ChatterBank2 mins ago
Snooker, The Miss Rule....
6 Answers
Does it apply to other fouls beside the actual miss of the object ball?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Miss rule is the most confusing thing about Snooker ever. It's a judgement call that's just annoying.
I think it applies in the case where there is an easier alternative escape that hasn't been chosen. Thus, supposing you have a "one-cushion escape" but decide to take a safer two- or three- cushion escape, or play the one-cushion escape too soft. Obviously if you'd hit it harder it would guarantee the escape, if not leave things safe.
It doesn't apply to other fouls, usually -- most famously, I think John Higgins suffered once when O'Sullivan was in a tricky situation, snookered on all colours and trying to find the brown (or some other baulk colour). After two or three attempts called as "misses", he accidentally touched a red with his bridging hand and it was called "foul", no miss -- which annoyed Higgins rather.
If you pot the white during your attempted escape and also miss the object balls then I'm sure it would be called "miss" too. But the rule could really be tightened up. Essentially, though, the application seems to be that whenever the player is putting safety ahead of escaping the snooker easily, then it will be a miss.
I think it applies in the case where there is an easier alternative escape that hasn't been chosen. Thus, supposing you have a "one-cushion escape" but decide to take a safer two- or three- cushion escape, or play the one-cushion escape too soft. Obviously if you'd hit it harder it would guarantee the escape, if not leave things safe.
It doesn't apply to other fouls, usually -- most famously, I think John Higgins suffered once when O'Sullivan was in a tricky situation, snookered on all colours and trying to find the brown (or some other baulk colour). After two or three attempts called as "misses", he accidentally touched a red with his bridging hand and it was called "foul", no miss -- which annoyed Higgins rather.
If you pot the white during your attempted escape and also miss the object balls then I'm sure it would be called "miss" too. But the rule could really be tightened up. Essentially, though, the application seems to be that whenever the player is putting safety ahead of escaping the snooker easily, then it will be a miss.
No.
A miss can only be called if a player does not hit the ball "on" first and is deemed by the referee to have not made a good enough attempt at the shot. A shot has to be played and completed for this decision to be made.
In 2009 Ronnie O’Sullivan was playing John Higgins in the UK Championships. He had potted a red and was snookered on all six colours. He had just played five or six misses attempting to reach the yellow and Higgins had the cue ball replaced each time. On his next attempt Ronnie fouled a red he was attempting to cue over. Referee Jan Verhaas could not call a miss (because a shot had not been completed) and if Ronnie had been put back in by Higgins (as he could have done following a foul shot) he would have been on a red.
The rules have now been amended and in such a situation whilst a miss still cannot be called, the fouling player, if put back in, is on the same ball as he was before the foul was committed.
A miss can only be called if a player does not hit the ball "on" first and is deemed by the referee to have not made a good enough attempt at the shot. A shot has to be played and completed for this decision to be made.
In 2009 Ronnie O’Sullivan was playing John Higgins in the UK Championships. He had potted a red and was snookered on all six colours. He had just played five or six misses attempting to reach the yellow and Higgins had the cue ball replaced each time. On his next attempt Ronnie fouled a red he was attempting to cue over. Referee Jan Verhaas could not call a miss (because a shot had not been completed) and if Ronnie had been put back in by Higgins (as he could have done following a foul shot) he would have been on a red.
The rules have now been amended and in such a situation whilst a miss still cannot be called, the fouling player, if put back in, is on the same ball as he was before the foul was committed.
Interesting that we should refer to the same incident! But it's one of the more important illustrations of the flaws of the rule. During that sequence, the commentators were talking about Ronnie conceding possibly as many as 40 points due to the pickle he was in! And then he made that unintentional foul and it came to an abrupt halt. I don't think it affected the frame/ match in the end, as Higgins one, but it did raise the question of whether it was an advantage to "accidentally" clip a red on the way down earlier, thus saving himself 20+ foul points.
A video is available here:
In a separate incident, Mark Selby was once playing a shot, realised he was about to send the white in-off and, as you would in a club table, just blocked it from going in to the pocket. Still a foul, and of course he'd understood that the White was going in and was just saving the other player some time. But then of course a different foul from potting the White had been committed and the unsuspecting other player tried to move it to the "D", and got called foul too! I think Selby was apologetic about that.
A video is available here:
In a separate incident, Mark Selby was once playing a shot, realised he was about to send the white in-off and, as you would in a club table, just blocked it from going in to the pocket. Still a foul, and of course he'd understood that the White was going in and was just saving the other player some time. But then of course a different foul from potting the White had been committed and the unsuspecting other player tried to move it to the "D", and got called foul too! I think Selby was apologetic about that.
today there was a case where the game was approaching stalemate and a rerack because the yellow and green where in the jaws of the 2 baulk pockets and both players where just shoveling reds into the area. O' Sullivan was 32 points up and thus It would have been to his advantage to deliberately pot 1 or both of the balls in the jaws (after hitting a red of course!), give 4 away and thus continue the frame with his 32 points. In that case it would be a clear deliberate foul and I would have thought a good case of having the balls replaced. As it happens it resolved itself when Ronnie went in off anyway but I did wonder.
1 to 6 of 6
