I am skeptic about a foul rule in which when a person is snookered and then misses the target or OB and called to repeat the shot, whilst the entire layout is retrospected in its supposedly original status. It becomes very cumbersome when such foul is repetitious and even more so when several balls are involved simultaneously. Can anyone shed some light on this as to whether this rule was implemented in fairly recent past or always has been Internationally standard, since during my good 'ol days (some 25 years ago), I never came across such a 'clumsy' rule?
Snooker Rules (fouls)
- Thread starter DKhan
- Start date
This is the "foul and a miss" rule. For me it's broken in that it is not applied equally to all players. For the official wording from the IBSF, see:
http://www.ibsf.info/rules-snooker.shtml#3_14
No good player ever does his best to hit a ball on from most snookers. He always puts a fair amount of effort into playing a safety which usually involves hitting the cue ball softly. That means that most misses from a snooker fall under the rule.
On the other hand, weak players often really do try as well as they are able but they don't have the knowledge, touch or experience to make contact.
But if you do away with the rule you again have the problem that the rule is attempting to solve: How do you keep a player from benefiting from a foul?
To properly administer the rule you need a very competent referee and/or a video record of where the balls are prior to the shot. That's not available in most situations.
The rule appeared in the 1984 rule book with much simpler wording.
I don't know when it came about exactly, but it has not "always been the rule". I believe it was some point in the 80's when the "miss rule" was introduced.
-Andrew
My snooker knowledge is admittedly rusty, but rather than trying to re-position all the moved balls just play it similar to a push-out. The incoming player has the option of shooting or giving the table back to his opponent as is. Just thinking out loud.
Last edited:
At snooker, "shoot again from this position" is always an option. It is not felt to be enough of a penalty for failure to try to hit the ball on.
Thanks Bob. Told you my knowledge was rusty. And even all those years ago when I played some regularly it was usually in a "Liability" ring game.
I believe the orginal rule before the 1984 amendment should apply, in which the opponent get the points of foul and play resumed by choice of the opponent to continue or "play again" request from as is, just like in any other foul situations.
In another similar situation, where shooter-in-play attempts to snook his opponent by gently placing the CB behind another ball but misses it (and/or hits another ball by misque for example) and still makes his opponent snookered. In this case, the balls are not repositioned, foul points accounted and play is resumed either by the opponent or the shooter (as requested to "play again" by the opponent).
Note that the shooter-in-play can still continue to foul as many times as possible if he is requested to play agian each time and give away points without repositioning of balls. In both the above situations the benefit to the player remains valid. I just can't seem to fathom the cumbersome and clumsy nature of repositioning the ball or balls in repetitious mode let alone the accurate placements each time and the frustrations arising from the players, the referee and viewers standpoint. By the way, is there a limit to recurring number of shots specific to the above said rule?
I was watching Ronnie Sullivan play this specific foul shot several times over in frustration which begged my skepticism, questioning myself and which explains my ignorance to this rule.
Last edited:
Wity
Banned
The foul and a miss rule i believe is only applied when you have a serious game on between class players and it's being refereed. Mere mortals dont apply it and trying to is looked on in the same way as not owning up to a foul: sneaky.
I've never played in a league and if i did it'd probably be in one of the lowest divisions where i'd imagine it's not used but in the higher divisions where the best break tables are littered with 100 plus's i'd expect it is.
One to ask about should i ever join a league.
See: http://www.euronet.nl/users/cor/miss.html
I've never played in a league and if i did it'd probably be in one of the lowest divisions where i'd imagine it's not used but in the higher divisions where the best break tables are littered with 100 plus's i'd expect it is.
One to ask about should i ever join a league.
See: http://www.euronet.nl/users/cor/miss.html
Last edited:
In the 1967 rule book, the rule was in the "official rulings" (decisions on how to apply the rules) section, and it said that the referee could choose to have a "miss" replayed by the offender. In the actual rules section, which was very poorly organized IMNSHO, there was a sentence to the effect that the player should endeavour to the best of his ability to hit a ball on, but that's all.
So, at least since 1967, the official rules have had a "replay the miss" rule of some kind.
Prior to 1967, you just had a "gentlemen will do their utmost to hit a ball on; those who do not are scoundrels" sort of rule with no specific teeth or procedure.
But here is an example of the kind of foul that needs to be covered: The last red is on the black spot but my opponent has left me between blue and brown. I play off the side cushion. I am good enough to hit the exact center of the top cushion, which I do on purpose, but neither the referee nor my opponent can know my intent. In a flourish of showmanship, I remark, "Gosh, the side grabbed funny on the gum!" I play the shot at a speed that leaves the cue ball near the yellow pocket, with no snooker on the very distant red.
What should happen?
Pool has a simple rule in this case. Perhaps snooker could learn something from pool.
Isn't it the opponent that makes this decision rather than the referee?
LOL!
Which is "ball-in-hand" and played from anywhere on the table. Actually in any foul for that matter other than only in the break-shot-foul where the shot is played anywhere from behind the 'kitchen'.....nayyyy.
In any case, the current rule in question is complicated and clumsy as reiterated. Here's my personal take on the "miss and foul" situation:
The opponent can choose any one of the following without having the referee to reposition ball(s) or having to judge the referee's unbiased, impartial and strenght-of-offender dilemmas:
1. resume play
2. have the offender replay
3. take a "free ball" shot
4. play from within the D.
The above four options can equally apply to ALL miss-and-foul shots. What say you Bob?
No, it was the referee who solely made the decision in 1967. It was not an option for the offended player. I suppose the referee could have asked, but the rules seem to be silent on that point. I can imagine a red fully snookered not far from a pocket, and my opponent attempting a short cushion-first shot with a chance to pot the ball. He fails to hit the ball. The referee forces a replay. My opponent pots the relatively easy red and clears the table. I'm mad.
As for your list of options, you would give up a free ball for any failure to hit a ball on. I think that's a little severe. It could lead to quite a few 155 breaks.
Perhaps back then but since the last 30+ years when I first got my hands on snooker until current, the opponent has been making that decision, never the referee.
I guess then the "pool rule the snooker should learn from" you mentioned earlier would account for even more severity of rule towards high breaks (ball-in-hand rule). You seem to keep mentioning the high breaks should a foul rule be questioned or amended, which is rather speculative. The opponent can still make high breaks even if he chooses to resume play as per the balls/table set up after the foul made, but that all depends and again is speculation.
In any case, I truely believe that 1 and 2 above is/has been the best course of rule that once prevailed without being complicated and later changed to become rather gibberish when viewed from all angles. The 3 and 4 were just my added thoughts.
I have a question that I was going to start a thread about although it might be answered in this one just the same. This is a rule I am a bit skeptical about and not sure I have ever seen it applied… ever.
If the cue ball is driven off the table on the break shot (I understand this almost or never happens) can the oncoming player take ball in hand “anywhere” on the table? Sounds funny to me but this scenario almost never occurs so it makes me think it’s a possibility, does the oncoming player have any special advantage other then ball in hand in the “D”?
If the cue ball is driven off the table on the break shot (I understand this almost or never happens) can the oncoming player take ball in hand “anywhere” on the table? Sounds funny to me but this scenario almost never occurs so it makes me think it’s a possibility, does the oncoming player have any special advantage other then ball in hand in the “D”?
i own 3 snooker cues, all of them come apart or go together 3/4 of the way down the cue instead of in the middle.
SnookerAndPool
I Love Cue Sports!
The actual definition of a 'Miss' has been in the rules since at least around 1936 but was rarely used. The 'Foul and a Miss' was used by professionals before it was introduced in the rules for all players to use in September 1995. And also, as was mentioned before in this thread, there was a time where it was the referee who decided if the player plays from the original position again. I think that was in the 1978 rule book.
I disagree with Bob in what he said above. Most players DO attempt to hit the ball on (they don't play a shot like a pool push-out) but they may not always attempt to hit the ball 'on' by the easiest escape. For example, a player may be snookered and there is an easy escape with a Red (ball 'on') in the middle of the table and also another Red on the top cushion. The good player would usually attempt to try to hit the red on the top cushion, even though it is a more difficult escape, as if he hits the red in the middle of the table (easier escape) then that would be difficult to get safe and it is likely he would leave his opponent a chance which he may not do when hitting the red on the top cushion by rolling onto it. It may appear that the most players miss on purpose but they are just escaping via the safest escape. For example, professionals would rather miss a few times (when they are 'put back' under Foul and a Miss rule) and give away, say, 10 points in fouls (depending on the state of the frame scores, of course) and leave it safe and not leave the opponent an easy pot or safety, than escape on the first attempt and leave their opponent a chance to get a 50 break, or more!
I disagree with Bob in what he said above. Most players DO attempt to hit the ball on (they don't play a shot like a pool push-out) but they may not always attempt to hit the ball 'on' by the easiest escape. For example, a player may be snookered and there is an easy escape with a Red (ball 'on') in the middle of the table and also another Red on the top cushion. The good player would usually attempt to try to hit the red on the top cushion, even though it is a more difficult escape, as if he hits the red in the middle of the table (easier escape) then that would be difficult to get safe and it is likely he would leave his opponent a chance which he may not do when hitting the red on the top cushion by rolling onto it. It may appear that the most players miss on purpose but they are just escaping via the safest escape. For example, professionals would rather miss a few times (when they are 'put back' under Foul and a Miss rule) and give away, say, 10 points in fouls (depending on the state of the frame scores, of course) and leave it safe and not leave the opponent an easy pot or safety, than escape on the first attempt and leave their opponent a chance to get a 50 break, or more!
Wity
Banned
Aha, 3/4 jointed. I was getting confused(as i do with rails instead of cushions etc all the time on this board) thinking you used a 3/4 snooker cue as a break cue at pool.
btw 3/4 cues have been the norm in the uk for a few yrs now but the trend in new sales is for a one piece. The 50-50 2 piece is resigned to the history books.
I just visualized another scenario of the "miss and foul" rule questioned by myself to become far worse, other than what has already been mentioned.
Assuming that there are only 3 last balls left on the table such that a player is snookered behind the pink and its a long difficult shot where the black is very close to blue ball-on. Now for example, if the player makes several attempts (lets assume 10 or more consecutive tries) to reasonably hit the blue, he misses it and instead hits the black whilst leaving either a tough shot or a counter snooker for his oppenent each time on the blue ball-on. Guess what, the opponent just made 70+ points and gets to eventually clear the table once he gets an 'easy' shot on the blue, inspite of the offender being quite ahead in points. :shrug: Ofcourse, other similar scenarios can be equally applied to justify the clumsy nature of this specific rule. What really comes to mind, is that, whosoever made this rule didn't give much thought to it and still continues in-effect.....fascinating.
Assuming that there are only 3 last balls left on the table such that a player is snookered behind the pink and its a long difficult shot where the black is very close to blue ball-on. Now for example, if the player makes several attempts (lets assume 10 or more consecutive tries) to reasonably hit the blue, he misses it and instead hits the black whilst leaving either a tough shot or a counter snooker for his oppenent each time on the blue ball-on. Guess what, the opponent just made 70+ points and gets to eventually clear the table once he gets an 'easy' shot on the blue, inspite of the offender being quite ahead in points.
:shrug: Ofcourse, other similar scenarios can be equally applied to justify the clumsy nature of this specific rule. What really comes to mind, is that, whosoever made this rule didn't give much thought to it and still continues in-effect.....fascinating.
Wity
Banned
No he didn't.
I'm not 100% sure without reading the rules but if memory serves me well the ref can't continue to call a miss if the losing player needs snookers to win, Which he would do long before the 70 points you mentioned.
Last edited: