Idea for referees putting the balls back correctly

[jrc750]

Personally i like foul and it's ball in hand to your opponent, they can place the cueball anywhere on the table like pool

Sorry but that is ridiculous!!
At Pro level that usually means frame over

[peterpackage]

Personally i like foul and it's ball in hand to your opponent, they can place the cueball anywhere on the table like pool

[jonny66]

Pot or contact cushion for any ball on every shot as in the shoot out will stop the easy roll up snooker, and if you only get the initial points for the first foul and none thereafter that will stop players racking up points for the same foul. It's down to the referees also, they must surely see the lay of the table and what shot/s are open to the aggrevied player after a foul and not give a deliberate miss when a positive shot is open, pot or safety.



Exactly, I played sunday night and needed a clearance to win with four reds left, with the colours left I snookered myself on the yellow, hit it and potted it and cleared the table for a 53.
They say the rule was brought in because certain players were flouting the rule as it was and playing shots that made certain there was no shot left on, one of those players was Alex Higgins

Any excuse eh?

[Railfan87]

You're assuming that they can read time

Then how about designating the baulk end south, and use north, south, east and west?

[the lone wolf]

The refs should put a small chalk mark where the cue ball is, obviously only when a miss of the object ball is possible.
This would cut the repositioning time of the cue ball by 95%.
Or at least an over head shot and they have their own iPad screen.

They could also use a clock face to describe the ball position. Instead of up a bit left a bit they should say, towards 9 o'clock or 12 o'clock etc

You're assuming that they can read time

[finabb]

The refs should put a small chalk mark where the cue ball is, obviously only when a miss of the object ball is possible.
This would cut the repositioning time of the cue ball by 95%.
Or at least an over head shot and they have their own iPad screen.

They could also use a clock face to describe the ball position. Instead of up a bit left a bit they should say, towards 9 o'clock or 12 o'clock etc

[the lone wolf]

That's true, the non-striker doesn't have to have the balls replaced, but in a competitive situation, I think it's unlikely that he or she would not, in some cases.

If I'm not mistaken, the players were asked about the miss rule prior to the season, and given an opportunity to provide alternatives. The outcome was to leave it as it is. Yes, it can be frustrating for everyone - the players, the referee and the spectators - but no-one has yet proposed a viable alternative.

There are viable options in this thread alone.

[Railfan87]

One thing we are all forgetting...
The players themselves can take control of the miss rule by simply agreeing together at the start of the match that they won't play too the miss rule.
...
It's only the requirement of the referee to declare the miss. It's up to the player on either accept it or not.
The players would not be breaking any rules or laws and would not be affecting the outcome of their match.
Ultimately, the players have full control on this rule.

That's true, the non-striker doesn't have to have the balls replaced, but in a competitive situation, I think it's unlikely that he or she would not, in some cases.

If I'm not mistaken, the players were asked about the miss rule prior to the season, and given an opportunity to provide alternatives. The outcome was to leave it as it is. Yes, it can be frustrating for everyone - the players, the referee and the spectators - but no-one has yet proposed a viable alternative.

[the lone wolf]

One thing we are all forgetting...
The players themselves can take control of the miss rule by simply agreeing together at the start of the match that they won't play too the miss rule.

This would open up an interesting dialogue because the commentators would declare that player A and B have pre-decided not to play the miss rule. Or in some matches, to play the mis rule.

Remember:
It's only the requirement of the referee to declare the miss. It's up to the player on either accept it or not.

The players would not be breaking any rules or laws and would not be affecting the outcome of their match.

Ultimately, the players have full control on this rule.

[vmax]

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.

Pot or contact cushion for any ball on every shot as in the shoot out will stop the easy roll up snooker, and if you only get the initial points for the first foul and none thereafter that will stop players racking up points for the same foul. It's down to the referees also, they must surely see the lay of the table and what shot/s are open to the aggrevied player after a foul and not give a deliberate miss when a positive shot is open, pot or safety.

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!

Exactly, I played sunday night and needed a clearance to win with four reds left, with the colours left I snookered myself on the yellow, hit it and potted it and cleared the table for a 53.
They say the rule was brought in because certain players were flouting the rule as it was and playing shots that made certain there was no shot left on, one of those players was Alex Higgins

[the lone wolf]

How about if a player fails to hit the object ball his opponent can play the white as if it was a touching ball i.e no need to contact a red/ball on?

And J66 is the winner!
Genius idea and it's funny how the best ideas are always the most simple.
Now all we need to do is convince world snooker that this is the way forward!

[jonny66]

How about if a player fails to hit the object ball his opponent can play the white as if it was a touching ball i.e no need to contact a red/ball on?

[TornadoTim]

I think alot of the time a miss is called because the player isn't playing the easiest escape. They're essentially playing a safety rather than an escape. I think it's fair when a miss is called in these circumstances under the current rules, because with their ability the foul is to an extent intentional as it has a higher likelyhood. When a player has only one option, and that involves 3 or more cushions, the refs really should be accepting the attempt when they get within a cm or 2.

I saw O'Sullivan play and miss 4 or 5 times off 2 cushion and everyone was getting stressed out but he seemed ok. The commentary and ref possibly woke up and realised what he was doing was trying to just clip the edge of 2 reds touching each other so that the cue ball would go back to baulk and the reds would not be disturbed too much. He missed by a fair bit and was called miss easily each time until he finally hit the edge. So in that case easy escape and miss is easy decision but the rule dosent say HOW or how much of the ball on you must hit just to hit the ball on. So he is entitled to miss gradually working towards the balls and cost himself many misses if it keeps him safe. - A strategic and sensible play to win? Yes- The miss rule is tricky to apply..
Ref might argue for "unfair conduct rule" by consistently taking misses while not trying for full ball contact getting out of the snooker BUT thats a pretty long stretch as i said rule only says to try and hit the ball on not where to hit.
The REF MUST go by the rules in the book as written to have any consistency and expectation from players and to keep the game "pure"

[Mark187187]

I think alot of the time a miss is called because the player isn't playing the easiest escape. They're essentially playing a safety rather than an escape. I think it's fair when a miss is called in these circumstances under the current rules, because with their ability the foul is to an extent intentional as it has a higher likelyhood. When a player has only one option, and that involves 3 or more cushions, the refs really should be accepting the attempt when they get within a cm or 2.

[TornadoTim]

Snooker maybe unique in that in all other sports, a line or something has to be crossed for a decision to be made definitive by a Ref. However in Snooker, the miss rule has the ref making subjective rulings on an occurrence that has happened such as how far a player misses the ball and if thats a foul and miss or just a foul only. So the Ref has to already have in his mind how good the player is or even how he is cueing based on "best of the players ability" when a situation occurs. This will always be a subject of discussion as which ever way you look at this rule, its tricky to apply. However at the top end, they have made it a point that if a Pro misses on any 2 cushion shot and maybe a 3 cushion, the it has to be called a miss just so that the players expect a certain level of expectation which is workable in reality. The fact is, technically this is wrong as each hit attempt MUST be applied to that rule every time anyway. So when i ref, i go by the book then theres no argument as we are not dealing with personal opinion on how "everybody" is doing it in a space of time, but just on the written rule. So i look at the shot, the players skill and how far he missed and apply the rule. I was questioned only once as a Reg Ref and said clearly the decision was final and explained AFTER the match what the rule says clearly- He agreed but said he didnt like it and i said yes but the miss situation is like that- its the Refs judgement not a easy ball crossing a line in soccer and now out of bounds.
Bit like which is the "true" god, argument, the miss rule will be a controversy ongoing but it needed be if you just apply the rule as written and dont try to read more into it than it actually is reads. As in faith and taking from the bible a passage and many people read it and misinterpret it all arguing THEIR opinion is correct! - Look at what results from that!!- the horror....