Modified Foul and Miss for non refereed league matches

[Londonlad147]

Wrong.
They played the shot at that pace in case they missed it so as not to leave an absolute sitter. If the referee at the time thought it was deliberate then he had the deliberate miss rule already in place to put the ball back (it happened in the WSC final in '82 when Alex left one three feet short against Reardon) and their opponent had the option of play from where left or put them back in
Those same players would have gotten up and called a foul if they had feathered the cue ball so were not cheating just hedging their bets like we all do.
The problem with the miss rule as it is now applied is that it's become a tactic for racking up points and the endless replacing of balls is a borefest for the average spectator.

Referees love it because they then become the centre of attention when replacing the balls other than having to grow a pair and make a decision about the shot played.

I disagree. Have you actually spoken with any of the professional referees of the early 90s? Calling a miss back then was tantamount to calling the player a cheat, and it was very rarely ever done. By getting reasonably close to a ball on players knew that the rule would never be invoked. Falling three-feet short is a different story!

I can also assure you that most referees hate having to replace balls after a miss, particularly in top level pro matches under the spotlight of a camera, because of the immense pressure of replacing them exactly to their original position .

[vmax4steve]

Calling a miss back then was tantamount to calling the player a cheat, and it was very rarely ever done.

The only difference between then and now is that it's automatically assumed the attempt wasn't legitimate no matter how difficult the situation or how close one gets to the ball on, and the balls are replaced until a ball on is hit, a sitter is left or snookers are required.

Players know that they can have four or five attempts so, as it was when they only had one attempt, they choose the one most likely to leave nothing easy, but now the balls are replaced time and time again until they succeed. To leave it three inches short leaves no pot on, then to leave it two and a half inches short leaves no pot on, then to leave it an inch short leaves no pot on, then to leave it once again three inches short leaves no pot on and when the ball on is finally hit there is still no pot on just like after the first attempt, but in the meantime ten minutes have passed and twenty plus points gained for what might have been a dolly snooker up behind a baulk colour.

To once again go back to simply having the one attempt and the option of playing it where it lies or putting the other bloke back in saves an awful lot of time and might just bring the audience figures back up again.

An experiment that failed to rectify a problem that didn't exist and a rule that's changed the game for the worse and it has to go.

[acesinc]

I disagree. Have you actually spoken with any of the professional referees of the early 90s? Calling a miss back then was tantamount to calling the player a cheat, and it was very rarely ever done. By getting reasonably close to a ball on players knew that the rule would never be invoked. Falling three-feet short is a different story!

I can also assure you that most referees hate having to replace balls after a miss, particularly in top level pro matches under the spotlight of a camera, because of the immense pressure of replacing them exactly to their original position .

Perfect response. Exactly correct. A proper referee is happiest basically when no one pays him any attention, the match goes smoothly without controversy.

The rule as written does cater to the professional game and is not particularly useful for amateur league play in my opinion. Again, IMO, leagues ought to incorporate their own "house version" of the rule, or eliminate it entirely. Personally, I think the rule as written ought to be reconsidered and rewritten so as to be "local league"- as well as professional-friendly, and I have heard several variations proposed that I believe have validity.

[Londonlad147]

The only difference between then and now is that it's automatically assumed the attempt wasn't legitimate no matter how difficult the situation or how close one gets to the ball on, and the balls are replaced until a ball on is hit, a sitter is left or snookers are required.

Players know that they can have four or five attempts so, as it was when they only had one attempt, they choose the one most likely to leave nothing easy, but now the balls are replaced time and time again until they succeed. To leave it three inches short leaves no pot on, then to leave it two and a half inches short leaves no pot on, then to leave it an inch short leaves no pot on, then to leave it once again three inches short leaves no pot on and when the ball on is finally hit there is still no pot on just like after the first attempt, but in the meantime ten minutes have passed and twenty plus points gained for what might have been a dolly snooker up behind a baulk colour.

To once again go back to simply having the one attempt and the option of playing it where it lies or putting the other bloke back in saves an awful lot of time and might just bring the audience figures back up again.

An experiment that failed to rectify a problem that didn't exist and a rule that's changed the game for the worse and it has to go.

If the player missed by falling short a few inches, then it shows they could have made a better effort by hitting it a little harder.

It's hardly a failed experiment. For the season before the light blue rule book was issued in September 1995 WPBSA experimented with many different variations of how the miss rule should be applied, before settling on something that by and large works. I'd be interested to know what percentage of WS frames involve multiple consecutive miss calls: I suspect not many at all.

[Londonlad147]

Perfect response. Exactly correct. A proper referee is happiest basically when no one pays him any attention, the match goes smoothly without controversy.

Hear! Hear!

[tomwalker147]

In Coventry we play the miss rule in a way that the balls can only be replaced 3 times... We had a situation where a player was in a tough snooker and gave 70 odd away trying to escape it so brought in the 3 miss rule.

[ace man]

We use miss rule so that balls can be replaced twice. Some years ago we used no miss rule.
Even though this doesn't change pecking order, I do prefer the miss rule, even if I'm the one who's faced with tough escape. It just makes you play the game properly.
It is a big part of snooker comps. There's no need to avoid it. Sometimes unlikely escape from a tough snooker can be just as thrilling as a good potting contribution.

[Terry Davidson]

The MISS rule is not bad in itself although it does need some improvement. What really SUCKS is referees holding all classes of players to a professional standard for hitting snookers and that is 'MUST HIT'.

When amateurs are playing on tables with dodgy cushions, slow cloth, light cueballs, tables that roll off I have to ask all the referees on here if it's really in the interests of snooker to enforce this rule as 'must hit' which in effect you are all doing.

Rant over

[vmax4steve]

In Coventry we play the miss rule in a way that the balls can only be replaced 3 times... We had a situation where a player was in a tough snooker and gave 70 odd away trying to escape it so brought in the 3 miss rule.

That's near to twenty attempts out of a tough snooker; didn't the referee realise it was a difficult shot

[tomwalker147]

That's near to twenty attempts out of a tough snooker; didn't the referee realise it was a difficult shot

I wasn't actually there that evening but you can imagine it became local knowledge quite quickly, some of the bickering on facebook etc was ridiculous.

I do remember the same season giving 40 away myself once from a near impossible hit, I actually ended up having to use the knuckle of a middle pocket to escape a snooker.
I'd made a 50 early on in the frame and without hardly potting a ball my opponent won on the colours, I wasn't best pleased that night. In scenarios like this in local leagues common
sense must prevail else frames are simply ruined. It wasn't my opponent's fault or indeed the referee's, I feel it was more down to what Terry touched on with local leagues enforcing
a pro standard 'must hit' style ruling.

[vmax4steve]

I wasn't actually there that evening but you can imagine it became local knowledge quite quickly, some of the bickering on facebook etc was ridiculous.

I do remember the same season giving 40 away myself once from a near impossible hit, I actually ended up having to use the knuckle of a middle pocket to escape a snooker.
I'd made a 50 early on in the frame and without hardly potting a ball my opponent won on the colours, I wasn't best pleased that night. In scenarios like this in local leagues common
sense must prevail else frames are simply ruined. It wasn't my opponent's fault or indeed the referee's, I feel it was more down to what Terry touched on with local leagues enforcing
a pro standard 'must hit' style ruling.

To be honest Tom it is the referees fault, to get very close to a very hard snooker no matter what the outcome should be deemed a good attempt and the frame should continue, a near impossible hit and the frame continues no matter ho close or how far one gets to it, common sense must prevail.

I was once snookered with cue ball on the black cushion with the pink as a touching ball (freak shot) and it looked like the only option was to pot the cue ball into either corner pocket. I told the referee that it was impossible and he agreed and I then forced the cue ball into the black cushion with loads of side and got it into baulk somewhere on the yellow side (ball on), missed it by at least three feet and everything was deemed OK.

[snookerdad]

It would help if referees (and non-strikers when there is no referee) remembered what the actual rule says.

"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball..."

Tim