Incorrect Rule for Miss

[csmarkus]

proking wrote: "I wont be contributing to this thread anymore.."
Thank you.

[csmarkus]

csmarkus, could you ask Mr. Williams about tapping the white intentionally, like to the corner jaw, when snookers are needed? Miss or not?

Very good question, bodo! I would say it's a miss and the referee will warn the player because of unsportsmanlike behavior and the next similar action will result in losing the frame. But I will put the question, hopefully Eirian Williams answers it soon. I will come back to you if I have the answer.

[csmarkus]

proking, you said you would not contribute and you did. I can't speak for other people but I cannot trust your words any more.

Anyway, in the situation bodo describes, I think the referee would call a miss because the player did not do his best to hit the ball on. A miss cannot be called if the ball on is hit first.

You played the game, you should know that the rules allow for intentional fouls. For example, black is in the jaws, a red is touching it, I need high colours with the remaining reds to win. I can intentionally hit that red and pocket the black so it goes back to the spot. It will be available, hopefully for me, to make a big break in the frame. No miss will be called when I pocket the black with the red-black plant in spite of the clear intention to commit a foul. No miss will be called because I hit the correct ball, a red ball, first.

Maybe you are not looking forward to seeing it but I am really interested in Eirian's answer. : )

[DaveH]

Just so people don't hurt there eyes trying to read it

No point in making text so small people cannot read what your putting

proking, you said you would not contribute and you did. I can't speak for other people but I cannot trust your words any more.

Anyway, in the situation bodo describes, I think the referee would call a miss because the player did not do his best to hit the ball on. A miss cannot be called if the ball on is hit first.

You played the game, you should know that the rules allow for intentional fouls. For example, black is in the jaws, a red is touching it, I need high colours with the remaining reds to win. I can intentionally hit that red and pocket the black so it goes back to the spot. It will be available, hopefully for me, to make a big break in the frame. No miss will be called when I pocket the black with the red-black plant in spite of the clear intention to commit a foul. No miss will be called because I hit the correct ball, a red ball, first.

Maybe you are not looking forward to seeing it but I am really interested in Eirian's answer. : )

[bodo]

csmarkus, if it is like u think it is, would u agree then that the rule that says no miss should be called when snookers are needed is worthless? Since it's up to the ref anyways yo.

[csmarkus]

csmarkus, if it is like u think it is, would u agree then that the rule that says no miss should be called when snookers are needed is worthless? Since it's up to the ref anyways yo.

You are touching one of the weakest parts of the text of the (miss) rules. IMHO, the text is wrong. It is wrong because if you read it very, very carefully, you can deduce that the score difference is to be taken into account only if any part of any ball that is or could be on is visible. The score difference is not mentioned anywhere else, only in this special case when the ball on is visible! We are talking about Section III, Rule 14, parapraph (b) of the rules. The common practice, however, is that the score difference is taken into account for every miss, also those where the object ball or balls are fully hidden. Anyway, this paragraph ends with "...and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional", which leaves room for referees to call a miss even in the snookers needed stage if the intentional miss is "obvious".

I don't think the rule you mention is worthless. I think its wording needs to be improved a lot.

[bodo]

Ok I'm having one more go before I'm satisfied:

When no snooker is needed, the player at the table is snookered, misses, and is put back by the ref because he didn't make a good enough attempt. Same scenario except snooker is needed. The player at the table is snookered the same way, misses the exact same way, and is put back by the ref because he didn't make a good enough attempt.

Is this how it works?

This quote: "...and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional", does it not relate to any situation?

[csmarkus]

When no snooker is needed, the player at the table is snookered, misses, and is put back by the ref because he didn't make a good enough attempt. Same scenario except snooker is needed. The player at the table is snookered the same way, misses the exact same way, and is put back by the ref because he didn't make a good enough attempt.

Is this how it works?

No. The referee will call a foul but not a foul and a miss after the second shot.

This quote: "...and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional", does it not relate to any situation?

In your above example, the player is trying to hit the ball on. The miss is called because the referee thinks the player can make an even better attempt. This is different from intentional misses. The rule contains two quality levels when the miss is being judged:

1. In normal situations (at the beginning of Section III Rule 14): "The striker shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to hit the ball on". As far as I can see, in professional snooker terms, this is interpreted as "the player must hit the ball on" for almost all situations.

2. In the snookers needed stage (in Section III Rule 14 (b)): "the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional".

In professional snooker, a decent attempt to hit a safe red instead of easily hitting the unsafe bunch of reds is not categorized as an intentional miss and therefore no miss is called when snookers are needed. The same shot in a normal situation is, however, a foul and a miss because the player could hit the bunch of reds with his eyes closed.

Please note that this is only my personal opinion, I may be wrong, but this is how I see it.

[csmarkus]

The answer from Eirian Williams arrived. This is how I put the question:

When no snooker is needed, the player at the table is snookered full ball, misses by a fraction, referee calls foul and a miss because he didn't make a good enough attempt. Balls are replaced, same scenario except snooker is now needed. The player misses the exact same way, and the referee calls foul and a miss because he didn't make a good enough attempt.

Is this how it works? If not, why? Can you pinpoint the exact section, rule and paragraph of the official rules that is in use?

I am really interested in pro referees' opinion about this one because I suspect an imperfection in the wording of the miss rule.

And this is what Eirian Williams had to say in his answer:

Here is the bit you need:

(b) If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless either player needed snookers before, or as a result of, the stroke played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.

Now, granted, this refers to a position where the player can see the ball.

But look at it this way: The rule is clearly worded on the assumption that, if a player or his opponent needs snookers, or will do if a foul occurs, then it is illogical that the player would be willing to compromise on needing snookers by not trying his hardest to hit the ball.

Therefore, if the player cannot see the ball on, it would be very illogical to call a Miss when, if he had had a clear path to the ball, it wouldn't have been called.

I think that perhaps the subparagraph mentioning 'snookers required' would be better placed in the opening section of the Rule, rather than where it is. As you point out, in reality the Rule is interpreted as if it was placed in the introductory bit.

So he basically agrees that the text is not perfect. The solution is that pro referees interpret the questioned part logically. Clever solution!

If you are interested in the full story, read this thread. I'm not sure whether a free registration is required or not.

[csmarkus]

csmarkus, could you ask Mr. Williams about tapping the white intentionally, like to the corner jaw, when snookers are needed? Miss or not?

What a coincidence! I only put the second screnario to Eirian Williams but he brought another example in his next message and he answers this question of yours:

Thanks for the thorough answer, Eirian, it clarifies the referees' way of miss rule interpretation very well!

Having read your answer, do you think it's reasonable to assume the following two "quality levels" for judging whether the shot is a foul and a miss or only a foul?

a) When no snookers are needed, the player must make a very good attempt (according to his abilities) to hit the ball on or a foul and a miss will be called. In professional snooker terms, this is almost always interpreted as "the player must hit the ball on".

b) When snookers are needed, the player must make a decent attempt to hit the ball on or a foul and a miss will be called. That is, he should still try to hit it but a miss will not be called if he fails to hit the ball on.

(So called "automatic" foul and a miss calls are not considered above.)

Yes, pretty much.

If snookers are required, the Miss should not be called "as long as the referee is satisfied it was not deliberate".

So, let's say the player is snookered behind the yellow on a red that is near the black, and is 32 behind. It is fair to assume that he will want to hit the red, to avoid needing snookers.

He miscues and the white travels only a few inches. This would normally be called a Miss because he got nowhere near the escape – but it would be wrong, I think, to call it in this case because of the 'needing snookers' element which is applicable.

However, if he did decide to make a 'deliberate' Miss (even though this is unlikely to be in his interests) then a Miss can, and should, still be called. Supposing he just taps the white a few inches – that would be a blatant deliberate miss and worthy of a Miss call.

Those two shots I've descrbed above could actually have involved exactly the same travel of the cue-ball; but in the one case it is accidental and in the other it is accidental.

I think Mr. Williams' examples are excellent, he always explains the rules brilliantly! Many thanks to him!