your close enough to the ball on you're safe.

Luckily tho, snooker is a game based on sportsmanship and the players live and breathe fair play, so this makes the Miss Rule a priority for the game to sort out. Ask any Pro if they'd prefer a common sense approach and they'd agree. Why continually penalise a player for an attempt that any mere mortal wouldn't get within 3 feet of escaping from? Why strip a player of a frame for trying to behave professionally in not playing a rubbish shot but missing the reds twice then an unintentional miscue?

At the moment the Ref's will continually call a miss up to the point a player needs a snooker; unless it's a virtual impossible situation at which point some Refs will use discretion and decide that passing by the object and missing by a fraction is good enough - queue applause from the crowd at a case of common sense breaking out.

PS Peter-d, why's your flag canadian when you's in Cally-for-nye-aye?
PPS Wonder how many players realise that measuring from the cushion faces, a snooker table is a lot less than 12 feet by 6?

[Peter-d]

To answer your PS question... On the profile page, ther eis a drop down so select "country of origin" or something like that... I was born and live most of my life in the suburbs of Montreal, QC, so my country of origin is Canada.
But I now live in (finally) sunny California, so that's what I entered in the "location/Where you live" field.

PPS, what are the actual dimensions of the playing surface?

[reverse_side]

Cheers Pete, both great places to live hopefully.

With a tolerance of +/- 1/2" on both dimensions, 'within the cushion faces' the playing area shall measure 11ft 8.5in by 5ft 10in, as per Section 1: Equipment 1.The Standard Table.

Was going to settle down to watch the second session of Ronnie V Williams, but the goon of a commentator's got it wrong for the second time, and all that's on Eurosport is Serie 'A' footie - damn. Ah well, my girlie's turned it into something good and suggested a pint down the CLub with a curry to follow; winnings from a Comp I won today.

PS The pints for me and her, as she says, saves having to go back to the bar too often if you only buy halves! She's great.