The miss rule... again.

[Billy]

I thought I understood the miss rule - at least at a very basic level, but a couple of incident today had me and my dad debating.

When Ronnie tried to swerve around the blue in an attempt at a plant (other reds were available) and caught the blue in passing, a five point penalty was awarded as you'd expect, but when no miss was called the commentator explained this was because it was simply a foul shot.

Later on Ronnie was tucked up behind the brown (snookered on all reds) and in a similar fashion fouled the brown in trying to swerve around it. On this occasion a miss was called. The obvious difference in the two situations is that with the latter Ronnie was snookered, but the result was the same, namely that he fouled the ball he was trying to swerve around.

I suppose what I'm asking is why was no miss called when he fouled the blue in his attempt to swerve around it?

[jonny66]

I think it wasn't a miss because he wen't in-off after he hit the blue, not sure though.

[Billy]

I think it wasn't a miss because he wen't in-off after he hit the blue, not sure though.

Mmm, don't remember myself now.

[jonny66]

He definitely went in off after, but I still think it should be a miss, otherwise players could just bang the white into the pocket to avoid giving a miss?

[Billy]

He definitely went in off after, but I still think it should be a miss, otherwise players could just bang the white into the pocket to avoid giving a miss?

Sorry, ignore me.

This is from Eurosport, so not the commentary I was referring to, but A, he does go in-off as you say, and B the ref does call a miss (53.30)

[DeanH]

When Ronnie tried to swerve around the blue in an attempt at a plant (other reds were available) and caught the blue in passing, a five point penalty was awarded as you'd expect, but when no miss was called the commentator explained this was because it was simply a foul shot.

A Miss was called.

Later on Ronnie was tucked up behind the brown (snookered on all reds) and in a similar fashion fouled the brown in trying to swerve around it. On this occasion a miss was called. The obvious difference in the two situations is that with the latter Ronnie was snookered, but the result was the same, namely that he fouled the ball he was trying to swerve around.

I suppose what I'm asking is why was no miss called when he fouled the blue in his attempt to swerve around it?.

A Miss was called.
Regardless of swerving or going in off.

[Londonlad147]

A miss will always be called (conditions being met) if the cue ball fails to first make contact with a ball on, regardless of what other fouls might be committed in the same shot (eg going in off in this instance).

[karlos fandango]

In the amateur game a miss will always be called if the player is swerving the white..however a miss may not be called if the player comes off cushions to hit the object ball..

[black21920]

What difference does it make whether swerving the ball as opposed to coming off a cushion? For some people swerving the ball is easier than judging angles off cushions and vice versa. At amateur level unless there is a direct shot to the ball on (where imo a miss should always be called) then the miss rule should not be applied. The biggest problem with fairly applying the rule is that the standard of player can vary greatly, ie almost a complete novice to a 100 plus break player and it wouldn't be fair to apply the miss rule according to their abilities, it would need to be consistently enforced which would take the fun out of the game for many club players.

[Londonlad147]

What difference does it make whether swerving the ball as opposed to coming off a cushion? For some people swerving the ball is easier than judging angles off cushions and vice versa. At amateur level unless there is a direct shot to the ball on (where imo a miss should always be called) then the miss rule should not be applied. The biggest problem with fairly applying the rule is that the standard of player can vary greatly, ie almost a complete novice to a 100 plus break player and it wouldn't be fair to apply the miss rule according to their abilities, it would need to be consistently enforced which would take the fun out of the game for many club players.

Qualified referees will always consider the ability of the player and difficulty of the snooker when deciding whether to call F&M.

[Billy]

Not sure why this debate is continuing. It became null and void when I clarified my error in my third post.

[black21920]

That's great if you have a qualified referee but 99% of the time in amateur league snooker this isn't the case, therefore you should not use it at all IMO. The only time the Miss rule may be enforced at amateur level is for it to be for missing a ball that is on directly without any obstructing balls, there can be no debate when calling a Miss when these conditions are met.

[jonny66]

Not sure why this debate is continuing. It became null and void when I clarified my error in my third post.

Have you forgotten where you are?

[black21920]

Errm...you've lost me know😂😂

[karlos fandango]

That's great if you have a qualified referee but 99% of the time in amateur league snooker this isn't the case, therefore you should not use it at all IMO. The only time the Miss rule may be enforced at amateur level is for it to be for missing a ball that is on directly without any obstructing balls, there can be no debate when calling a Miss when these conditions are met.

The miss rule only applies in our leagues once you get to the semis and finals..it makes a mockery really as its never used in the build up to the finals..the refs in our league state at the beginning of the matches that if a swerve is used then it will be called a miss regardless