Foul and a miss or not?

[austrian_girl]

Ok, a question to all the refs on here!

Hope I get this right. A recently witnessed match between two friends of mine left me with the following problem: One of them (the allegedly worse player of the two) was leading comfortably in a frame. He snookered his opponent on the yellow and player B failed to get out of it. The ref called a miss cause it was a really poor attempt. No controversy here! But now, the guy knew that if he failed to hit the yellow ball again, he would need snookers himself to win the frame. One would assume that he now makes a genuine attempt at hitting the yellow. But he, knowing that no miss would be called (as he would need a snooker afterwards), decided to not genuinely go for the yellow (it was a tough snooker) but put the white somewhere safe, not taking the risk of leaving the yellow on. He felt confident about his ability to get a snooker himself and knew that his opponent wasn't too good at getting out of snookers. However, he, at least, tried to pretend to go for the yellow to not make it too obviously but it was still quite clear he didn't really aim for the yellow. He just tried to avoid the snooker himself as he didn't want to leave a free ball.

So, my question now is: is it possible to call a miss in this case, even if the player already requires snookers?

I hope I described the situation clearly enough to understand.

[elvaago]

If he does not need snookers at the moment of making the shot, a lame shot like that would indeed be a foul and a miss. But the next shot, it would not be, because then he does require snookers.

[Wim]

Going on on that subjet I see that in nearly all situations (except when snookers are required) a miss is called for the top players when they don't come out of a snooker, even for the most difficult ones. The tolerance is almost zero. Are there any 'rules' for them ?

[elvaago]

The rule is that you must play the shot that has the most chance of hitting the required ball(s) at enough pace to ensure hitting it. But it's wide open to interpretation.

So, if there's a pack of reds and you play for the loose red, and you miss, a foul and a miss will be called.
If you play for the pack but roll it up to it, and miss, a foul and a miss will be called.
But I'd say if you intend ram the white ball into the pack of reds via one cushion, but happen to miss it, I doubt they'd call a miss.

[Wim]

Well indeed I notice that top players don't always look for the easiest exit but for the most safe (and difficult) ones, so indeed calling a miss is then justified. But you need a good referee to judge this.

[austrian_girl]

If he does not need snookers at the moment of making the shot, a lame shot like that would indeed be a foul and a miss. But the next shot, it would not be, because then he does require snookers.

I always thought that even a shot that only RESULTS in needing snookers is NOT treated as a miss. Not just shots where you already needed a snooker BEFORE playing it.

Anyway, theoretically speaking, what if he needed snookers before the shot. Say, he missed the yellow twice, needed snookers but still played that lame shot cause he fancied laying two snookers. Is it still not treated as a miss? I mean, he obviously violated everything the miss rule states.

[elvaago]

If anyone needs a snooker, a miss will not be called.

[austrian_girl]

Oh ok, thanks, elvaago!

[The Statman]

Ok, a question to all the refs on here!

Hope I get this right. A recently witnessed match between two friends of mine left me with the following problem: One of them (the allegedly worse player of the two) was leading comfortably in a frame. He snookered his opponent on the yellow and player B failed to get out of it. The ref called a miss cause it was a really poor attempt. No controversy here! But now, the guy knew that if he failed to hit the yellow ball again, he would need snookers himself to win the frame. One would assume that he now makes a genuine attempt at hitting the yellow. But he, knowing that no miss would be called (as he would need a snooker afterwards), decided to not genuinely go for the yellow (it was a tough snooker) but put the white somewhere safe, not taking the risk of leaving the yellow on. ...

Yes, you CAN actually call a Miss in the case of a genuine non-attempt, contrary to popular belief.

The Rule states that a Miss can be called unless either player needs snookers (before or after the shot), AND [the all-important words] "the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional". In other words, if the referee thinks it WAS intentional, a Miss can still be called regardless of the difference in scores.

There are two sections to the Miss rule:
1. Where it is a blatent, deliberate non-attempt;
2. When there is an attempt, but it is not good enough.

It is only in this second case that 'snookers required' comes into the equation. A deliberate miss, as covered in the first point above, CAN and should be called. I don't think I can ever recall seeing it on television, i.e. where the player has blatantly not attempted to hit the ball.

By the way, if you can see a ball on full-ball, the scenario where you would lose the frame after three Misses, then only on the first attempt need there not be snookers required. If they are replaced and the SECOND attempt leaves snookers required, the sequence will still run and a warning will still be given. This is ONLY in the three-Miss-and-you'll-lose-the-frame scenario.

Therefore, these are the only instances when a Miss can be called when a player needs snookers:
a) When it is a blatant non-attempt; and
b) When it is the second or third attempt when snookers were not required after the first, which was replaced, when full-ball contact is available.

[austrian_girl]

Thanks for your detailed and thorough explanation, Statman!

[TWorth]

I think if you look at the rules there at two that cover a "miss". It may not be a "foul and miss" call but a "miss" would be called if I was refereeing. The old miss rule remained when they rewrote the rules.

[The Statman]

I think if you look at the rules there at two that cover a "miss". It may not be a "foul and miss" call but a "miss" would be called if I was refereeing. The old miss rule remained when they rewrote the rules.

There is no such call as a "Miss", only a "Foul and a Miss".

The Rule called "Miss" is merely in the 'definitions' section and is just that. In the Rules, the referee's calls are in CAPITAL LETTERS and the only place the word MISS is used as a referee's call is in the call FOUL AND A MISS.

By definition, you cannot have a miss that isn't a foul.

[dantuck_7]

b) When it is the second or third attempt when snookers were not required after the first, which was replaced, when full-ball contact is available.

Has anyone ever seen the case where a player is down to colours and is warned for not making contact twice on one of the colours (where a full ball conatct is available)?

[The Statman]

Has anyone ever seen the case where a player is down to colours and is warned for not making contact twice on one of the colours (where a full ball conatct is available)?

I have seen it on a colour after a red, but not on the final colours.

[chasmmi]

do I recall correctly that dennis was once given four attempts at an onject ball despite it being clearly hitable without a cushion? I cannot remember the details but it was at the worlds i believe.


Does the three strikes and out rule apply if you miss three different balls? eg you have potted a red and then miss the blue completely, change your mind go for the pink and miss that completely and then change mind again and miss the black completely?