Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Snooker the miss rule....
8 Answers
Just watching Steve D talking about it on the TV, it seems now that virtually any failure to hit the object ball is declared a miss and they are talking about the idea of replacing that with "a ball in hand" rule, not sure I like that idea. Originally a miss was declared if the referee was of the opinion that it was not a genuine attempt to hit the object ball. Now it seems nearly always to be a miss. I mean I've seen shot's off 3 cushions falling short by a millimetre! Is the referee really saying that it was a deliberate miss? Also what do you think of the "ball in hand" idea?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by CanisMajor. 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.
In my opinion if you miss a ball it should be a foul shot but instead of awarding the points to the other player they should be deducted from the score of the offending player, and if they don't have any points it should go as minus that number of points on their score sheet until they "pay back" when they score afterwards.
From the rules:
“The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and a ‘miss.’”
It should be remembered that a foul and a miss give the opponent the opportunity to have the ball(s) replaced and the shot retaken and also that three consecutive misses (when not snookered) result in forfeiture of the frame. These options and sanctions are not available for fouls without a miss being called. In the professional game referees are under instruction to call a miss almost whenever a player misses.
The rule was introduced to prevent the “professional foul” where players would deliberately miss when in a difficult situation to avoid leaving their opponents with an advantage. Top players today may not deliberately miss, but may attempt a trickier shot (with the greater risk of missing) than an easier one that may be available. The problem is that in calling a “miss” occasionally under his discretion (rather than, as now, whenever a player misses) the referee is effectively calling the player a cheat. Of course the world of sport is full of cheats but happily snooker (on the table at least) seems to have avoided its share. I believe snooker players are among the straightest in any sport. In general they do not consider themselves to be cheats and if the rule was discretionary I believe it would generate a lot of bad feeling.
Perhaps an easier way round the problem would be for the victim of any foul to be given the opportunity to have the ball(s) replaced and the shot retaken. The distinction between a “foul” and a “foul and a miss” would then not be necessary. However, I have not properly thought this through and there may be snags. It is also interesting to note that World Snooker recently debated the matter and decided to leave the rule as it is.
“The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and a ‘miss.’”
It should be remembered that a foul and a miss give the opponent the opportunity to have the ball(s) replaced and the shot retaken and also that three consecutive misses (when not snookered) result in forfeiture of the frame. These options and sanctions are not available for fouls without a miss being called. In the professional game referees are under instruction to call a miss almost whenever a player misses.
The rule was introduced to prevent the “professional foul” where players would deliberately miss when in a difficult situation to avoid leaving their opponents with an advantage. Top players today may not deliberately miss, but may attempt a trickier shot (with the greater risk of missing) than an easier one that may be available. The problem is that in calling a “miss” occasionally under his discretion (rather than, as now, whenever a player misses) the referee is effectively calling the player a cheat. Of course the world of sport is full of cheats but happily snooker (on the table at least) seems to have avoided its share. I believe snooker players are among the straightest in any sport. In general they do not consider themselves to be cheats and if the rule was discretionary I believe it would generate a lot of bad feeling.
Perhaps an easier way round the problem would be for the victim of any foul to be given the opportunity to have the ball(s) replaced and the shot retaken. The distinction between a “foul” and a “foul and a miss” would then not be necessary. However, I have not properly thought this through and there may be snags. It is also interesting to note that World Snooker recently debated the matter and decided to leave the rule as it is.
good answer judge and I'm grateful for you putting the whole miss thing in perspective, It had not occurred to me that by calling virtually everything a miss they were in fact saying to the players that they were not calling them a cheat but merely being consistent in their rulings. In the amateur game a miss is rare but I guess that the pro game is a higher standard and thus the rules are commensurate with that.
1 to 8 of 8
