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.

[Cue crafty]

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.

What do you think constitutes sufficient reward for a good snooker?

[the lone wolf]

In the worst case scenario...
Even if the player with ball in hand hasn't gained real positional advantage from previously playing a great safe shot. At least they will be able to play an equally if not better shot with ball in hand from behind the bulk line.

Remember, these players can not only pot great balls, but they can also play great safety shots.

Ball in hand puts the skill element back into the players hand without controversy.

[the lone wolf]

Another ruling with ball in hand.

Is that the player with ball in hand could be given the option of positioning the ball anywhere behind the bulk line (but not directly behind any ball) and choose for the opponent to play from that position...

Not in the jaws of the pocket or hooked on the corner jaw of the pocket.

Tight on the bulk cushion with no or little direct path back to bulk would be a challenging shot to say the least. Even for Ronnie.

Reward the player by optionally forcing the opponent to play a shot of high skill.

Bring skill to the game.

[vjmehra]

What do you think constitutes sufficient reward for a good snooker?

I’m not sure! But something better then being stuck with ball in hand in baulk!

[Odrl]

Well, ball in hand in baulk could be useless in some situations, or it could leave you on a sitter. It would be completely down to luck.

[Billy]

How about if the player who laid the snooker, is permitted to punch his opponent in the face if he fails to escape?

No, that's a really stupid idea.

He's only allowed to punch him if he fails to escape AND leaves the table safe in doing so.

[JIMO96]

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.

I'm with this guy. Hate the rule, all it does is crank up the tediom, distract the ticket buying public, ruin players rhythms and needlessly pressurises the refs. All for a situation which is nigh on 100% impossible to replicate.

Solution? There is already a 'play again' rule which because of this 'miss' nonsense is rarely used these days. Why not take this rule and strengthen it. Let your opponent 'play again' (from where the balls lie), but he's not allowed to (a) score any points or (b) leave his opponent snookered

In other words, the player must play a neutral shot or it is another foul and the same options are reapplied.

That way the game can flow, no endless consultations with markers/screens/mardy players, no upsets to players rhythm, ticket buying public/viewers/sponsors don't get bored/annoyed, and best of all, players don't rack up 30+ points cos they tickled up behind the sodding yellow.

HATE the miss rule. Hope I've managed to convey that.

[the lone wolf]

I'm with this guy. Hate the rule, all it does is crank up the tediom, distract the ticket buying public, ruin players rhythms and needlessly pressurises the refs. All for a situation which is nigh on 100% impossible to replicate.

Solution? There is already a 'play again' rule which because of this 'miss' nonsense is rarely used these days. Why not take this rule and strengthen it. Let your opponent 'play again' (from where the balls lie), but he's not allowed to (a) score any points or (b) leave his opponent snookered

In other words, the player must play a neutral shot or it is another foul and the same options are reapplied.

That way the game can flow, no endless consultations with markers/screens/mardy players, no upsets to players rhythm, ticket buying public/viewers/sponsors don't get bored/annoyed, and best of all, players don't rack up 30+ points cos they tickled up behind the sodding yellow.

HATE the miss rule. Hope I've managed to convey that.

This is ok provided the "play it again Sam" can be used multiple times during the play. However this may lead to one player playing by himself until their opponent wants to take the shot they leave.

Otherwise we're back to square one where the player who made the original great shot isn't rewarded for doing so...

[JIMO96]

This is ok provided the "play it again Sam" can be used multiple times during the play. However this may lead to one player playing by himself until their opponent wants to take the shot they leave.

Otherwise we're back to square one where the player who made the original great shot isn't rewarded for doing so...

Not so. In my idea, so long as the fouling player who 'plays again' scores no points and leaves his opponent unsnookered, he can't be punished and his opponent has to play next. At the end of the day, fouls are punishable by points as it is, I don't get why the non offender has to be given some sort of 'advantage' as well.

[the lone wolf]

Not so. In my idea, so long as the fouling player who 'plays again' scores no points and leaves his opponent unsnookered, he can't be punished and his opponent has to play next. At the end of the day, fouls are punishable by points as it is, I don't get why the non offender has to be given some sort of 'advantage' as well.

Because professional players are able to play professional misses... This is the whole point of the miss rule.
The fine margins in professional snooker can't be determined by one player playing a professional miss without them being punished.

By the way. I'm also fed up with the miss rule and can't stand it when it's played too by amateurs.

[Cue crafty]

I’m not sure! But something better then being stuck with ball in hand in baulk!

I get the feeling many people think a good snooker deserves an opening for a frame winning opportunity. You can play an amazingly skilful safety shot, that results in no advantage...so why does a snooker deserve more? Luck is always present in snooker, is this fair? No it's just what it is, "chance"! I see no need to replace balls after a foul, this is the "outcome" of a shot. You get 4 points, if you like the opportunity play your shot if not put your oppo back in, keep the game flowing...

If you lay a skilful snooker, great shot! Well done. Sometimes you may get a frame winning opportunity, others not. It's not imo your divine right to get one. It takes many great shots to win frames and matches. I haven't seen many matches where the person playing the best all round snooker didn't win...

Bon chance!

[JIMO96]

Because professional players are able to play professional misses... This is the whole point of the miss rule.
The fine margins in professional snooker can't be determined by one player playing a professional miss without them being punished.

By the way. I'm also fed up with the miss rule and can't stand it when it's played too by amateurs.

I know. I know the point of it and why it was introduced. But I think players should just take the 4 points and get on with it. So long as the current play again rule is strengthened as I suggested, the onus is on the offending player to play a 'neutral' shot to resume the frame without interruption. There is of course the chance that the offending player could come in and play a watertight safety whilst still fulfilling the non-point-scoring and non-snookering requirements of my rule idea, and that is a chance the non-offender has to take. It could actually introduce an interesting bit of psychology to the frame.

[Cue crafty]

Because professional players are able to play professional misses... This is the whole point of the miss rule.
The fine margins in professional snooker can't be determined by one player playing a professional miss without them being punished.

By the way. I'm also fed up with the miss rule and can't stand it when it's played too by amateurs.

How about:-
Make player nominate escape route and intended ball to hit. Award 4 points for every balls width distance the contact is missed by. ( maybe to a max of 16 ) if red are the "ball on" and any red is hit then no foul.

(Can of worms aggghhhh!! Got me at it) lolz

[the lone wolf]

How about:-
Make player nominate escape route and intended ball to hit. Award 4 points for every balls width distance the contact is missed by. ( maybe to a max of 16 ) if red are the "ball on" and any red is hit then no foul.

(Can of worms aggghhhh!! Got me at it) lolz

Can of worms?
More like snakes on a plane
I like the idea of call shot as in American 8ball. But it is still open to abuse...