Idea for referees putting the balls back correctly

[vjmehra]

I was thinking ball in hand too, but maybe it's too much of an advantage at the top level. Behind the baulk line seems to be a fair compromise

Its tricky, as I don't disagree, ball in hand anywhere on the table at this level is all but gifting the frame, but then equally, being put into baulk is not enough reward for a great snooker.

[jonny66]

I was thinking ball in hand too, but maybe it's too much of an advantage at the top level. Behind the baulk line seems to be a fair compromise

[vjmehra]

Great idea, don't bother replacing the balls and just get on with it. I'm in!!

That could put you at a disadvantage potentially though, or at the very least, not sufficient reward for a good snooker.

If you get rid of the miss rule, with ball in hand, it has to be anywhere on the table to make sense.

[Cue crafty]

Here's a controversial idea.

Get rid of the miss rule.
Instead - ball in hand anywhere behind the bulk line...

Great idea, don't bother replacing the balls and just get on with it. I'm in!!

[Billy]

I would say that the rule IS there to prevent deliberate misses [...]

Yes, I dare say you're correct. I suppose what I had in the back of my mind when I said it, was that most of the top players wouldn't deliberately miss (with the exception of playing a test shot when trying to catch a thin edge)

[the lone wolf]

Sounds fair

I think so, but I don't make the rules

[jrc750]

Here's a controversial idea.

Get rid of the miss rule.
Instead - ball in hand anywhere behind the bulk line...

Sounds fair

[the lone wolf]

Here's a controversial idea.

Get rid of the miss rule.
Instead - ball in hand anywhere behind the bulk line...

[DeanH]

Also, the rule isn’t there to prevent deliberate misses. It’s there to prevent the offending player gaining an advantage from a failed escape attempt, played in such a way to leave the table ‘safe’.

I would say that the rule IS there to prevent deliberate misses, the first line of the "player to play to the best of their ability to contact the ball on" is to stop players deliberately not attempting to contact the ball on.
AND it is ALSO there to prevent the offending player from gaining an unfair advantage by playing in such a manner.

[Billy]

No technology is needed, use the ball maker and a chalk pencil to make a mark where the cue ball was and a little brush to remove it when it the song and dance is over [...]

I often wonder why, when there is a consensus that snooker is proud of it's players honesty, that all attempted snooker escapes that miss are seen as deliberate and seeking to gain advantage. You can miss a black off its spot but are not allowed to miss a three cushion snooker escape by 10mm, it doesn't make sense to me.

And what do they do when balls other than the cue ball are moved during the shot?

Also, the rule isn’t there to prevent deliberate misses. It’s there to prevent the offending player gaining an advantage from a failed escape attempt, played in such a way to leave the table ‘safe’.

[vmax]

No technology is needed, use the ball maker and a chalk pencil to make a mark where the cue ball was and a little brush to remove it when it the song and dance is over and done with, or get rid of the stupid rule.

I often wonder why, when there is a consensus that snooker is proud of it's players honesty, that all attempted snooker escapes that miss are seen as deliberate and seeking to gain advantage. You can miss a black off its spot but are not allowed to miss a three cushion snooker escape by 10mm, it doesn't make sense to me.

How do those who use the miss rule in their local leagues solve any disputes as to where the balls were ?

Our league doesn't use the rule, you accept the situation or put the other bloke back in just like it used to be before all this replacing balls crap came in.

[Billy]

Well... your whole point was that exact replacement was possible, and there was no need to consult with the players.

Your second point was that the accuracy doesn't matter, which you have already conceded.

Not quite.

My original point was that it’s not the job of the players to replace balls. I then went on to say that in most cases exact replacement wasn’t vital (by which I still stand but am willing to accept it’s highly debatable). But throughout the whole discussion I’ve assumed everyone accepts mm accuracy isn’t possible, anyway, whatever the technology.

[Railfan87]

Chris, leave it to us crazy Canucks to use the simplest of solutions to solve a problem.

"Horse, not zebra," and then it's off for a Timmie's run!

[Mike P]

Boy am I confused with this discussion. From what I’ve read, there are all kinds of examples where perception interferes with the exact placement of the ball. I don’t understand why the simplest of suggestions can’t be used. Mark the location of the ball before the shot.

Chris, leave it to us crazy Canucks to use the simplest of solutions to solve a problem.

[Mark187187]

Well of course exact, to the mm replacement is impossible. I thought that was a given? I'm not sure there's a technology even available that could do that. All third-eye technology, whatever the sport, is fallible.

Well... your whole point was that exact replacement was possible, and there was no need to consult with the players.

Your second point was that the accuracy doesn't matter, which you have already conceded.