Breaking the law: get rid of the miss rule in snooker
- Thread starter church66
- Start date
The miss rule is an abomination. I'm not sure what the best solution would be (probably offer a choice of free ball or relocate to the D). The other abomination is a situation that happens so rarely that nobody ever talks about it (but is a shocking inconsistency in the rules of a professional game). If you foul while potting a red your opponent gets only four points although you have deprived them of the opportunity to score eight.
The miss rule is torturous.
So too is not having to have a rail contact (except for pocketing a ball). Pushing the cue ball a couple of inches to barely contact an object ball may require skill and delicacy but it is also a boring shot to watch and slows the game dramatically.
So too is not having to have a rail contact (except for pocketing a ball). Pushing the cue ball a couple of inches to barely contact an object ball may require skill and delicacy but it is also a boring shot to watch and slows the game dramatically.
I have pounded on the desk enough in the past that I will try to make my point brief. The author of the article clearly demonstrates that he, exactly like 99 per cent of the people likely to be reading this post, do not actually understand the miss rule at all. In the article he states,
"The additional miss call signifies that the referee doesn't believe the player made a "good enough attempt" at hitting the ball in question."
That is not even close to the correct interpretation of the rule. The ref has the absolute freedom to use his judgement in all cases. In most cases, the ref will call the FAAM not because the attempt was "not good enough"(!), it is most often that the ref will call the FAAM because the striker PURPOSEFULLY chose a more difficult ball to play at, or to play at the required "on" ball in such a way as to PURPOSEFULLY leave the incoming player without a valid shot. This usually (but not always) means that the striker chooses to play at a more difficult red, say behind black spot, because that will be much less likely to leave a straightforward shot to follow, rather than a simpler shot to make contact such as playing for the large pack of reds because he is afraid of scattering them and leaving an easy shot to follow. It rarely has anything whatsoever to do with how "good" the attempt was; I dare say that the ref has usually (but not always) decided in advance if he will be calling a FAAM based on his perception of the striker's decision process no matter how "good" the actual attempt.
Such an obvious decision process is a CLEAR violation of a BASIC rule of snooker:
"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on" and the logical extension of that is that if the striker chooses to play a more difficult shot attempt rather than an easier shot attempt to specifically avoid leaving a potential opener for the opponent, the referee will call "foul and a miss" every single time even if the striker went off eleven rails and came within 1/32" of contact.
The FAAM is wrong for amateurs. The FAAM is correct for professionals. Full stop.
"The additional miss call signifies that the referee doesn't believe the player made a "good enough attempt" at hitting the ball in question."
That is not even close to the correct interpretation of the rule. The ref has the absolute freedom to use his judgement in all cases. In most cases, the ref will call the FAAM not because the attempt was "not good enough"(!), it is most often that the ref will call the FAAM because the striker PURPOSEFULLY chose a more difficult ball to play at, or to play at the required "on" ball in such a way as to PURPOSEFULLY leave the incoming player without a valid shot. This usually (but not always) means that the striker chooses to play at a more difficult red, say behind black spot, because that will be much less likely to leave a straightforward shot to follow, rather than a simpler shot to make contact such as playing for the large pack of reds because he is afraid of scattering them and leaving an easy shot to follow. It rarely has anything whatsoever to do with how "good" the attempt was; I dare say that the ref has usually (but not always) decided in advance if he will be calling a FAAM based on his perception of the striker's decision process no matter how "good" the actual attempt.
Such an obvious decision process is a CLEAR violation of a BASIC rule of snooker:
"The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on" and the logical extension of that is that if the striker chooses to play a more difficult shot attempt rather than an easier shot attempt to specifically avoid leaving a potential opener for the opponent, the referee will call "foul and a miss" every single time even if the striker went off eleven rails and came within 1/32" of contact.
The FAAM is wrong for amateurs. The FAAM is correct for professionals. Full stop.
Last edited:
A corresponding question would be: If he was not in a game of snooker but just practicing, and a buddy said, "I bet you a fiver you foul on the next shot", and he tried his best to contact a ball on, what would the shot look like? It would not look like most misses.
Very well put, Bob. I was thinking of calling on the "gun to the head" scenario but your proposition makes the point clearly without all the inherent messiness of the other.
Yes, and if he misses then he concedes points to his opponent. which is more likely if he takes on a more difficult shot. Nobody wants to see professional players coming off the cushion into the pack just because they might miss a difficult red up the table by the narrowest of margins.
Taking "the striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on" to its conclusion would mean penalising a player for taking a more difficult (non-snookered) red when break building and then going in off or whatever by calling a "miss" there as well. Or a player coming off a red near the cushion, pushing it safe and trying to place the CB safe in the baulk area with the same in off result. Yes, this is pedantic but so is the FAAM rule. I have never seen a referee instructing a player who has "missed" to then play an easier shot - so it is not just about this.
Firstly,
I could not possibly disagree more. The rules have always (and in my opinion, will always) require the striker to attempt to "hit the ball on". There is not and never has been any requirement that he must attempt to pot any ball. In a frame, if you wanted, you could attempt to set traps on your opponent until you gain a 148 point advantage with all 15 reds remaining and now he needs snookers. There is nothing in the rules to prevent it, though admittedly, it is not a frame I would care to watch. So unless we invent some new game, not "snooker", there is not and never will be a requirement to attempt to pot the easiest ball. To say that is like saying "Hey, the puck is too small, the goalie has a hard time stopping it. So let's change the puck to something else, I don't know, how about.....a beach ball?" That would be some sort of game, but it would not be "hockey".
Secondly, if I were to pose the query to any competent snooker player: "What are all of the possible penalties in the game of snooker?", in general, the answer would be, "Too many to count....not hit the 'on' ball, pot the wrong ball, scratch the white, etc., etc." Those would be "fouls", infractions of the rules; penalties would be the awards or forfeitures given by the referee for any given foul.The correct answer is pretty straightforward (compiled list is the penalties BEFORE 1995):
4 away
5 away
6 away
7 away
play again
free ball
warning
loss of frame
loss of match
That is it.
In 1995, the powers that be decided to add "miss" to this list probably holding a parallel position to "play again" and "free ball" meaning that, beyond the awarded points away, the incoming striker also has the "miss" option at his disposal, similar to having the "free ball" option at his disposal in particular circumstances. Have you ever wondered why three misses of central full ball contact is loss of frame? It is not something arbitrary. If the player twice decides to play a difficult off cushion shot instead of a simple full ball contact, that is clear unsportsmanlike conduct and the ref will give warning. If the player ignores the ref's warning and misses again, it is loss of frame for all intents and purposes due to unsportsmanlike conduct. There is basis for this penalty.
Every syllable in the rule book is there for a reason. I prefer to accept the opinion of those whose livelihoods depend on these rules rather than the opinion of some casual player who gets in a frame or two on the weekend and makes a point to watch the World Championships when they are on telly. To say something like, "They should allow a 'push out'" or "It should be ball in hand" is simply an arbitrary idea based on nothing more than the folly of the moment.
To me, I think (but I am not strong on it as I recognize that my opinion carries no weight whatsoever) that perhaps an acceptable compromise (if one is decided to be required) could be the same penalty as the "three miss" rule regarding central full ball contact. However, if they incorporate that three "misses" would be loss of frame, the referee would need to use judgement of "foul and a miss" much more cautiously than is the current standard. The LAST thing the ref wants to do is to award frame to the opponent if the striker TRULY was endeavoring "to the best of his ability" to hit the ball on. So of course the ref would not call "foul and a miss" nearly so often and we certainly would not see more than two misses in a row by the striker nearly ever (remember, I am ONLY discussing the professional game here). I am not advocating this idea in any way. I am perfectly happy to leave such decisions to people who ponder these things for years, sometimes decades, before making such a monumental decision.
If I have changed anyone's opinion on this matter with these words, I would appreciate if you would post as such. Or perhaps, someone can set up a "poll" of this question (I am not so savvy with this "newfangled" computer technology to do that) so that we can get an actual count of the "ayes" and "nays" on the FAAM question.
I could not possibly disagree more. The rules have always (and in my opinion, will always) require the striker to attempt to "hit the ball on". There is not and never has been any requirement that he must attempt to pot any ball. In a frame, if you wanted, you could attempt to set traps on your opponent until you gain a 148 point advantage with all 15 reds remaining and now he needs snookers. There is nothing in the rules to prevent it, though admittedly, it is not a frame I would care to watch. So unless we invent some new game, not "snooker", there is not and never will be a requirement to attempt to pot the easiest ball. To say that is like saying "Hey, the puck is too small, the goalie has a hard time stopping it. So let's change the puck to something else, I don't know, how about.....a beach ball?" That would be some sort of game, but it would not be "hockey".
Secondly, if I were to pose the query to any competent snooker player: "What are all of the possible penalties in the game of snooker?", in general, the answer would be, "Too many to count....not hit the 'on' ball, pot the wrong ball, scratch the white, etc., etc." Those would be "fouls", infractions of the rules; penalties would be the awards or forfeitures given by the referee for any given foul.The correct answer is pretty straightforward (compiled list is the penalties BEFORE 1995):
4 away
5 away
6 away
7 away
play again
free ball
warning
loss of frame
loss of match
That is it.
In 1995, the powers that be decided to add "miss" to this list probably holding a parallel position to "play again" and "free ball" meaning that, beyond the awarded points away, the incoming striker also has the "miss" option at his disposal, similar to having the "free ball" option at his disposal in particular circumstances. Have you ever wondered why three misses of central full ball contact is loss of frame? It is not something arbitrary. If the player twice decides to play a difficult off cushion shot instead of a simple full ball contact, that is clear unsportsmanlike conduct and the ref will give warning. If the player ignores the ref's warning and misses again, it is loss of frame for all intents and purposes due to unsportsmanlike conduct. There is basis for this penalty.
Every syllable in the rule book is there for a reason. I prefer to accept the opinion of those whose livelihoods depend on these rules rather than the opinion of some casual player who gets in a frame or two on the weekend and makes a point to watch the World Championships when they are on telly. To say something like, "They should allow a 'push out'" or "It should be ball in hand" is simply an arbitrary idea based on nothing more than the folly of the moment.
To me, I think (but I am not strong on it as I recognize that my opinion carries no weight whatsoever) that perhaps an acceptable compromise (if one is decided to be required) could be the same penalty as the "three miss" rule regarding central full ball contact. However, if they incorporate that three "misses" would be loss of frame, the referee would need to use judgement of "foul and a miss" much more cautiously than is the current standard. The LAST thing the ref wants to do is to award frame to the opponent if the striker TRULY was endeavoring "to the best of his ability" to hit the ball on. So of course the ref would not call "foul and a miss" nearly so often and we certainly would not see more than two misses in a row by the striker nearly ever (remember, I am ONLY discussing the professional game here). I am not advocating this idea in any way. I am perfectly happy to leave such decisions to people who ponder these things for years, sometimes decades, before making such a monumental decision.
If I have changed anyone's opinion on this matter with these words, I would appreciate if you would post as such. Or perhaps, someone can set up a "poll" of this question (I am not so savvy with this "newfangled" computer technology to do that) so that we can get an actual count of the "ayes" and "nays" on the FAAM question.
Last edited:
The miss rule is there to discourage players from playing a two way shot out of a snooker in the knowledge that if they miss they will leave the CB safer than if they went for an easier escape (and if they make the shot the CB will also be in a safer position). Players are still going for these shots though - four away and play again doesn't put them off. Either let them play the more difficult shot, with the opponent having the option of play or "play again" or, if this is not deemed to be enough of a reward/penalty give the opponent an extra option that actually penalizes the player who attempted the more difficult shot.
I would have just left it as it was - you play a snooker and your opponent escapes but misses and gives you points plus the option of putting him back in. That should be enough. The referee can still call a deliberate foul or ungentlemanly conduct anyway - but when the ref starts calling it for a ball that just misses a red at the other end of the table because it is a safer escape shot then that goes against the whole point of the rule in the first place.
I would have just left it as it was - you play a snooker and your opponent escapes but misses and gives you points plus the option of putting him back in. That should be enough. The referee can still call a deliberate foul or ungentlemanly conduct anyway - but when the ref starts calling it for a ball that just misses a red at the other end of the table because it is a safer escape shot then that goes against the whole point of the rule in the first place.
The rule set not only defines the scope of the game but also regulates all persons involved. The responsibilities and actions of the referee are strictly governed by the rules. In particular, the referee is forbidden from advising a player as such. Even if the player were to ask a question about game play, other than a few exceptions defined in the rules, the referee is not allowed to answer. The players of the game, believe it or not, are actually expected to KNOW and to UNDERSTAND the rules of the game they are playing. Sadly, this is very often not the case.
Knowing the rules is not the same thing as whether the rule is the right rule. Pros have called their own fouls in pro tournaments and the ref has taken their word for it. Likewise, if a player asks for "clarification" about a rule before playing a shot only a jackass of a referee would refuse to clarify.
Anyway, we disagree about the miss rule. That's fine, I'm only going to go round in circles if I go on about it. I consider myself a purist regarding rules and I think you do too. I'm not as hung up on the miss rule as maybe my posts have suggested.
Anyway, we disagree about the miss rule. That's fine, I'm only going to go round in circles if I go on about it. I consider myself a purist regarding rules and I think you do too. I'm not as hung up on the miss rule as maybe my posts have suggested.
Agreed (about disagreeing, and that's fine, going in circles, and purists regarding rules). And if I may add, Thank You for your perspective. But unfortunately, a portion of your post does require response.
As to whether a referee is a jackass is irrelevant. He may or may not be, but explicitly by the rules of snooker, he is obliged NOT to clarify in such a case. To do so, he would be knowingly breaking a specific rule of snooker (Section 5., Rule 1. (b)) and thus subject to disciplinary action under the authority of the WPBSA no different than a baseball player who uses a corked bat. WHY the rule is written this way would be open to debate, but I believe that it comes full circle to our discussion of the "miss" rule. That is, in my opinion, if the referee were to answer an unauthorized question or to advise a player in any way other than as authorized by the rules, even under the innocent pretense of trying not to be a jackass, he would be giving an advantage to that player in that circumstance (by answering a question that the player should have taken initiative to understand on his own before ever picking up his cue). (Again, in my opinion,) in the same way, by NOT calling a "miss" when it is quite clear to the referee that a trapped player chose a particular shot or played it in such a way as to avoid a possible opening shot for the trap setter, then the referee would be condoning the fact that the trapped player's primary purpose in that shot was defensive and NOT "endeavor(ing) to hit the ball on" as it should have been, and such condoning would be improperly giving the trapped player an advantage. In my mind, it is all exactly the same thing: the referee, under threat of disciplinary action, is not allowed to give advantage or disadvantage to either player.
Another example, if Corey Deuel is in a match at Q School and the ref states, "Foul, Corey Deuel 4, and a free ball", and Corey may ask, "What does that mean?" The ref would probably simply repeat the statement, and if Corey persists in asking, following the rules, the ref will state something simple like, "Play on" meaning "I need for you to make a decision and take your shot now. Otherwise, your actions, or lack thereof, may be construed as an undue delay of the game and I may need to issue you a warning". It is amazing how much thought a referee can convey in just a few simple words, unlike myself. The point in snooker is that if a player enters into a tournament, the player is expected to know the rules. And if a player doesn't know the rules, the player should not have entered into the tournament. Specifically, by the rules, it is not the job of the ref to be the player's "on-the-spot" coach.
Most people look at "Foul and a Miss" as a new rule having been implemented in 1995 and so it should not be a big deal to just roll it back to the way it was. I completely disagree. In fact, FAAM is merely an enforcement mechanism of the age old rule of snooker, that is "endeavor to hit the ball on", that having been in the rules since time immemorial. It is like the "anti-cell phone" driving laws now. It has always been against the law to drive and talk on your cell phone if the witnessing officer believes you were distracted. Distracted driving laws have been on the books about as long as cars have been on the road. Municipalities are passing these cell phone laws to make it easier to prosecute and not bicker in court over the officer's judgement of whether or not the driver was in fact distracted. So without FAAM or some other enforcement mechanism, the core rule of making contact with the ball on relies on the players' integrity which has gone by the wayside. The players THINK that they can pull off the more difficult shot (and they can when given 2, 3, 4 attempts, much like a "trick shot" that way) so they immediately ATTEMPT the more difficult shot rather than making their best effort on the less difficult shot as the rules HAVE ALWAYS REQUIRED.
The rules of snooker have remained virtually unchanged for well over a hundred years now. Other than minor nuance, to include "free ball" and FAAM (both of which have the same principle in mind...to not allow the fouling player to gain an advantage as a result of his foul, whether purposeful or accidental), the game is nearly identical to the game played in the original World Championship tournament in 1927. Every time I hear an opinion of someone who is nothing more than an occasional spectator and occasional player of the game wishing to change this, that, or the other thing about snooker, it is invariably because that person would like to see the game become more like pool in some way. If one likes pool, that is great, play pool. With the advent of Seven Ball and Ten Ball, one will probably have some other new game next month that may be more to one's liking, perhaps Six Ball or Eleven Ball, may I suggest. Snooker has very long standing tradition that should be left alone. That is one of the things to love about the game.
Thank you again for a very civil discord.
Fair enough although as an occasional player (without a referee) and spectator of the game I'm sure I've seen players and referees on TV clarifying technical aspects of the rules. I guess it depends how the question is worded and that influences how the referee can respond. I could be wrong on this though and suffering from selective aggregated memory.
I'd hate to see the game become more like pool - having to hit a cushion as in "American" snooker distorts the whole shape of the game. If more and more in the US are playing "proper" rules, even on 10fts then that's a good thing. Same with all the UK versions of pool (which has been bastardised to be like snooker) - good that some of the "official" sets of rules include the need to hit a rail.
I'd hate to see the game become more like pool - having to hit a cushion as in "American" snooker distorts the whole shape of the game. If more and more in the US are playing "proper" rules, even on 10fts then that's a good thing. Same with all the UK versions of pool (which has been bastardised to be like snooker) - good that some of the "official" sets of rules include the need to hit a rail.
OR......
They could smarten up by learning Straight Pool, where an intentional miss<foul>
is an acceptable tactic of safety play, but has imposed limits.
Dale
rail after contact to me is the only rule flaw in the game, and a big one
individual frames result in draws for god sake
and ya purists and tinkering with the rules and what not.......I say look to the NFL and their model of examining rules every year and adjusting/EVOLVING accordingly
Actually, a purist welcomes rule changes if they are sensible and involve the game continuing to be played in the spirit it was always played in.
There is no such thing as a drawn frame in snooker. The black is respotted to decide in the event of a two players tied on points when all the balls are down.
Rail after contact would be a very bad rule in snooker. If there are reds on the table down near the pink and the black and you leave the CB for your opponent in the baulk area you can hardly complain if he rolls up to one of the minor colours. But.........at the same time the miss rule, well, I could go on and on.....
Having re-read the original article because I do consider myself open minded enough to give consideration to all sides of any given topic, I did wish to at least hear all opinions, unlike, I might add, a number of posters who expect their voice to be heard all the while listening to no other. I must say, my view softened a bit, and I did come across a refreshing new viewpoint. Not from the author of the article....like I stated in an earlier post about players not actually knowing or understanding the rules of their game, likewise, I believe that journalists often have just the most rudimentary understanding of the topics about which they write.
Most of the opinions presented in the comments section thankfully seemed to be on the "leave the miss rule alone" side, but one commenter made a suggestion that did catch my eye. Again, I am not advocating this as I think greater minds than mine can make the correct decision, but the commenter suggested in essence that the miss rule should be made progressive, meaning that the first FAAM call will have a value of 4 points (or whatever it is), but a SECOND FAAM call would be worth DOUBLE the penalty (eight or even 10 if blue is involved, etc.). The third successive FAAM would be triple the penalty point value, and so on.
This seems like a pretty clever solution to me because, let's face it, even a forty point deficit is not that big a deal to a professional player; it could easily be overcome with just two reds on the table. So, assuming the scores are tied at the start of a FAAM sequence, a player could easily accept TEN foul and a miss calls without expecting that he is endangering the frame very much. But with the suggested progressive method, just FOUR FAAM calls of the base four point variety would result in forty penalty points (four plus eight plus twelve plus sixteen). Basically, this would mean that the player would need to assess pretty quickly if he really wants to keep pursuing a difficult escape shot rather than an easier one. And if there really is NO OTHER escape route than the difficult one in the referee's view, then the player is quite clearly making his best effort to contact the ball on so FAAM will not be called. So if the player CHOOSES to take 5, 6, 7 difficult attempts before finally making contact rather than going the simpler escape route, it is going to cost him dearly.
In the common parlance, the first salient point of a doctor's Hippocratic Oath is, "First, do no harm." In a parallel sense, the first salient point of a snooker player's oath should be, "First, make contact with the ball on." By egotistically calculating that failing to make a contact five, six, seven times is not that big a risk, the professional snooker player is not following that guiding principle, "First, make contact with the ball on" or as it is specifically written in the rules, "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on." So perhaps if a player purposely, blatantly, and repeatedly breaks this rule, it SHOULD cost him more dearly than just four points per attempt.
Personally, I think the "foul and a miss" has been quite well implemented over the last couple of decades, but a change like this I think I could welcome as I believe it would strongarm the players into following the spirit of the original rule, exactly as Swighey states.
Most of the opinions presented in the comments section thankfully seemed to be on the "leave the miss rule alone" side, but one commenter made a suggestion that did catch my eye. Again, I am not advocating this as I think greater minds than mine can make the correct decision, but the commenter suggested in essence that the miss rule should be made progressive, meaning that the first FAAM call will have a value of 4 points (or whatever it is), but a SECOND FAAM call would be worth DOUBLE the penalty (eight or even 10 if blue is involved, etc.). The third successive FAAM would be triple the penalty point value, and so on.
This seems like a pretty clever solution to me because, let's face it, even a forty point deficit is not that big a deal to a professional player; it could easily be overcome with just two reds on the table. So, assuming the scores are tied at the start of a FAAM sequence, a player could easily accept TEN foul and a miss calls without expecting that he is endangering the frame very much. But with the suggested progressive method, just FOUR FAAM calls of the base four point variety would result in forty penalty points (four plus eight plus twelve plus sixteen). Basically, this would mean that the player would need to assess pretty quickly if he really wants to keep pursuing a difficult escape shot rather than an easier one. And if there really is NO OTHER escape route than the difficult one in the referee's view, then the player is quite clearly making his best effort to contact the ball on so FAAM will not be called. So if the player CHOOSES to take 5, 6, 7 difficult attempts before finally making contact rather than going the simpler escape route, it is going to cost him dearly.
In the common parlance, the first salient point of a doctor's Hippocratic Oath is, "First, do no harm." In a parallel sense, the first salient point of a snooker player's oath should be, "First, make contact with the ball on." By egotistically calculating that failing to make a contact five, six, seven times is not that big a risk, the professional snooker player is not following that guiding principle, "First, make contact with the ball on" or as it is specifically written in the rules, "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavor to hit the ball on." So perhaps if a player purposely, blatantly, and repeatedly breaks this rule, it SHOULD cost him more dearly than just four points per attempt.
Personally, I think the "foul and a miss" has been quite well implemented over the last couple of decades, but a change like this I think I could welcome as I believe it would strongarm the players into following the spirit of the original rule, exactly as Swighey states.
Last edited:
Interesting. Although I dislike the miss rule out of principle, I prefer this idea to how it stands now. "Forcing the action" is a little anti-snooker if you ask me (which is why the ball-must-hit-a-rail rule in "American snooker" is bad and why I think the miss rule is unnecessary). But, the miss rule isn't going away any time ever in the professional game so this is a good idea. It would also add reasons to go for a snooker behind the black (and pink if it's down there too) as a risk and reward strategy. It would add an extra level of pressure and safety to the game. I like it - if not necessarily for the initial reasoning behind it.
I don't understand what you mean about snookering behind black or pink....I assume that you mean in the case that all reds are off and snookering the yellow in a very difficult trap this way, hoping to gain the maximum possible points from a possible foul. But the irony of the foul and a miss rule is that it IS NOT intended for the players to be generously rewarded for laying the most devious, evil snooker possible. Quite the contrary, again rule 14:
"...If the referee considers the Rule infringed, he shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless only the Black remains on the table, or a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on. In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, in the direction of the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee's opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls."
So in other words, an example of an "impossible" snooker would be reds in the pack and somehow the white comes to rest surrounded in a triangle by the three baulk colors (yellow, green, brown). This is a LITERALLY impossible snooker and as such, it will only be worth four points, FAAM will not be called. The FAAM is called when the striker has choices, either of which specific ball to strike (as in which red) or as to what path and speed to choose to make contact. It follows that if the player is snookered on yellow (as I think you were implying behind black or pink) and really only has but one clear path as to how to approach it, then the referee will not necessarily call FAAM. The ref surely WILL call FAAM if the striker hits firmly enough that the white misses the yellow and comes all the way back to the top end around black cushion because the player obviously CHOSE to play that strong. But if the striker has but one path and he plays the shot at dead weight, misses by an inch and rolls past it six inches (leaving a fair shot of the yellow in the middle, for instance), the ref will most likely NOT call it FAAM. It's got nothing to do with 1/8 inch away, or 1 inch away, or 3 inches away, or two feet away for that matter; it's got everything to do with the referee's perception of the striker's intent.
And BTW, when the earlier poster confusedly mentioned individual frames resulting in "draws", I believe he meant to use the correct term "stalemates" which of course often result from a series of roll ups into the pack in avoidance of an easy starter red hanging in the jaws. Like the ref above, I had to rely on my perception of his "intent", not on what he actually said.
