Foul&miss rule
- Thread starter predator
- Start date
A Discussion Argument Snooker Hall Brawl
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=57719&highlight=stupid+rule
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=57719&highlight=stupid+rule
In that thread Colin Colenso proposes a nineballification of snooker by giving ball-in-hand anywhere on the table for a foul. I think that's overkill. On the other hand, I agree with him about the rule. It is not honestly or uniformly enforced. It is a bad rule.Scaramouche said:
An alternative is to use the rule that nine ball used to have about 40 years ago. If two fouls are committed consecutively, the player who did not commit the second one gets ball in hand anywhere. One example strategy: you are snookered after the break-off, being stuck on the wrong side of green. Play the cue ball directly to the bottom cushion, taking an intentional foul. It is now your opponent's choice as to who will play next. If he takes the shot and fouls, you get ball in hand.
With this rule, there is no need to judge intent or effort, which is done very badly from what I've seen at foul&miss. There is a lot of strategy and pressure.
I hear what you say Bob but in my experience it has never ever even once been a problem. The rule is not applied to the amateur game unless there is an unobstructed shot to the object ball and/or the player isn't making a bona fide effort to hit the ball on or it results in a distinct disadvantage to the other player. I wouldn't count miscues either. For instance if the black is hanging in the pocket with the last red touching it and the player rolls up short to avoid potting the black. Though I would call a miss on a better player who was clearly making no effort to get out of an easy snooker, at the risk of selling out big time.Bob Jewett said:
The only time I have ever been hoodwinked was when an opposing player needed a snooker on the pink to win a game I was refereeing. Both were excellent players. Our player left the pink in the jaws of the pocket and I was interested to see what his opponent would conjure up. It looked almost impossible to keep out. Sure enough he potted the pink but followed it in with the white. I respotted the pink and awarded the obligatory six points to our player, who proceeded to pot the pink for game. It was only afterwards I realised what a stoke his opponent had tried to pull.
Boro Nut
Last edited:
How should you have ruled? Foul&miss does not apply, and the general notion in snooker that a player should not benefit from a foul seems not to be codified for this case.Boro Nut said:
It was a deliberate foul stroke. If he potted the pink and stayed out he lost there and then. I was so surprised that a player of his calibre could play such an awful shot it just never occured to me he'd played it full ball with top smack down the middle. The white never touched the sides. I should have awarded seven points and reset the balls, with a warning that a repeat would result in loss of game and the remaining points on the table for ungentlemanly conduct. Happily his plan didn't work. I pulled him up after the game and he admitted it.Bob Jewett said:
The point I failed to make is, that is similar to the only situations I would call a miss at the club level, when they've played what effectively amounts to a deliberate foul stroke, not an honest attempt to make the shot. Not a very good example I agree.
Boro Nut
OK, but I can't seem to find which specific rule is being violated. Perhaps a rule got deleted in the last revision, or perhaps I'm looking at the wrong set (on the IBSF web site), but there seems to be no rule -- other than oral tradition -- to cover that shot.Boro Nut said:
Bob you are forgetting that snooker is a gentlemans game unlike pool and etiquette plays a big part. We just do not ever deliberately foul even if not doing so will cost us the game. We also are expected to make a proper effort to hit the ball on every shot. Almost everywhere in the amateur game the miss rule is pnly enforced if the player can see the ball or if the player does not make a good faith effort to hit the ball if hooked(this is usually decided by the referee or if no referee usually by the player who just played the shot). In 11 years of playing snooker almost every day I never saw this become an issue. We are an honest bunch even when we don't want to be (one time I called myself for a foul that nobody saw on 89 with 2 reds left!!!!!)Bob Jewett said:
Sorry for missing this reply Bob - thanks for the bump Ray. It was indeed another governing body (WPB&SCC or something in those days)- I'll see if I've still got the rule book. They certainly spelled it our more clearly in the 'General Rules' and 'Examples' than the current online versions do. The penalty of ungentalmanly conduct is the most severe of all. It includes award of all the remaining points on the table. Maybe if I could only arrange a match with Earl I might finally achieve my dream of a 147.Bob Jewett said:
Boro Nut
Last edited:
I don't see that as being the issue.raybo147 said:
Games are played by rules. In the case of snooker, the rules are established and written by a governing body. If the rules are incomplete, the governing body is at fault and should fix them. Evidently, it is no longer a foul under the current written rules of snooker to take a foul that gives the fouler an advantage. Maybe that is an oversight on the part of IBSPBSA or whatever the rules authority is, but it seems to be the current rule.
foul and miss
We play the foul and miss rule in our room, however when we go play in the US Open every year they neglect to hold that rule in affect until the finals when there is a referee.
However, there really is no need for a referee, you either hit the object ball or you dont, two players can easily desipher wether a hit is a miss or not.
It is part of the game just as nudging behind a color when you have no clear shot or path to your next shot.
The US Open situation is a shame in my eyes because it hampers those players who are duck and run tacticians and dont run breaks over the 50's consistently.
We play the foul and miss rule in our room, however when we go play in the US Open every year they neglect to hold that rule in affect until the finals when there is a referee.
However, there really is no need for a referee, you either hit the object ball or you dont, two players can easily desipher wether a hit is a miss or not.
It is part of the game just as nudging behind a color when you have no clear shot or path to your next shot.
The US Open situation is a shame in my eyes because it hampers those players who are duck and run tacticians and dont run breaks over the 50's consistently.