Snooker, The Miss Rule.........

[ToraToraTora]

Should it be abolished? possibly replaced with an automatic freeball as suggested in this article in the grauniad?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/may/14/breaking-the-law-snooker-miss-rule
It's from 2014 but the points made are equally valid today as no changes have been made, what do you think? Please don't answer just to troll.

[douglas9401]

Before I answer please define 'to troll'.

Thank you in advance me old mockney.

[Ken4155]

I've often thought that players are hard done by when they fail to come out of a snooker by the thickness of a fag paper. And as good as some of them are, I refuse to believe that they can come off 3 cushions and deliberately leave the ball a tad short of the intended target. "Foul, and a miss" indicates that the 'miss' was intentional and that the referee is a mind-reader. The free shot is a good idea. Unfortunately, it's such a good idea it will probably never replace the 'miss'.

[saintpeter48]

I don't understand why the 'miss' rule is not applied if a player needs snookers to win a frame, surely if you need snookers that is the time you want a chance to build up some points!

[ToraToraTora]

SP it's like that to avoid the case where someone needs a lot more than is on the table getting a very good snooker and effectively reversing a lost cause. It's considered by the snooker experts that that would make a mockery of the game.

[ToraToraTora]

SP, also there is also the reasoning from each side
The player ahead would not intentionally miss to give the opponent points.
The player behind would not intentionally miss and worsen his predicament.
Remember the premise of a miss is that it's a deliberate foul to gain advantage.

[ToraToraTora]

doug ^^^^^ there's an example.

[THECORBYLOON]

"14. Foul and a Miss
(a) The striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red has been potted. If the
referee considers the Rule infringed, they shall call FOUL AND A
MISS unless:
(i) any player needed penalty points before, or as a result of, the
stroke being played and the referee is satisfied that the miss
was not intentional;
(ii) a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting
to hit the ball on provided that they play, directly or indirectly,
at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referee’s opinion,
to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing ball or balls."

By calling a "miss', the ref is not suggesting it was deliberate, only that a better attempt can be made.

[jim360]

Agreed with TCL: I thought the point of the "miss" isn't that the player deliberately missed, but that they deliberately played the shot in a way that is meant to control where the white/object ball end up. If you want to guarantee hitting the object then you should probably hit it harder, as opposed to playing in a way that means you *just* hit it. Or play off fewer cushions, etc.

[ToraToraTora]

well, ok, but essentially it was born out of the unwritten, sort of gentleman's agreement that a player should make a serious attempt to hit the object ball. The article cites the mid 90s when it became necessary to actually have a proper rule. I must admit that sometimes when I see a miss called I do think that the player was genuinely trying but a miss is called none the less. In fact I don't remember any failed attempt not being declared a miss regardless of the difficulty and the voracity of the attempted escape.

[THECORBYLOON]

It's rare for a foul not to be called a miss but I have seen it a few times on the TV.

The fact that the target ball is hit after several attempts demonstrates it is not impossible and calling a "miss" for each previous attempt was correct.

[THECORBYLOON]

I have also seen one incident where a miss was called several times but the final foul wasn't and the commentators praised the ref for being sensible about the situation.

From memory, the player had to come off at least three cushions and missed by a fraction.

[ToraToraTora]

they definitely call a miss when it doesn't reach. They also call a miss when a simpler escape is obvious but the player doesn't use it because it will leave the opponent up.

[ToraToraTora]

Jim/TCL what do you think of the idea of an automatic free ball rather than replacing the balls after a miss?

[jim360]

// I must admit that sometimes when I see a miss called I do think that the player was genuinely trying but a miss is called none the less.//

Yes, that undermines my point, but I suppose the idea was that they have to remove any hint of subjectivity from the rules. One referee might think that smashing the white off a cushion isn't really controlled enough to be a "best of their ability" attempt.

[jim360]

I haven't thought about the automatic free ball idea deeply enough, but my first thought is that I'm not sure it would make a difference in many positions anyway, so I'm not sure what it would add.

[ToraToraTora]

it would stop the repeated attempts and save having to put the balls back.

[Ken4155]

I have played snooker for my local WMC and pool for a few local pubs. Back in the day when you could not pot an opponents ball, there used to be a 'deliberate foul stroke' rule in pool. This was superceded by a 'free shot' being awarded; meaning that the opponents ball could be potted legally and the player who did so still had 'the table'.

[THECORBYLOON]

If several attempts have to be made, that is a reward for the other player having used their skill (unless it's a fluke) to put the opponent in that situation.

[jim360]

I don't think that repeated attempts are a bad thing, necessarily. It rewards a good snooker and punishes a bad escape.