Impossible snooker

[Mattk]

They just mentioned it in passing on the tv but what happens if a player is caught by a snooker that is literally impossible to escape from?

[Maydup]

They play as best they can and pay the penalty for missing the ball.

[kayakamina]

After 3 unsuccessful attempts you lose the frame.

[kayakamina]

I'll just amend 'attempts' to misses.

[janzman]

If its an >unsuccessful miss< it must be a hit.... :-)

[kayakamina]

Yes.

I didn't word it very well at all.
As I understand the miss rule the player receives two warnings and after a third miss forfeits the frame.

I am probably wrong!

[Mattk]

Now you've mentioned it that sounds correct.

[sunny-dave]

It's only called a 'miss' if the player is deemed by the referee not to have made a real attempt to hit the object ball in the most obvious way (usually for tactical reasons).

If it really was a case of an 'impossible snooker' that would not be the case and so the frame would just continue until either the player did somehow hit the object ball, or his opponent accepted a good opportunity to play the next shot, rather than having the balls re-spotted.

[bert_h]

The 'miss' rule can be suspended at the referee's discretion. It happened at 14-10 in the Carter v. Maguire match. The snooker needed a three-cushion escape, and Carter tried it four or five times, but was called for a miss each time. Then he tried again and missed by such a tiny gap that the referee just made it a simple foul stroke. It was up to Maguire whether to play from there, or tell Carter to play from there, but not to have the balls replaced again.

If the snooker just looked impossible via no matter how many cushions or how much spin, the player would have to make a plausible effort, and if the referee decided it was the best effort that could be expected, he'd give the foul, and the other player the choice of who would play next from wherever the balls had ended up.

[methyl]

Sorry, not correct. There is a specific rule for an impossible snooker.
The player must play in the direction of the object ball with sufficient strength to reach the ball regardless of the balls in the way. It is then not a "Foul and a Miss", but just a "Foul".
Search for "impossible" here:
http://www.worldsnook...,,13165~167232,00.pdf

I've had to adjudicate on an impssible snooker in the amateur game (where there is no "Miss" rule) and settled on a normal foul. If the player had played a deliberate tactical slow shot with no attempt to reach the object ball I would have had to award the frame to the opponent. If the player miscued the shot and missed the object ball it would just be a foul. As was mentioned earlier in the TV coverage there are players who can deliberately miscue. In the event of a deliberate miscue resulting in a foul, I (as referee) do not have a definitive action within the amateur rules bar awarding a foul. In the professional game it would be a "Foul and a Miss".

[methyl]

Posts crossed. My "sorry not correct" does not apply to bert_h's post which is correct..

[THECORBYLOON]

The three misses rule applies only when there is a direct line between the white ball and another ball which could be hit but the player chooses not to go for it. There could be a situation where a red is out in the open but the player tries to hit another in an attempt to leave the other player in a worse position. If two attempts are made and missed, the player is warned that if he misses again, he will lose that frame.

[New Judge]

“After 3 unsuccessful attempts you lose the frame.”

No you don’t. As TCL says, only if you are NOT snookered do you forfeit the frame after three misses.

Apart from that, I think others have adequately explained what would happen in the event of an “impossible” snooker.