Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

If the player knows that only the first two (or however many) attempts will be replaced, then the Rules are actively inviting him to deliberately not hit at the third attempt. So a Rule that ostensibly exists to uphold the principle of sportsmanship by not deliberately fouling, actually ends up encouraging it.

Picture the scenario; you're snookered behind the brown on the last red, about 18 inches into the table from a top corner pocket, with a relatively easy escape route, the colours are on their spots and you're 20 in front. You play the first attempt wanting to catch it fine to leave the white on the top cushion - and miss. Balls replaced, you try again with a bit of compensation after the first attempt but still fail. It is replaced again and you know that the next effort will be punished not by replacement but ball in hand for your opponent.

So you're now 12 ahead. A hit in the red is likely to leave it up; a failure will leave the white in the D with a long pot and a potential clearance opportunity. I reckon you will decide, instead of making any attempt at the escape, you will blatantly just play the cue-ball into one of the baulk colours to send it safe on the side cushion. Your opponent will still have cue-ball in hand and still have an easyish long pot - but his chances of clearing up are greatly lessened.

The scenario could just as easily be snookered behind the black on one of the baulk colours - in fact that's probably an even better illustration.

If someone turns round and says, well a blatant deliberate miss will still be allowed to be called, then you are putting the exact subjectivity into it that you are trying to remove and the boundaries of what look like deliberate (or not) misses will gradually become redrawn.

I'm not necessarily saying that the Rule is perfect as it is, but the ramifications of any changes need to be studied very carefully to ensure that it doesn't stifle the general principles of the game and turn it into a strategically completely different game.

Original Source: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/sh ... z1EdqYCmV4
TSF - TheSnookerForum.com

Wild wrote:some interesting points by the statman on TSF

If the player knows that only the first two (or however many) attempts will be replaced, then the Rules are actively inviting him to deliberately not hit at the third attempt. So a Rule that ostensibly exists to uphold the principle of sportsmanship by not deliberately fouling, actually ends up encouraging it.

Picture the scenario; you're snookered behind the brown on the last red, about 18 inches into the table from a top corner pocket, with a relatively easy escape route, the colours are on their spots and you're 20 in front. You play the first attempt wanting to catch it fine to leave the white on the top cushion - and miss. Balls replaced, you try again with a bit of compensation after the first attempt but still fail. It is replaced again and you know that the next effort will be punished not by replacement but ball in hand for your opponent.

So you're now 12 ahead. A hit in the red is likely to leave it up; a failure will leave the white in the D with a long pot and a potential clearance opportunity. I reckon you will decide, instead of making any attempt at the escape, you will blatantly just play the cue-ball into one of the baulk colours to send it safe on the side cushion. Your opponent will still have cue-ball in hand and still have an easyish long pot - but his chances of clearing up are greatly lessened.

The scenario could just as easily be snookered behind the black on one of the baulk colours - in fact that's probably an even better illustration.

If someone turns round and says, well a blatant deliberate miss will still be allowed to be called, then you are putting the exact subjectivity into it that you are trying to remove and the boundaries of what look like deliberate (or not) misses will gradually become redrawn.

I'm not necessarily saying that the Rule is perfect as it is, but the ramifications of any changes need to be studied very carefully to ensure that it doesn't stifle the general principles of the game and turn it into a strategically completely different game.

Original Source: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/sh ... z1EdqYCmV4
TSF - TheSnookerForum.com

Wild wrote:yes but the same scenario applies to ball in hand anywhere....

if you put colors safe to make the clearance harder.....its even more essential if theres ball in hand anywhere.

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:yes but the same scenario applies to ball in hand anywhere....

if you put colors safe to make the clearance harder.....its even more essential if theres ball in hand anywhere.

It's a lot harder to get everything safe when the proposal is ball in hand from anywhere. How often do we hear the comment after an in-off "well that's not a bad result, he won't mind the 4 points penalty". Because going back to the D is a lot safer than staying near the top of the table more often than not.
Ball in hand anywhere would be the biggest possible incentive to try and hit.

Monique wrote:Nothing prevents you to do that under the current rule neither and I'm sure it's done.

GJ wrote:for me the current rule falls down if there is 1 red left on table and a player misses it be a tiny margin and a miss is called anyway.

Now if there are lotsd of reds and a player is taking a tougher route to elave things safe i have no issue with a miss being called over and over.

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:for me the current rule falls down if there is 1 red left on table and a player misses it be a tiny margin and a miss is called anyway.

Now if there are lotsd of reds and a player is taking a tougher route to elave things safe i have no issue with a miss being called over and over.

my issue with the miss rule is that they do take all reds in to consideration.

the same scenario you mentioned 1 red on the table the object ball should be the only judgement point to that shot.

if the player has made a good effort in hitting that red then its a no miss it doesn't matter how many easier reds there are if hitting that means a break for the opponent

GJ wrote:for me the current rule falls down if there is 1 red left on table and a player misses it be a tiny margin and a miss is called anyway.

Now if there are lotsd of reds and a player is taking a tougher route to elave things safe i have no issue with a miss being called over and over.

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:for me the current rule falls down if there is 1 red left on table and a player misses it be a tiny margin and a miss is called anyway.

Now if there are lotsd of reds and a player is taking a tougher route to elave things safe i have no issue with a miss being called over and over.

my issue with the miss rule is that they do take all reds in to consideration.

the same scenario you mentioned 1 red on the table the object ball should be the only judgement point to that shot.

if the player has made a good effort in hitting that red then its a no miss it doesn't matter how many easier reds there are if hitting that means a break for the opponent

mate it does matter number of reds that are left IMO

because if there is 1 safe red and the rest are open the player who is trying to get out of the snooker by hitting the safe red should be punished and the current miss rule is fair for that example otherwise what is the player who set the snooker gaining for their well led snooker

Sickpotter wrote:IMO the refs need to apply some judgement on the miss calls rather than making it automatic.

I completely disagree with ball in hand anywhere on the table. Snookers are intended to yield a foul and/or a possible opportunity, not a guaranteed one. To allow a player to place the cueball anywhere is to make sure a snooker will yield an opening.

IMO the miss rule in itself is not bad, it's the automatic application of it no matter the escape attempted that's wrong.

I think applying the miss rule correctly is quite simple.....

1 rail escape on, you must hit the ball.

2 rail escape, no one rail escape on....apply some judgement. Professional refs should have a reasonable idea as to what was a genuine attempt vs. what wasn't. It's less clear at the amateur level but at the professional level we shouldn't get too many bad calls.

GJ wrote:wild and sick

thats the point though they dont judge it well apart from the retired alan chamberlain other refs automatically call miss miss miss

so something needs to be done

Sonny wrote:The players know where they are with the miss rule. I admit I was kinda going with the idea of free table after 3 consecutive misses because for a start that'll stop the one about forfeit of frame (which I felt for Maguire when he had 2 failed to attempts to hit a baulk colour when tight in the middle of the pack and could see the black even though it was nigh on impossible to hit without using all sorts of extensions and spiders) and also it'll stop one good snooker winning a silly amount of points.

Anyway, not changing is fine by me.

GJ wrote:if the refs would show more discretion it would be good but as that wont happen im happy with the current rule

Wild wrote:according to the ferret on TSF The miss rule will be staying as it is for the immediate future with 40 out of 63 players wanting to keep it as it is.

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:according to the ferret on TSF The miss rule will be staying as it is for the immediate future with 40 out of 63 players wanting to keep it as it is.

ball in hand mugs can

Wild wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:IMO the refs need to apply some judgement on the miss calls rather than making it automatic.

I completely disagree with ball in hand anywhere on the table. Snookers are intended to yield a foul and/or a possible opportunity, not a guaranteed one. To allow a player to place the cueball anywhere is to make sure a snooker will yield an opening.

IMO the miss rule in itself is not bad, it's the automatic application of it no matter the escape attempted that's wrong.

I think applying the miss rule correctly is quite simple.....

1 rail escape on, you must hit the ball.

2 rail escape, no one rail escape on....apply some judgement. Professional refs should have a reasonable idea as to what was a genuine attempt vs. what wasn't. It's less clear at the amateur level but at the professional level we shouldn't get too many bad calls.

i sit there at a venue or at home and i can judge it pretty well whats acceptable and whats not at pro level surely a ref can. as you say a easy escape shouldn't award much points anyway its just pace but there are some snookers where its extreamly hard to hit and the player gets close on effort 2 its awarded a miss he doesn't get that close again 10 miss later he gets it 40 points awarded where second attempt was good enough.