Clarification on this shot please

[The Statman]

And now an apology to everyone who has read my responses in this thread:

I had taken the original post comment "one of those snookers you just can't get out of" to be partially ironic - i.e. not literally impossible but very, very difficult especially for a lower-standard player.

Now I see that it did actually mean literally impossible, it would change my answer slightly, or at least the emphasis.

[nrage]

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!

Yes, I believe so, because "ease of striking the intended ball" always trumps "leaving something on" in my decision making. Re-reading my post I didn't make that clear at all, where I said "virtually impossible" I should have said simply "harder". If I believe the options are of equal difficulty, and one has a lower chance of leaving something I will take that. Or, if playing with a bit more pace will lower the chances of leaving something, I'll do that. What I wont do is attempt a hard escape off 3 cushions because it leaves less than a simpler escape off one, which is more likely to leave something, or go in off, or...

[The Statman]

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.

Well look at it this way. The Rule is to stop you making an inadequate attempt.

If the reds were not impossibly snookering the cue-ball, and you had played the same indirect shot on the yellow and missed it - would it have been called a Miss? Yes - because you had a black available as a direct hit.

So it is logical that it would still be called a Miss in the 'impossible' situation.

Another example, on the flip side this time. Imagine we're down to the final colours. The cue-ball is in the jaws of the pocket, with pink and black blocking any path out. The ball on (yellow) is against one of the side cushions meaning that, if it weren't for the pink and black, he would have the jaw of the pocket preventing a direct hit on the yellow.

In this scenario, the referee could conceivably call a Miss if the player played directly towards the yellow, because without the impossible situation he would simply be playing straight into the jaw.

[The Statman]

Yes, I believe so, because "ease of striking the intended ball" always trumps "leaving something on" in my decision making. Re-reading my post I didn't make that clear at all, where I said "virtually impossible" I should have said simply "harder". If I believe the options are of equal difficulty, and one has a lower chance of leaving something I will take that. Or, if playing with a bit more pace will lower the chances of leaving something, I'll do that. What I wont do is attempt a hard escape off 3 cushions because it leaves less than a simpler escape off one, which is more likely to leave something, or go in off, or...

That's fine then. I asked it as a question for you to ask yourself and if your answer is "I tried my best and utmost to hit it" then no Miss. You've more than convinced me!

[cantpotforshíte]

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.

Surely this means that you don't play the miss rule then? If it's easy to hit another ball that is on, and you go for a slightly more difficult one because it'll probably leave less, and you failed to hit it no matter how hard you tried, then it's a foul and a miss. Or have I got mixed up in my old age?

[nrage]

Well look at it this way. The Rule is to stop you making an inadequate attempt.

If the reds were not impossibly snookering the cue-ball, and you had played the same indirect shot on the yellow and missed it - would it have been called a Miss? Yes - because you had a black available as a direct hit.

So it is logical that it would still be called a Miss in the 'impossible' situation.

Ahh of course I didn't think of it this way, because most players when faced with the situation you describe (no snookering reds) will nominate and play a snooker behind the black, instead of attempting to hit the yellow, or another colour off a cushion

Another example, on the flip side this time. Imagine we're down to the final colours. The cue-ball is in the jaws of the pocket, with pink and black blocking any path out. The ball on (yellow) is against one of the side cushions meaning that, if it weren't for the pink and black, he would have the jaw of the pocket preventing a direct hit on the yellow.

In this scenario, the referee could conceivably call a Miss if the player played directly towards the yellow, because without the impossible situation he would simply be playing straight into the jaw.

Interesting.

[cantpotforshíte]

I see you've already clarified this Nrage, I hadn't seen it when I posted this.

[nrage]

That's fine then. I asked it as a question for you to ask yourself and if your answer is "I tried my best and utmost to hit it" then no Miss. You've more than convinced me!

No worries, I realised my choice of wording was poor (as evidenced just now by "cantpotfor..."'s post (a few posts back)) and just wanted to clarify it.

I have always been of the opinion that cheating, or even bending the rules to ones advantage is "only cheating yourself" .. I mean, if I have to do this in order to win then that win is a lie, and not worth anything to me.

I'm not playing to win, even when playing in a competition where there may be a prize, instead I am playing to test myself and cheating on a test gives you an invalid result, making the whole test worthless.

Going further, any failure to stick to this principal is a far worse personal failure than any possible gain I might get from it. So, cheating is just not worth it (to me personally).

[nrage]

I see you've already clarified this Nrage, I hadn't seen it when I posted this.

Yeah, no worries, I assumed our posts had crossed in flight.

[The Statman]

The situation below is what I have in mind. Here, the ball on is red and the last red is behind the black.

Impossible snooker.bmp

It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this one. But I would expect the player to attempt the red indirectly - i.e. off either side cushion - because if you remove the impossible situation the black is in the way and this would not be a fair attempt at the red.

And what are the collective opinions on this one:

Impossible snooker 2.bmp

Impossible? There is a route out, but only leading to the middle pocket! (could be another ball, not the pocket.)

[Souwester]

I have always been of the opinion that cheating, or even bending the rules to ones advantage is "only cheating yourself" .. I mean, if I have to do this in order to win then that win is a lie, and not worth anything to me.

Are there not times though, when making a deliberate foul might be considered legitimate? For example, you're at the table but 14 points behind, with just pink and black left on the table. The pink, though, is just balancing on the lip of a pocket, impossible to keep out if it is merely touched by the cue ball. The only way you can keep yourself in the game is to play the pink and follow through. Pink gets respotted and your opponent has a chance at the pink, but you're only 20 points down, possibly needing just one snooker, and still in with a shout. I know I've played that shot before.

[The Statman]

Are there not times though, when making a deliberate foul might be considered legitimate? For example, you're at the table but 14 points behind, with just pink and black left on the table. The pink, though, is just balancing on the lip of a pocket, impossible to keep out if it is merely touched by the cue ball. The only way you can keep yourself in the game is to play the pink and follow through. Pink gets respotted and your opponent has a chance at the pink, but you're only 20 points down, possibly needing just one snooker, and still in with a shout. I know I've played that shot before.

Yes, but you do at least get the 6-point penalty so it's not a free advantage.

[damienlch]

Are there not times though, when making a deliberate foul might be considered legitimate? For example, you're at the table but 14 points behind, with just pink and black left on the table. The pink, though, is just balancing on the lip of a pocket, impossible to keep out if it is merely touched by the cue ball. The only way you can keep yourself in the game is to play the pink and follow through. Pink gets respotted and your opponent has a chance at the pink, but you're only 20 points down, possibly needing just one snooker, and still in with a shout. I know I've played that shot before.

I've seen players in this situation smashing into the pink at 10,000 miles an hour hoping for something to happen, maybe the pink will stay out or whatever but your way is much simpler and quite clever imo... I'm keeping that shot in mind in case it crops up.

[deant1982]

And what are the collective opinions on this one:

[ATTACH]8470[/ATTACH]

Impossible? There is a route out, but only leading to the middle pocket! (could be another ball, not the pocket.)

On this I would be inclined to discuss the feasible option with the referee, and play either the deliberate foul into the green, or the in-off according to their recommendation of the best escape route. (The most interesting part is is you were playing at an opponents club, withone of their team mates as the referee, and the green was in fact the black. I wonder which one they would advise to be played in that case....

[damienlch]

The situation below is what I have in mind. Here, the ball on is red and the last red is behind the black.

[ATTACH]8469[/ATTACH]

It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this one. But I would expect the player to attempt the red indirectly - i.e. off either side cushion - because if you remove the impossible situation the black is in the way and this would not be a fair attempt at the red.

And what are the collective opinions on this one:

[ATTACH]8470[/ATTACH]

Impossible? There is a route out, but only leading to the middle pocket! (could be another ball, not the pocket.)

Both are quite impossible snookers and some sort of foul is imminent... Not sure if we can say one foul is fairer than the other and thus expect it to be played.

The moral dilemma in this situation would appear to me quite similar to what Souwester posted on potting the pink and making the white go in off. Imo, the "playing to one's best ability" does not come into the picture because of the impossibility of the situation. Indeed, I would think it quite harsh if a miss is called because the player played a foul in such a way as to lessen the impact of that foul in these two snooker scenarios.