Post a reply

Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Monique

According to theSnookerBlog http://www.thesnookerblog.com/2011/02/m ... the-wpbsa/ WPBSA is asking the players their views on changing the miss rule.
The players got a letter asking them to answer 5 questions:
excerpt
1. Retain the miss rule as it is – YES / No

2. Abolish the miss rule in place of the following

for all fouls or failing to hit the ball on:

a. Ball in hand in the “D” Only
b. Ball in hand with a free table

3. Ball in hand with a free table after 3 misses have been called

4. I would be willing to trial amended rules for one ranking event.

5. Any other comments;


How would YOU answer those questions?

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby GJ

1. Retain the miss rule as it is – / No


2. Abolish the miss rule in place of the following

for all fouls or failing to hit the ball on:

a. Ball in hand in the “D” Only

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Roland

I would like to see the official letter (the version above has obviously been transcribed hence the odd few typos) but it seems logic that:

a) this is an attempt to fix the miss rule whereby players can lose a silly amount of points from one awkward position despite trying their hardest to play a good shot. A rule which everyone can agree is flawed albeit now a lot more consistent than it was 10 years ago.

b) with this being the case the change in rule should only be one which addresses the miss rule i.e. any rule changes should only come into force if the foul in question is a "miss" and not every foul such as accidentally potting a red when going into the pack of reds from a colour.


If you take the extreme option, ball in hand anywhere on the table after any type of foul then you completely change the game of snooker, and for the worse. Any foul against a half decent player could cost you the frame or leave you in a weak position in the frame if you get another shot. So that option is clearly wrong.

The standard rule for placement after potting the cue ball is anywhere in the D. That is a snooker rule. There is also a rule of 3 consecutive misses when you can hit both sides of the ball on and you lose the frame. This rule should also be changed.

If you keep the miss rule as it is and change the rule so after a 3rd consecutive miss the opposing player can put the white anywhere in the D or play from where the cue ball has landed, then it is consistent and everyone will know where they stand. It also means after only 2 misses the player at the table will be forced into a different shot in most instances.


So I am for the rule 3, but with white in D and not anywhere on the table which is a pool rule.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:I would like to see the official letter (the version above has obviously been transcribed hence the odd few typos) but it seems logic that:

a) this is an attempt to fix the miss rule whereby players can lose a silly amount of points from one awkward position despite trying their hardest to play a good shot. A rule which everyone can agree is flawed albeit now a lot more consistent than it was 10 years ago.

b) with this being the case the change in rule should only be one which addresses the miss rule i.e. any rule changes should only come into force if the foul in question is a "miss" and not every foul such as accidentally potting a red when going into the pack of reds from a colour.


If you take the extreme option, ball in hand anywhere on the table after any type of foul then you completely change the game of snooker, and for the worse. Any foul against a half decent player could cost you the frame or leave you in a weak position in the frame if you get another shot. So that option is clearly wrong.

The standard rule for placement after potting the cue ball is anywhere in the D. That is a snooker rule. There is also a rule of 3 consecutive misses when you can hit both sides of the ball on and you lose the frame. This rule should also be changed.

If you keep the miss rule as it is and change the rule so after a 3rd consecutive miss the opposing player can put the white anywhere in the D or play from where the cue ball has landed, then it is consistent and everyone will know where they stand. It also means after only 2 misses the player at the table will be forced into a different shot in most instances.


So I am for the rule 3, but with white in D and not anywhere on the table which is a pool rule.


I'd go with that also except that I can see a "hole" in that solution. Depending on the situation on the table the snookered player could at the third attempt be tempted deliberately miss if playing from the D would yield a much more difficult situation for their opponent than the one that would result from hitting a ball on and not get it safe. But then you will tell me it's the same with the in-off. Going in-off is sometimes the easiest route to baulk...

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Roland

Yes exactly, and the tactical in-off has always been a hushed up shot that players go for and pretend they didn't mean.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Bourne

Two words: USE COMMONSENSE
No need to get rid of it, no need to have ball in hand, no need for 3 misses and you lose frame ... refs should be allowed to use sensible judgement on each situation because every situation is different.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:Two words: USE COMMONSENSE
No need to get rid of it, no need to have ball in hand, no need for 3 misses and you lose frame ... refs should be allowed to use sensible judgement on each situation because every situation is different.

yes if common sense was applied to the Rule there would never be a situation where 40 penalty points out of 10 misses would be rewarded.....it does seem everyone trying to fix something a bit of brains would have years ago. <doh>

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby GJ

I like the idea after 3 misses that on the 4th one their opponent can put white in the d and play from there

Thats common sense

because currently refs use no common sense on miss rule

and

the rule white anywhere on table is pure crap

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Casey

Better educate the refs. The miss rule works in that it stops deliberate fouls and the player striking gaining an advantage from a foul.

However many times players do try their best to hit a ball from the easiest shot on, this should not be called a miss.

However if a player takes a more difficult shot in getting out of a snooker and does not get it then this should be a miss every time.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Monique

Well I don't think the rule with anywhere on table is pure crap.
We are talking exclusively about the case of a miss here, not the regular fouls.
As I explained above the "anywhere in the baulk" could lead to situations (would actually often lead to situations) where the offending player would rather miss than reach because his opponent would have no easy shot from baulk, while he would probably get an easier starter if a ball on was hit and the cue ball stayed near the business end of the table. That's clearly not right. I pointed out that this is already the case with the in-off today: it's sometimes the easiest path to baulk and worth the 4 points penalty and I've no doubt it has been abused.
"Anywhere on table" would of course give the non offending player a HUGE reward for laying a good snooker but it would also be a HUGE incentive for the offending player to really try their best.

So if your opinion is that it is "pure crap", fine, but I would like you to explain why.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby GJ

sorry monique but ball in hand anywhere on the table in any case is rubbish

IMO

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Wildey

how about a rule then if the ref feels the player not done a good enough attempt to hit the ball its ball in hand after 3 but if it is a good enough attempt its ball in hand in the D.

that would encourage the mind when it comes to a tactical foul....

but do we trust the refs to know what they are doing ???

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby GJ

wild

some refs just call a miss no matter what so no common sense is used currentl

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Wildey

GJ wrote:wild

some refs just call a miss no matter what so no common sense is used currentl

absalutly its just easy reffing calling everything a miss.

it really isnt rocket science whats a good even brilliant attempt and what was crap.

no sense in calling a miss if theres a easier red near the blue spot that could be hit.......whats the point in hitting any rubbish ball and making a rubbish shot :? they got to attempt to keep the table safe when they go to sit down.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby jojo

i like the idea that they trying to do something about the miss rule because clearly at this moment in time it is flawed

however i like the common sense approach from the referees not all situations are the same for example if a player is snookered and theres only one red on the table and it an extremely difficult red to hit and the player gets close then it stupid to call it a miss

however if the player is snookered and there are ten reds left on the table and the player try to hit one specific red to not leave his opponent a pot on and misses then the referee can call as many misses as he wishes because there are alternative options

i think the best approach would be to educate the refs they have to approach the situation with common sense judge each situation on their specific merits not just foul four and a miss because the player failed to hit the red

if i had to choose one of the options then it would be for fouls from a snookered position only and not when a player goes in off

if pushed i would say player misses three times then his opponent has cueball in the d not free table that would be utter stupid

why ? no matter how good the snooker layed at this pro level a player shouldnt be allowed to place the cuaball anywhere on the table that is gaining far too much of an advantage bull option that just for one good shot laying a snooker

but then again this whole concept is flawed anyway because as ive mentioned already common sense should be applied by the referee because each situation is different and should be judged on its own merit

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
GJ wrote:sorry monique but ball in hand anywhere on the table in any case is rubbish

IMO


My question is: why? Just saying it again isn't an answer.


it will encourage Hit and Hope so that ball in hand wont happen

any professional rule that encourages players to play any old shot is wrong.

if a player flukes a tough snooker and the other player cant get out of it successfully to award a Ball in Hand then would that be fair.

Ball in hand at this level is more severe than the miss as it is now.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby GJ

it only helps plays with poor concentration and who want quicker matches

.....

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:it will encourage Hit and Hope so that ball in hand wont happen

any professional rule that encourages players to play any old shot is wrong.

if a player flukes a tough snooker and the other player cant get out of it successfully to award a Ball in Hand then would that be fair.

Ball in hand at this level is more severe than the miss as it is now.


The player playing hit and hope finds themselves in trouble more often than not. So I can't see what's wrong here.

Don't do a Seifer. If a player flukes a snooker and then gets 40+ points out of it is that fairer? Flukes are part and parcel of the game and they are never "fair".

Your last sentence is a matter of perception.

I agree with you that in a perfect world where referees have a perfect ability to judge the difficulty of a shot AND would use their common sense (and courage) to actually apply the rule - they have a fair degree of discretion as it is - then there would be no need for a change. BUT we don't live in a perfect world and there have been obvious cases in the last couple of seasons certainly that have shown that something must be done.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Wildey

yes it is fairer than Ball in Hand if a player gets 40 points neither is Great no but the current rule is better and fairer.

Ball in hand at this level really should be frame over

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Bourne

Matt Selt wrote:This is the first time I’ve read about the tick sheet and the options to replace the miss rule if it was to happen.
For me there is only 1 option amongst those that kind of make any sense to me. I must say that I personally would prefer to not see the miss rule being changed, however the option where if you miss 3 times then a ball in hand strikes me to be a decent idea. I’m looking forward to see what happens :D


http://prosnookerblog.com/2011/02/20/ti ... ment-11798

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:yes it is fairer than Ball in Hand if a player gets 40 points neither is Great no but the current rule is better and fairer.

Ball in hand at this level really should be frame over


As I said in an ideal world there would be no need for a change but we don't live in an ideal world.
I'm not at all convinced that ball in hand would mean frame over. If that was the case most frames would be won in one visit!
And I don't know what is "fairer". What I know is that it would be a huge incentive to try to reach ... which is what players are supposed to do.

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby GJ

Ball in d after 3 misses sounds like a fair compromise for everyone IMO

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Wildey

GJ wrote:Ball in d after 3 misses sounds like a fair compromise for everyone IMO

or Balk Line....

thats a line thats never been used in snooker

Re: Is there a case to abolish the miss rule?

Postby Bourne

Ball in D could be abused again though, players would be happy to give up 12 points if there's nothing on from the D or a very tough long pot say ... I still don't think it needs that much overhaul, just referees need to be given a bit more responsibility.