Breaking the law: get rid of the miss rule in snooker

Cool topic!

Is it time for a change? Maybe. I know that Joe Davis popularized snooker with a much more aggressive and offensive style of play with break building strategy. I think a change to this seemingly vague rule should ideally do three things: help pace of play, follow objective premises, and possibly open the game to new tactics.

I'm no expert, and there are far more knowledgeable snooker players here, but the it seems to be an easily misunderstood rule.
 
Last edited:
Play it the old way.

I am just barely getting into the game of Snooker. I love watching Ronnie O'Sullivan and others play it on YouTube.

At the local hall where I play mostly pool, there is a 10-foot Snooker table and a couple of guys come in and play infrequently. They've played for many years and insist on playing the ball-must-hit-rail "American-style" rule, much to my discontent.

I enjoy the age-old Snooker as played in England (and the rest of the world) and I'm thinking very seriously of giving up playing with these fellows due to their persistence in this "American-ized" Snooker.

Today, I just left early. Had enough. Yuk!
 
Any pro is expected to have the table speed down cold.
If the turkey can't follow the escape route diagrammed by Dennis Taylor he deserves to incur all those penalty points for not being able to shoot straight.:grin:
Always delighted to be of assistance in these philosophical discussions.
 
If the miss rule isn't as strict as the current interpretation then every snooker player knows what will be the end result; there will be cases where a player knows in his heart of hearts that he can err on the side of a miss, get close enough and then benefit from having played a shot where no ball was contacted. This cannot be allowed. Good players will be able to take advantage of this time and time again, and they'll be very subtle about it.

There's really no way around it. If you have some written law, however phrased, that allows the shooter to cleanly miss the on ball in some (non-snookers required) situations and not have a miss called then that will result in some foul shots benefiting the player that shot the foul. Really, we have to choose the lesser of two evils here and the greater evil is to allow beneficial intentional fouls.
 
snarzberry said:
If the miss rule isn't as strict as the current interpretation then every snooker player knows what will be the end result; there will be cases where a player knows in his heart of hearts that he can err on the side of a miss, get close enough and then benefit from having played a shot where no ball was contacted. This cannot be allowed. Good players will be able to take advantage of this time and time again, and they'll be very subtle about it.

There's really no way around it. If you have some written law, however phrased, that allows the shooter to cleanly miss the on ball in some (non-snookers required) situations and not have a miss called then that will result in some foul shots benefiting the player that shot the foul. Really, we have to choose the lesser of two evils here and the greater evil is to allow beneficial intentional fouls.
Click to expand...
How about this other evil instead of foul-and-a-miss: After a foul, the incoming player may choose to play as if from a touching ball. If he is skilled enough to put the fouler back where he started then he deserves to get more points. At the same time you should make the intentional miss a permitted shot. Among other things, these changes would eliminate the need to restore a position.

I've seen a foul-and-a-miss situation where the snookerer got amazingly lucky -- such as after missing a pot badly or cannoning off a ball -- and put his hapless opponent in a nearly-impossible-to-hit situation. My proposal would solve that unfairness somewhat.
 
So, the core issue is that once snookered, the incoming player is faced with either making a good hit or paying the price, and often chooses to incur extra risk of "paying the price" rather than doing level best to ensure making the good hit and incurring extra risk of leaving an opening for the opponent.

If that's a problem, then the price isn't high enough; the price should include leaving an opening for the opponent. Free ball and option to play from the D should do this nicely.

-Andrew
 
Scaramouche said:
If the turkey can't follow the escape route diagrammed by Dennis Taylor he deserves to incur all those penalty points for not being able to shoot straight.:grin:
Click to expand...

Or by Willie Thorne for that matter, lol! Top draw comment btw:thumbup::thumbup:
 
Bob Jewett said:
How about this other evil instead of foul-and-a-miss: After a foul, the incoming player may choose to play as if from a touching ball. If he is skilled enough to put the fouler back where he started then he deserves to get more points. At the same time you should make the intentional miss a permitted shot. Among other things, these changes would eliminate the need to restore a position.

I've seen a foul-and-a-miss situation where the snookerer got amazingly lucky -- such as after missing a pot badly or cannoning off a ball -- and put his hapless opponent in a nearly-impossible-to-hit situation. My proposal would solve that unfairness somewhat.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I like the idea of trying to make the rule better by eliminating luck as much as possible and I agree that the miss rule is one of the most frustrating parts of the game. However, if the rule that you suggest is implemented I foresee some other shenanigans that may result.

Consider this - Player A is in a very difficult snooker. The baulk colours are very nicely set up in a bunch near the back cushion providing the perfect target to land the cue ball in and lay a nasty snooker.

Player B has achieved this snooker, whether by luck or design is irrelevant. Now instead of trying to play the difficult escape, perhaps multiple times, Player A can deliberately foul and break up that cluster of balls that provide the target area for a snooker. The incoming player won't be able to play the ball back into that zone because it doesn't exist and the balls won't be replaced. Imagine if player A was well ahead on points, he could even get one or more of the baulk colours safe thrown into the bargain.

All in all, I've not personally heard an alternative that I'm satisfied with yet, but I understand that it's a rule that will continue to attract disagreement.
 
snarzberry said:
... Player B has achieved this snooker, whether by luck or design is irrelevant. Now instead of trying to play the difficult escape, perhaps multiple times, Player A can deliberately foul and break up that cluster of balls that provide the target area for a snooker. The incoming player won't be able to play the ball back into that zone because it doesn't exist and the balls won't be replaced. Imagine if player A was well ahead on points, he could even get one or more of the baulk colours safe thrown into the bargain. ...
Click to expand...
And what would be wrong with all of that? Once you assume that a player is permitted to play any stroke he chooses including intentionally fouling (as at pool) with the understanding that there will be a penalty for any foul, it is expected (and admired by connoisseurs of smart play) that the fouler will rearrange the balls to make his situation less bad. He must try to do his best to win with each shot.

While completely against the tradition of snooker that "honest gentlemen do not willingly cause a foul" my proposal opens up new vistas of techniques. I think my proposal gives the players a more honest and straightforward way of playing.
 
I am no expert, but as things stand if a player commits a foul and the incoming player cannot see any ball on because of an intervening ball, he is awarded a free ball... However if he CB is in the jaws of the pocket and he cannot see any ball on then no free ball.
When I used to play, if the situation arose the ref would announce angled ball. (options: Put your opponent back in to play it from where it is, play it yourself from where it is or play it from the D)
 
GB Basher said:
I am no expert, but as things stand if a player commits a foul and the incoming player cannot see any ball on because of an intervening ball, he is awarded a free ball... However if he CB is in the jaws of the pocket and he cannot see any ball on then no free ball.
When I used to play, if the situation arose the ref would announce angled ball. (options: Put your opponent back in to play it from where it is, play it yourself from where it is or play it from the D)
Click to expand...

yes, i agree, the rules on the angle snooker should be changed.
 
GB Basher said:
I am no expert, but as things stand if a player commits a foul and the incoming player cannot see any ball on because of an intervening ball, he is awarded a free ball... However if he CB is in the jaws of the pocket and he cannot see any ball on then no free ball.
When I used to play, if the situation arose the ref would announce angled ball. (options: Put your opponent back in to play it from where it is, play it yourself from where it is or play it from the D)
Click to expand...

I learned the game under the old BSCC rules so I understand the Angled Ball rule implicitly. To understand why the AB rule is now gone, you have to understand why it was there in the first place. To understand why it was there in the first place, you first have to understand that the Rules of Snooker are written specifically for the professional game and we mere amateurs can choose to follow those rules exactly or not (much like a golfer might take a "Mulligan" on the first hole).
With the introduction of the Foul and a Miss rule in the mid-90's, the AB rule is really just obsolete and unnecessary as far as the professional game is concerned.

But of course in your own game, play any rules you want, just like some people play the FAAM, and some don't. Personally, I liked the AB rule as well. However, I play strictly by the current Rules of Snooker (including FAAM) for myself, but I don't impose any of the more obscure rules like this on my opponent. Consequently, I suggest, if you play FAAM, no need for AB. If you don't play FAAM, you ought to be playing AB just in case the odd scenario arises. (In amateur play, one tends to see more angled ball situations than in professional play for exactly the same reason as one tends to see more scratches in amateur play...poor cue ball control.)
 
I can think of a few scenarios where the player committing the foul could gain an advantage....but because I am not that eloquent, I would struggle to describe more than 1 of them without the use of diagrams.
None of my scenarios are really any worse than a player getting an advantage by potting the last red and going in off!
I would not bring the rule back as it was, I would just make a wording amendment to the Free Ball rule.
 
GB Basher said:
I can think of a few scenarios where the player committing the foul could gain an advantage....but because I am not that eloquent, I would struggle to describe more than 1 of them without the use of diagrams.
None of my scenarios are really any worse than a player getting an advantage by potting the last red and going in off!
I would not bring the rule back as it was, I would just make a wording amendment to the Free Ball rule.
Click to expand...

Fully agree.
 
GB Basher said:
I can think of a few scenarios where the player committing the foul could gain an advantage....but because I am not that eloquent, I would struggle to describe more than 1 of them without the use of diagrams.
None of my scenarios are really any worse than a player getting an advantage by potting the last red and going in off!
I would not bring the rule back as it was, I would just make a wording amendment to the Free Ball rule.
Click to expand...


I remember John Parrot deliberately jumped the last red off the table for a 4 point foul, taking way a possible 8 points for his opponent, and the difference between being able to win or need a snooker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top