Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miss Rule "...could be on..."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Miss Rule "...could be on..."

    As discussed on The Masters 2017 thread, concerning ROS playing the snookered Yellow in Frame 10 and not getting Warned after the second Miss.

    Some conjecture there should have been a Warning, others not.
    So to summarise:

    For clarity of the situation here is a screenshot and link to YouTube.
    https://youtu.be/ViPLNDl_0lY?t=2h33m25s


    Masters 2017 Round 1 Ronnie O'Sullivan v Liang Wenbo Frame 10
    What happened:
    1. ROS pots a Red, Cue-Ball ends in the back of the pack.
    2. Black is clearly available.
    3. ROS nominates Yellow which is snookered by the reds completely.
    4. First attempt ROS misses the Yellow, "F&M" called, Cue-Ball replaced.
    5. Second attempt again ROS misses the Yellow, "F&M" called, Cue-Ball replaced.
    6. Third attempt ROS hits the Yellow.

    Now, this has raised some questions due to the wording of the Miss rule, specifically:
    "(d) After a miss has been called under paragraph (c) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or could have been on, such that central, full ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:..."

    "...or could have been on..."

    We have two groups of view to these words and what should happen.

    Group A are saying, regardless that ROS nominates Yellow, he should have been warned after the second Miss, as the Black "could be on".

    Group B are saying that the nominated Yellow is the only ball on, and the Black (and all other colours) is no longer a ball that could be on, and NO warning is issued because no full contact is available on the Ball On (Yellow). The "could be on" wording covers the scenario of multiple Reds where one Red is Full contact available but the player plays a Red that is not full ball contact available.

    Again the wording of the Foul and a Miss rule has caused confusion, so discussion to understand it and hopefully clarify the rule for all is always good

    I have sent this question to a couple of referees I know (one on the Rules Committee and one a long-time pro ref, instructor and assessor).
    Up the TSF!

  • #2
    Group B for me

    Comment


    • #3
      I had a very similar situation in one of my games recently. I attempted the yellow and my opponent called a miss. He said I should be going for the black as it was "a ball on". There was no referee so I ended up just going for the black. Not really a big deal at my level as opponent not likely to clear up with one visit. Ronnie scenario is very interesting. Look forward to getting the official answer. Thanks for posting Dean.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by guernseygooner View Post
        Group B for me
        Hi mate. Does that mean you would not regard the black as a "ball on"?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bigmeek View Post
          Hi mate. Does that mean you would not regard the black as a "ball on"?
          For me, the wording applies to reds when you are trying a thin safety and missing when there is a another red available full ball.

          In the scenario above at amateur level you will always call a miss however close the attempt because there is an easier (black) shot available

          Comment


          • #6
            I am more in a group A. The reason for F&M is in my eyes so players won´t play indefinitely shot that is much harder to execute but the outcome is much better for them than one simplier which is more likely to leave something for your opponent on.
            I know sometimes referee can step in and not apply miss rule or so, I think they can do the same with the warnings, but this time I think the black ball was on and relatively easy-hittable and ROS should have been warned.

            Comment


            • #7
              That is my impression too. I hope we are able to find clarification from a ref to clear this up.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's most definitely 'A'. When ROS was making his shot the black could have been his ball on but he nominated yellow.

                Can anyone supporting 'B' give an explanation' s to why 'or could be on' would be included: in your scenario only reds or one colour could ever be 'on'. The words would be superfluous. The words are there for a reason!
                Duplicate of banned account deleted

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah Group A for me too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hal View Post
                    I know sometimes referee can step in and not apply miss rule or so, I think they can do the same with the warnings, but this time I think the black ball was on and relatively easy-hittable and ROS should have been warned.
                    Referees only have discretion when the striker is attempting to get out of a snooker. When the striker can see any part of a ball on, then, provided score differences allow, then the referee MUST call a miss according to the rules. There is NO discretion in not warning a player, but referees are human and sometimes forget or don't realise. Where a warning should have been given a F&M can continue to be called until such time as a warning is given. This is a bit akin to late warnings in billiards for consecutive hazards or cannons, when the striker will be allowed to make five further hazards or cannons after the warning is given.
                    Duplicate of banned account deleted

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Because he is entitled to go for the yellow. The ref can't warn him after 2 attempts that it will be loss of frame if he doesn't change his mind and go for the black

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Londonlad147 View Post
                        It's most definitely 'A'. When ROS was making his shot the black could have been his ball on but he nominated yellow.

                        Can anyone supporting 'B' give an explanation' s to why 'or could be on' would be included: in your scenario only reds or one colour could ever be 'on'. The words would be superfluous. The words are there for a reason!
                        As a guess, I'd say there could be a possible scenario where the only coloured ball on was in the jaws of a pocket, and you couldn't hit it and not go in-off.

                        Maybe something like that?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I lean towards camp A. Ronnie could nominate black and easily hit it. It was just, because it was better for him to play a safety from yellow that he decided to go for this.

                          Also you then could use that rule this way: A player nominates a colour that he can fully see. But misses it two times. Then he changes to play a colour, he is snookered on, because if he doesn't hit the first color for a third time, he could lose the frame.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by guernseygooner View Post
                            Because he is entitled to go for the yellow. The ref can't warn him after 2 attempts that it will be loss of frame if he doesn't change his mind and go for the black
                            Sorry, but you're 100% wrong. The F&M call is based on the choices open to the striker... ie all balls that could be on. NOT the particular colour that he has nominated.
                            Duplicate of banned account deleted

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hello, Mr Big Shot View Post
                              As a guess, I'd say there could be a possible scenario where the only coloured ball on was in the jaws of a pocket, and you couldn't hit it and not go in-off.

                              Maybe something like that?
                              But that coloured ball would be a ball on (not could be on). And surely if you can hit it then you can play it absolutely dead weight such that it trickles towards up and ends up coming to rest touching that colour. The fact that if you strike it you'd go in off is irrelevant. The F&M call is based upon the position on the table, not what might happen if you play a shot.
                              Duplicate of banned account deleted

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X