Clarification on this shot please

[jrc750]

During a league match the other week i was in one of those snookers that you just can't get out of, up near the yellow pocket right behind the yellow and alongside the green, with just no path at all to the reds, so i just played the white to the other side cushion.
We don't play the miss rule by the way. He still had around 6 reds to go at, but he insisted it was a foul, as he obviously wanted me to clash the white around the table in the impossible attempt to reach the reds.
Thinking back maybe that comes under that rule where you have to hit it with enough strength to reach the reds, but i convinced him otherwise , he potted a long one anyway, but was i in the wrong ????
Help please

[beechy1212]

I think you have to hit the white with enough power whereas it would have hit a red if there was no obstruction.

[Souwester]

Failure to first hit a ball on is always a foul.

Part of the F&M rule says that, if the ball on is impossible to hit, then you must play either directly or indirectly towards a ball on, with sufficient strength to have hit it had the obstructing ball(s) not been there for a Miss not to be called.

If the referee doesn't consider that the player has made such an attempt then he will call a Miss.

In your case, given that you're not playing the F&M rule, then given what you did, I'd have warned you for ungentlemanly conduct, as you're making no attempt to play the ball on.

[jrc750]

Ok thanks, i'll apologise next time i see him (honest )

[damienlch]

I don't often play F&M with my mates because we are simply not good enough... by the time I get out of a tough snooker, I might as well concede... lol... besides, we mostly play for fun or just for the lights.

Depending on the level of play, I'd agree with the shot jrc750 played, i.e. roll the white to a relatively safe position, only if the snooker laid is really tough and the opponent can choose to pass the shot back to me... perhaps in such a situation, the opponent can have a further option to place the cue ball anywhere in the D or even anywhere behind the baulk line.

Anyway, such things even out over time... don't they?

[The Statman]

I don't often play F&M with my mates because we are simply not good enough... by the time I get out of a tough snooker, I might as well concede... lol... besides, we mostly play for fun or just for the lights.

Depending on the level of play, I'd agree with the shot jrc750 played, i.e. roll the white to a relatively safe position, only if the snooker laid is really tough and the opponent can choose to pass the shot back to me... perhaps in such a situation, the opponent can have a further option to place the cue ball anywhere in the D or even anywhere behind the baulk line.

Anyway, such things even out over time... don't they?

Well, that is exactly the kind of situation where the Miss Rule as written can be used for lower standard play.

Whatever the standard, you should expect the player to make his best effort to hit the ball. If the player makes obviously no attempt, then the Miss should be called. If he plays an attempt, and missed by even a foot, then that can still be judged as a fair attempt and a Miss not called - because the player is of a lower standard and therefore you wouldn't necessarily assume he could have done better.

[deant1982]

Well, that is exactly the kind of situation where the Miss Rule as written can be used for lower standard play.

Whatever the standard, you should expect the player to make his best effort to hit the ball. If the player makes obviously no attempt, then the Miss should be called. If he plays an attempt, and missed by even a foot, then that can still be judged as a fair attempt and a Miss not called - because the player is of a lower standard and therefore you wouldn't necessarily assume he could have done better.

Exactly. The rule was brought in to prevent exactly this type of shot being played. You were always going to give the foul away, but (save for good fortune) should not be able to gain from your position, which by playing the cue ball to a safety position, you would.
The referee's interpretation of the miss rule is dependant upon your ability, but you do at least need to make an attempt to hit the object ball.....

[damienlch]

Well, that is exactly the kind of situation where the Miss Rule as written can be used for lower standard play.

Whatever the standard, you should expect the player to make his best effort to hit the ball. If the player makes obviously no attempt, then the Miss should be called. If he plays an attempt, and missed by even a foot, then that can still be judged as a fair attempt and a Miss not called - because the player is of a lower standard and therefore you wouldn't necessarily assume he could have done better.

Hmmm, I see... meaning we can and indeed should play F&M all the time but with due consideration given to the standard of play. It's only fair that the player that laid a good snooker shouldn't be worse off.

I guess we (my mates and I) were quite taken aback after seeing how strictly the F&M rules were applied on the telly and thought we won't be able to incorporate that in our matches... ;P

[The Statman]

Hmmm, I see... meaning we can and indeed should play F&M all the time but with due consideration given to the standard of play. It's only fair that the player that laid a good snooker shouldn't be worse off.

I guess we (my mates and I) were quite taken aback after seeing how strictly the F&M rules were applied on the telly and thought we won't be able to incorporate that in our matches... ;P

Yes. The Rule is interpreted very strictly on tv because they are professionals. The written Rule merely states that the player shall try his best to hit the ball on. If he doesn't, then a Miss will be called.

Even at a sort of halfway-good level, you will see players going for an isolated safe red, to leave nothing on, when he has a one-cushion escape into the side of the pack ( = big target). Therefore, by definition he is not trying his best to hit the ball on, because he is ignoring the simplest shot. If you think about it in these terms, it is easier to understand a large number of occasions on tv when the player comes off four cushions to rest the safe side of a red, misses by a millimetre, and it is called. It should be at any level.

Try the easiest shot and miss, then it's down to judgment of whether you'd have expected him to come closer, given his ability.

[nrage]

Hmmm, I see... meaning we can and indeed should play F&M all the time but with due consideration given to the standard of play. It's only fair that the player that laid a good snooker shouldn't be worse off.

I guess we (my mates and I) were quite taken aback after seeing how strictly the F&M rules were applied on the telly and thought we won't be able to incorporate that in our matches... ;P

Before reading this thread I would have said that my mates and I don't play F&M, but it seems that actually we do. We always make a best attempt to escape a snooker, no matter how hard it is, or how bad a result it might leave. But, as a result we have never felt the need to call a "miss" .. it's just not done, because as we're all mates we know we're always trying our best to hit the thing.

At the same time, when I'm escaping if I have a couple of options and one has more chance to leave a free ball or any 'worse' result I'll pick the other option. Unless the other option is virtually impossible for me, in other words I'm picking the most likely escape with the least likely 'bad' result.

If I were in JRC's original situation, depending on angles available etc, I think I would have played it hard into the opposite cushion with as much angle and right hand side as possible to get the white down the table. Maybe there was angle to go off the bottom rail first?

I'd have hoped to either 1) land exactly on a red (so played just hard enough to do this) or 2) clip a red and come back up (so played much harder). Option 1 is higher risk, but option 2 may not be possible depending on the table as some club tables will jump a white off the cushion on harder shots.

If there really was no angle at all to work with I'd still have played it, concentrating on getting as much right hand side on it as possible, and hoping that would get me as far down the table as possible.

Q. The F&M rule says "either directly or indirectly" .. does that mean the choice is completely ours? So, if there is some sort of angle for an indirect, but we don't reckon we can make it work (the shot I describe attempting above may not be possible). But, maybe the opponent or referee disagrees about this, and we chose to play directly at the red, into a colour, which we're careful not to leave snookering (avoiding the free ball) .. is that ok?

[deant1982]

Before reading this thread I would have said that my mates and I don't play F&M, but it seems that actually we do. We always make a best attempt to escape a snooker, no matter how hard it is, or how bad a result it might leave. But, as a result we have never felt the need to call a "miss" .. it's just not done, because as we're all mates we know we're always trying our best to hit the thing.

At the same time, when I'm escaping if I have a couple of options and one has more chance to leave a free ball or any 'worse' result I'll pick the other option. Unless the other option is virtually impossible for me, in other words I'm picking the most likely escape with the least likely 'bad' result.

If I were in JRC's original situation, depending on angles available etc, I think I would have played it hard into the opposite cushion with as much angle and right hand side as possible to get the white down the table. Maybe there was angle to go off the bottom rail first?

I'd have hoped to either 1) land exactly on a red (so played just hard enough to do this) or 2) clip a red and come back up (so played much harder). Option 1 is higher risk, but option 2 may not be possible depending on the table as some club tables will jump a white off the cushion on harder shots.

If there really was no angle at all to work with I'd still have played it, concentrating on getting as much right hand side on it as possible, and hoping that would get me as far down the table as possible.

Q. The F&M rule says "either directly or indirectly" .. does that mean the choice is completely ours? So, if there is some sort of angle for an indirect, but we don't reckon we can make it work (the shot I describe attempting above may not be possible). But, maybe the opponent or referee disagrees about this, and we chose to play directly at the red, into a colour, which we're careful not to leave snookering (avoiding the free ball) .. is that ok?

I believe you are quoting Statman's answer regarding a deliberate foul from an impossible snooker. If the snooker is impossible to escape from (white over a pocket with 2 reds immediately in front of it but playing a colour) you must play the shot in such a way that you would (in the referee's opinion) have hit the object ball if you were not snookered. If you had, say, the black immediately the other side of the reds, you can't nominate Yellow if it were hidden in the same way at the other end of the table just to avoid giving 7 points away.
Where JRC states the snooker he was in was impossible has caused this response from the machine that is the Statman. If it were not an impossible snooker, meerly an extremely difficult one, his options are - Play to hit the object ball to the best of his ability, or conceed the frame by not attempting the shot. If he makes no attempt at hitting the object ball, the referee (should) warn him to make a more reasonable attempt, and caution him for ungentlemanly conduct. A repeat results in a final warning for UC, a third results in loss of frame.

[magicman]

I've always played the miss rule and have benefited by getting to play shots again and again. Your knowledge of angles improve, your control of pace/speed improves, and you pretty much always finish have hit the ball on rather than missed the ball on, thus your confidence improves. IMO cheating the miss rule is just cheating yourself.

[The Statman]

deant1982

Yes. The "directly or indirectly" wording in the Miss rule I believe is ONLY in the 'impossible' snooker situation. The easiest way to visualise the distinction, I think, is to imagine you're on the last red which is behind the spotted black (red towards the pink spot) with the cue-ball on the top cushion with two colours against it, like Mickey Mouse ears, preventing any path out. To play "directly" with enough pace is one option - but you could argue that the black would still be in the way if it wasn't for the impossible situation, so the referee might expect an indirect route to be chosen; otherwise the Miss could still be called - arguably - because you were actually aiming for the brown not the red.

In almost all other respects, nrage, I agree entirely with your post. If you trust each other to be making best attempt not to foul - which is essentially what we are talking about - then yes, you do play the Miss rule but know it never needs to be called because you are trying your best.

Having said that - think about the second situation you described: Are you trying your best to hit the ball, or are you trying your best to hit the ball and leave it safe? The answer to this will tell you whether a Miss should be called!

[Souwester]

Q. The F&M rule says "either directly or indirectly" .. does that mean the choice is completely ours? So, if there is some sort of angle for an indirect, but we don't reckon we can make it work (the shot I describe attempting above may not be possible). But, maybe the opponent or referee disagrees about this, and we chose to play directly at the red, into a colour, which we're careful not to leave snookering (avoiding the free ball) .. is that ok?

This part of the rules is only in the context of a 'ball on impossible to hit', but yes, you do have the choice.

Imagine, for example, that you are on the last red, but the cue ball is in the jaws of the yellow pocket, with black directly in front of it in line with the cue ball and red. The yellow is also obstructing the cue ball. Rather than playing directly towards the red, and conceding a seven-point penalty, you could opt to play an indirect stroke, so that you hit the yellow first and thus only a four point penalty.

[nrage]

I believe you are quoting Statman's answer regarding a deliberate foul from an impossible snooker. If the snooker is impossible to escape from (white over a pocket with 2 reds immediately in front of it but playing a colour) you must play the shot in such a way that you would (in the referee's opinion) have hit the object ball if you were not snookered. If you had, say, the black immediately the other side of the reds, you can't nominate Yellow if it were hidden in the same way at the other end of the table just to avoid giving 7 points away.
Where JRC states the snooker he was in was impossible has caused this response from the machine that is the Statman. If it were not an impossible snooker, meerly an extremely difficult one, his options are - Play to hit the object ball to the best of his ability, or conceed the frame by not attempting the shot. If he makes no attempt at hitting the object ball, the referee (should) warn him to make a more reasonable attempt, and caution him for ungentlemanly conduct. A repeat results in a final warning for UC, a third results in loss of frame.

So it all hinges on whether the snooker is "impossible" to escape from.

In the example you give.. why can't you nominate yellow and play as if to go around the black, off a cushion to hit the yellow? It seems to me, that you should be allowed to, provided the "snookering" red is the red you end up hitting on your intended path to the yellow.