Rule question

This option to have the cue ball (and any other balls that may have moved) replaced is only available to the non-striker if a "miss" is called.

The options available to the non-striker are:-
1. To have the balls replaced and have the offender play again.
2. To have the offender play from where the balls have come to rest
3. Play the shot himself/herself.

Incidentally, the miss rule will only becalled if the referee feels that:-
1. The player did not make a good enough attempt to hit a ball on
or
2. There was an easier escape from the snooker which the player chose not to take.

If a player can see the ball and achieve full ball contact, and misses the ball twice, the referee is obliged to warn him/her that they will forfeit the frame if they miss a 3rd time.

The miss rule is probably the most complicated rule to apply in the game of Snooker.

I forgot to add that a miss cannot be called if either player requires snookers to win either before, or as a result of the foul.

Miss Rule:

During an interval break this subject came up for debate and the suggested remedy to the miss rule was that the incoming player would have cue ball in hand instead.Might be a good idea as some players were in favour but some were against.

Bob Jewett said:

In the recent exhibition event from Matchroom (20-minute matches, 20-second shot clock without extensions, single day?) the penalty for any foul was ball in hand anywhere. That certainly prevented long exchanges or repetitions of safeties. A rule that had to be added was "rail contact" so that some ball had to make contact with a cushion during the shot (or be pocketed). That was necessary to prevent "cheap" safeties e.g. behind the baulk colours.

I assume that the proposal above was within the D.

Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

I am actually in favor of the "ball must hit a cushion" rule being considered further in snooker, but slightly in a different form to the rule as in pool.

What does need to be looked at in snooker is, what you described as, "cheap safeties". You can have a player who pots a "shot to nothing" and then runs up tightly behind a baulk color, and that can accumulate several points in "foul and misses" - I really think that this situation should be avoided in the modern game of snooker.

I would like a consideration on the rule that if a ball is not potted during a stroke, then a ball must hit a cushion whether it be before or after contact has been made to the object ball - this rule would insure that a variety of safety escapes from snookered positions would remain legal shots.

The World Professional Billiards & Snooker Association (WPBSA) did actually ballot its members recently on a change to the "Foul & Miss" rule, but they decided to keep the current rule. With this in view, I could not really see my proposal ever being adopted any time soon even though I do think it would benefit the modern game.

Best wishes.

Alan.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the miss rule, the problem lies with the referees who rule a miss 100% of the time in the pro game regardless of a shots difficulty.

According to the debate mentioned by church66 during the final refs award the miss because they and the games bosses fear there would be live arguments and scenes over their consistency or lack of in ruling a miss, and of course the snooker hierarchy are scared stiff of such happening, so much so that as no one proposed a replacement rule everyone could agree on all were in agreement that for now the rule (and it's current shitty interpretation) remains.

I believe referees should be allowed to judge on each shot as they do (or should do) in amateur matches and as with any referee in any game dish out a instant punishment to a player who argues with the decision.

The problem with the miss rule lies with the interpretation from spectators mainly, not referees. You often hear spectators commenting thinks like "That's not a miss, he only missed it be a couple of millimeters"
There are many situations where a player is snookered behind a baulk colour on all reds and chooses to play for a particular red (maybe one resting on the top cushion) and misses it by maybe a millimetre and yet a miss is called. Some people can't understand why it is a miss. But often there is an easier shot to play (maybe into the cluster of reds where a few reds may be in the open).
If a player intentionally chooses to play for the more difficult shot in order to leave everything safe, it's not a referees job to take that into account. If there is an easier escape and the player chooses not to take it, it's going to be called a miss 100% of the time irrespective of how close he gets to it.
At professional level, the ability of the players is such that they should have no problems getting out of any snooker (except in extreme cases), the route they choose to take is more often than not a major factor in deciding if it is a miss or not.

Alan Morris said:

Hi Bob,
What does need to be looked at in snooker is, what you described as, "cheap safeties". You can have a player who pots a "shot to nothing" and then runs up tightly behind a baulk color, and that can accumulate several points in "foul and misses" - I really think that this situation should be avoided in the modern game of snooker.
.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as cheap safety. Snooker is a game of strategy as well as potting ability. I cannot think of one single instance where a professional player has played such a safety shot with the express intention of gathering points through the miss rule. Every time a miss is called in the professional game, a player will only have the balls replaced if he has not gained any advantage as a reult of the miss (such as leaving an opportunity of the a pot).

Such a practice (which you refer to as cheap safety) is something introduced by negative players' approach rather than the rule itself.

BTW.. In my post above i was refering only to the no alternative route snookers such as the one in the final the other day where the only route to the object ball meant coming off four cushions... Houdini wouldn't have escaped first time let alone any one else.

Wity said:

BTW.. In my post above i was refering only to the no alternative route snookers such as the one in the final the other day where the only route to the object ball meant coming off four cushions... Houdini wouldn't have escaped first time let alone any one else.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the final yet so I can't comment on that one. I'll keep an eye out for it though.