Foul and a miss query

[sprogbasket]

During an Amateur league match last night - and I won't go in to any debate about whether the above rule should even apply but some bright sparks on Committee in our league thinks it should - early in the game a player was tight on the baulk cushion behind the brown and trying to strike a loose red to the right of the pack.

The player miscued and the white struck the brown and went straight in to the middle pocket.

The ref called Foul and a miss.

My question is two fold.

1. Is it a "foul and a miss" if a foul arises from a clear miscue ?

2. Should the " Foul and miss" be called and the option of balls being replaced apply when the white leaves the table and opponent can play from hand ?

Given the circumstances I do not believe it to be in the Spirit of the foul and miss rule.

Some clarity on this would be very much appreciated.

[Terry Davidson]

I would call 'foul and a miss' because every non-striker has the same options after every miss even if the cueball is off the table. In this case the player can choose not to take the miss option, the brown stays where it landed and he has the cueball in hand. Choice 2 is he can have the brown replaced and the cueball replaced on the baulk cushion and have his opponent play again.

His other option is to have his opponent play again which means he would have the cueball in hand and the brown would stay where it was.

I don't think there is any difference to the 'foul and a miss' rule when the cueball leaves the table.

Terry

[SnkrRef]

Terry is right, a Miss should be called, as in all cases where a stroke has been made where the cue ball fails to first make contact with a ball on.The fact that the cue ball left the table makes absolutely no difference.

[sprogbasket]

Thank you for your responses