On The Miss Rule in Snooker

For AnFedrus  (of 606)

Further to what I already wrote previously. Your question asked “give an example of where an object ball remains where it has moved to”. That’s a tough one. In some senses the wording of the ruling can be seen as a cover-all for the referee, such that if someone were to show [as can be done with Hawkeye] where the balls were and be able to demonstrate that the referee had “failed” to restore -”one or more”- balls to their original position, then the ruling covers the referee’s back, in that the replacing of balls – where high technology is NOT available – (the vast majority of snooker matches that are refereed); then the referee’s “oversight” is legitimatised by this ruling. The question as to whether a ball moved by a foul shot should be left where it is, is not one that promotes the “allowance” of: “Moving balls and getting away with it”. To me as I said the ruling is merely so that the referee is covered if [he] fails to see where “a ball or balls” were prior to an offending shot. A player or spectator may subsequently point out that a referee “failed to replace balls X, Y, and Z. But the main thrust of the ruling is (as it should be) that the replacing of balls is entirely at the referee’s discretion. With no high technology to assist a referee in the majority of cases, after a player has clattered balls all over the place, the referee having called a miss, will only have done so according to the stipulations set out in the miss rulings. One of those stipulations is that “in the referee’s opinion – there was a direct line between the cue ball and the/an object ball.” This means that (in the referee’s opinion) the shot played by the offending player was: (a) trying to take a route that would give the offending player a better advantage. E.g. come off two cushions, glance off [a red] and finish up in baulk, possibly even snookering his opponent, WHEN a more simple “direct” route was available. There are many ways a player can play a “FOUL” shot. A Push shot where the player makes contact with the cue ball, whilst the object ball is in contact with the cue ball. A player might play a push shot: having potted a red ball, and attempting to snooker with a delicate touch up to a colour ball A player might double-hit the cue ball trying to force a cannon snooker from behind one object [red or colour] ball, to behind another colour ball. A player can foul by trying to roll up behind a colour ball (legitimately) but the cue ball does not travel far enough In all those three examples, A referee calls the shot “FOUL AND A MISS” because the player – in [his] opinion: “did not make sufficient effort to play a legitimate shot”. The Miss Rule is a good rule as it outlaws deliberate fouls by an unscrupulous player who would otherwise put his opponent at a disadvantage by deliberately construing a foul shot that left his opponent (snookered say) on the on ball. Another possible incident could be a player, whilst using a rest (and or) extentions, fails to remove them in time and causes a ball (or balls) to run into them as they lay on the table. The cue ball failing to hit the on ball. The referee is fully entitled in such an instance to call not merely a FOUL but a FOUL AND A MISS. Also if you read the ruling: [from http://www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (f) After a miss and a request by the next player to replace the cue-ball, any object balls disturbed will remain where they are unless the referee considers the offending player would or could gain an advantage. In the latter case, any or all disturbed balls may be replaced to the referee’s satisfaction and in either case, colours incorrectly off the table will be spotted or replaced as appropriate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ruling is trying to cover any eventuality. A player in playing a FOUL shot that the referee also then deems as a “FOUL AND A MISS”, may have sent the cue ball around the table slightly moving one other ball and finishing in almost the same place as it was originally. If that one ball moved slightly DOES NOT now improve the offending player’s options, the referee can decide to leave it where it is. If however it improves the offending player’s options, the referee can (rightly) decide to replace it where it was before the cycle of replaying the shot can recommence. It is also important to note that: Where snookers are not required, or even if the fouling score generates a “snookers required” situation; the referee warns the player PRIOR to a THIRD offence, that to repeat the FOUL will result in the “loss of the frame/game/match, (whichever pertains). This usually brings the players to their senses and [they] then opt to play the “easier” legitimate shot they had been obduring to play.

Advertisement