2:02 Dale's shot is an example of an obvious 'miss' : he could easily hit a red but is choosing to avoid leaving a nice opening for his opponent - a 'miss' every time.
Yes, same for the shot that comes up short. He could easily hit it harder to guarantee it hits if on the right line. But doesn't want to for fear of leaving a ball on. The 4 or 5 cushion escapes where they are trying their best to hit it could just be called Foul though.
Ultimately, _IN EVERY SPORT,_ there's going to be a time at some point where it comes down to the interpretation of the rules by the ref. And that's when they get bribed / you check bank balances
I played snooker a lot but not a pro and the Miss rule is a very contradictory one these days may I suggest if WPBSA perhaps take note? 1. A Miss should always be called if there's a pack of reds (a large target) but the player keeps attempting to hit a red away from the pack and falls short every time 2. A Miss if there's fewer reds left and the player attempts to hit a harder target away from the easier target (to avoid leaving anything on) but misses 3. If the snooker is deemed 'tough enough' (ref's training should work) to miss it 3 times but the speed was enough to pass the red or colour on a Miss should not be called 4. If a missed escape results in a pot judged easy by the ref is available to the other player a Miss should not be called (to gain advantage by amassing foul points) 5. If an easier cushion is ignored to hit a ball to avoid leaving anything on a Miss should be called everytime
I don't quite agree with number 4 because then you're judging the opponents ability and not that of the person making the shot. Effectively someone playing a poor opponent gets penalised more because they're less likely to pot something, I don't think that works. The rest is good though. Essentially the spirit of the miss rule in my head has always been if you've intentionally chosen to play a more difficult shot and not hit the target as a result it should ALWAYS be a miss. If you go for the only available option or the easiest available and the ref judges you've done so to the best of your ability (e.g. you're stuck tight in the pack and can't hit a colour without coming off multiple cushions and you give it your best go) then it shouldn't be a miss. If in doubt, at the amateur level as we are in my league, just call everything a miss, then no arguments. We cap it to 3 maximum so it doesn't take all night.
0:24 Davis says - " a player wouldn't be displeased with that as an outcome" - but not a good example as it's still a foul and he would just get put in again to play the same shot - and again and again - until he does hit it! Deliberate missing only becomes a problem when the player leaves the white safe but also in a position to both hit the red and easily leave the white safe. The sensible shot here would have been to miss and play the white near the middle pocket from where it would be much easier to both hit the red and play safe.
If the shooter fails to strike the ball on, and the player has not made a best attempt, then the shot is a miss. It turns out that there are objective standards that are fairly easy to apply for this. 1) was the ball struck with sufficient force to reach the ball on? If not, it was not a best attempt, and a miss will be called, regardless of shot difficulty. Unless you wish to play from where the ball ended up, put them back. 2) was the shot made one of the easiest ones available? if you are trying a more difficult shot that won't concede the frame like the easier shot would, then it is not a best attempt, and you'd better make it or it's a miss. If you are trying to screw up their run with your escape, you better darn well actually hit it. This exact situation is why the miss rule exists in the first place. 3) was your shot even close to making it at all? If not, you obviously could have done better, and it was not your best attempt. If the shot satisfies all three of these, it is presumed that the player is trying their best to escape the snooker. Violation of 1 or 2 presumes that the player is trying to gain an advantage, and merits the miss call. Number 3 is the one that depends on the skill of the player. If there is only a three cushion escape available that's clearly beyond the ability of the player to make, then they aren't gonna be penalized for trying it, though they do still have to TRY. Only if the snooker is truly inescapable (beyond EVERYONE's ability, and that is VERY rare) is the player allowed to pretend a group of balls that's in the way is not there, and attempt a shot that would succeed if they weren't present. If you can't see an escape, you can ask the referee if the snooker is inescapable. Miss is so frequently called at the pro level because they nearly always run afoul of at least one of these. (they like to use a soft touch when escaping, they usually pick the one that leave the opponent in the worst position instead of the easiest, and they usually ARE capable of doing better.) If you want to play like the pros, you can call misses in a friendly game fairly, by following these same principles. But to call based on number 2, you have to point out the easier shot they can try to avoid the miss before they attempt the shot they do. If they say "but then you'd just run the table!", then you say "well then you'd better make your shot. :)" If your opponent runs afoul of 1 or 2, AND it leaves you in a bad position, you can make the call of a miss. Don't bother saying miss unless you are going to put them back. But if you are gonna try and call number three, unless you have personally seen them do better in a shot of similar difficulty, you can't call them on it, no matter how much it screwed you up. You have to KNOW that they can do better. If the easiest escape attempt just HAPPENS to ruin your plans, you aren't allowed to complain.
3:47 Williams shot also an obvious 'miss' - he could easily have hit the black off the side cushion. Choosing to play a much harder shot doesn't mean he can get away from a 'miss' being called.
Yes he would probably have left an easy opening - but it's his choice! Refuse the easy shot and you are bound to have 'miss' called. Otherwise you could have players deliberately going for some ridiculously difficult escape (to leave the cue ball safe) and missing but not being called 'miss' !
Miss, failure to contact an object ball with the cue ball. Result, successful snooker and ball in hand to other player. ONE chance ONE fail One ball in hand. Would stop the intentional miss.
Does anyone know when a player CANNOT use the miss rule in a match? is it A - if opponent needs snookers / b if you need snookers / c - never, a player can always use the miss rule? d - if any player requires snookers?
d. a miss will never be called if there aren't enough points on the table to make a comeback without snookers. Penalizing the player behind extra is unfair at this point, and if multiple snookers are required, you aren't allowed to comeback with one snooker.
Players can't 'use' the miss rule - the referee calls it a 'miss' or not. If snookers are needed by a player then a 'miss' cannot be called on either player. rule 3.14 here; wpbsa.com/wp-content/uploads/WPBSA-Official-Rules-of-the-Games-of-Snooker-and-Billiards-2020.pdf
Should be 3 misses max then your opponent can either take it from were it is or you can put them back in if the opponent is making you take it more than 3 times there cheating can only make them take it again from a different position 3 times max how its done in the club these days
Here an example of where a miss was not called, (well, after the third or fourth attempt), at the stage of the game where snookers *not* required: ua-cam.com/video/8jnF_k8Fbxg/v-deo.html But that was 2013. Cant say I've ever seen it not called since (again: where snookers are *not* required)
This is a problem because it is only the referee who can decide about it, and not which referees are not perfect either. I do not remember exactly, but there were a few really difficult situations on the table and the referee decided "miss". I thinh he should to stop after 2-3 shots.
For me this is dead simple... if you miss the object ball, it’s a MISS. If a player elects to play a glancing shot aimed to skim the object ball (to achieve a better safety / defensive cue ball position) then that’s a calculated risk, taken at their own risk! Almost every clip shown in this little feature shows scenarios in which the player has other options. The game is called ‘snooker’ after all, the fundamental principle of which is to prevent your opponent from being able to clearly hit their object balls whilst potting your own. Miss means miss, end.
GET RID OF THE FOUL AND MISS RULE. The foul and miss rule should be put in the rubbish bin where it belongs, whoever thought up this stupid rule shouldn't be in a position to frame rules. It can't be applied to any game that doesn't have a referee, there are ample penalties for any foul shot without making the game so complicated. Besides the penalty points gained from a foul shot, a player can make their opponent play again if they feel disadvantaged by the foul, or if the foul shot results in a snooker another ball can be chosen to represent the ball in play. This is enough without taking all the enjoyment out of the game and starting conflicts with this stupid foul and miss rule that most players don't understand. The rules for chess and so many other games don't change every ten years but it seems that the officials who make the rules just can't leave the game of snooker alone.
@@keiththomas1091 I'm not sure of the meaning of your comment, if a player is on a colour and trickles up to it to play a snooker then that is all part of the game but after a 'foul and miss' rule is applied and a player keeps missing the object ball and has to continually have the cue ball placed back where it was initially then it seems unfair that his opponent could gain so many points from the situation. the game was fair and not so ambiguous before the 'foul and miss' rule was introduced and I believe most of the top players would like to see it gone.
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
2:02 Dale's shot is an example of an obvious 'miss' : he could easily hit a red but is choosing to avoid leaving a nice opening for his opponent - a 'miss' every time.
Yes, same for the shot that comes up short. He could easily hit it harder to guarantee it hits if on the right line. But doesn't want to for fear of leaving a ball on. The 4 or 5 cushion escapes where they are trying their best to hit it could just be called Foul though.
4:53 another obvious 'miss' - if you don't hit the ball hard enough then it's got to be a 'miss' !
I remember Steve accusing Joe Johnson of playing a deliberate miss in world final.
Ultimately, _IN EVERY SPORT,_ there's going to be a time at some point where it comes down to the interpretation of the rules by the ref.
And that's when they get bribed / you check bank balances
I played snooker a lot but not a pro and the Miss rule is a very contradictory one these days may I suggest if WPBSA perhaps take note?
1. A Miss should always be called if there's a pack of reds (a large target) but the player keeps attempting to hit a red away from the pack and falls short every time
2. A Miss if there's fewer reds left and the player attempts to hit a harder target away from the easier target (to avoid leaving anything on) but misses
3. If the snooker is deemed 'tough enough' (ref's training should work) to miss it 3 times but the speed was enough to pass the red or colour on a Miss should not be called
4. If a missed escape results in a pot judged easy by the ref is available to the other player a Miss should not be called (to gain advantage by amassing foul points)
5. If an easier cushion is ignored to hit a ball to avoid leaving anything on a Miss should be called everytime
I don't quite agree with number 4 because then you're judging the opponents ability and not that of the person making the shot. Effectively someone playing a poor opponent gets penalised more because they're less likely to pot something, I don't think that works. The rest is good though.
Essentially the spirit of the miss rule in my head has always been if you've intentionally chosen to play a more difficult shot and not hit the target as a result it should ALWAYS be a miss. If you go for the only available option or the easiest available and the ref judges you've done so to the best of your ability (e.g. you're stuck tight in the pack and can't hit a colour without coming off multiple cushions and you give it your best go) then it shouldn't be a miss.
If in doubt, at the amateur level as we are in my league, just call everything a miss, then no arguments. We cap it to 3 maximum so it doesn't take all night.
A ball in hand rule would give far too much advantage to the recipient.
Simplest change would be no miss if you come within less than an inch of the object ball in the attempt or if deemed deliberate in any event.
Not clear enough. Would be impossible to judge on a fast shot.
0:24 Davis says - " a player wouldn't be displeased with that as an outcome" - but not a good example as it's still a foul and he would just get put in again to play the same shot - and again and again - until he does hit it! Deliberate missing only becomes a problem when the player leaves the white safe but also in a position to both hit the red and easily leave the white safe. The sensible shot here would have been to miss and play the white near the middle pocket from where it would be much easier to both hit the red and play safe.
If the shooter fails to strike the ball on, and the player has not made a best attempt, then the shot is a miss.
It turns out that there are objective standards that are fairly easy to apply for this.
1) was the ball struck with sufficient force to reach the ball on? If not, it was not a best attempt, and a miss will be called, regardless of shot difficulty. Unless you wish to play from where the ball ended up, put them back.
2) was the shot made one of the easiest ones available? if you are trying a more difficult shot that won't concede the frame like the easier shot would, then it is not a best attempt, and you'd better make it or it's a miss. If you are trying to screw up their run with your escape, you better darn well actually hit it. This exact situation is why the miss rule exists in the first place.
3) was your shot even close to making it at all? If not, you obviously could have done better, and it was not your best attempt.
If the shot satisfies all three of these, it is presumed that the player is trying their best to escape the snooker. Violation of 1 or 2 presumes that the player is trying to gain an advantage, and merits the miss call.
Number 3 is the one that depends on the skill of the player. If there is only a three cushion escape available that's clearly beyond the ability of the player to make, then they aren't gonna be penalized for trying it, though they do still have to TRY. Only if the snooker is truly inescapable (beyond EVERYONE's ability, and that is VERY rare) is the player allowed to pretend a group of balls that's in the way is not there, and attempt a shot that would succeed if they weren't present. If you can't see an escape, you can ask the referee if the snooker is inescapable.
Miss is so frequently called at the pro level because they nearly always run afoul of at least one of these. (they like to use a soft touch when escaping, they usually pick the one that leave the opponent in the worst position instead of the easiest, and they usually ARE capable of doing better.)
If you want to play like the pros, you can call misses in a friendly game fairly, by following these same principles. But to call based on number 2, you have to point out the easier shot they can try to avoid the miss before they attempt the shot they do. If they say "but then you'd just run the table!", then you say "well then you'd better make your shot. :)" If your opponent runs afoul of 1 or 2, AND it leaves you in a bad position, you can make the call of a miss. Don't bother saying miss unless you are going to put them back. But if you are gonna try and call number three, unless you have personally seen them do better in a shot of similar difficulty, you can't call them on it, no matter how much it screwed you up. You have to KNOW that they can do better. If the easiest escape attempt just HAPPENS to ruin your plans, you aren't allowed to complain.
Is "Former World no 7" really the best they could do for poor Willie Thorne?
3:47 Williams shot also an obvious 'miss' - he could easily have hit the black off the side cushion. Choosing to play a much harder shot doesn't mean he can get away from a 'miss' being called.
The player always decides, but after black he would probably leave a red ball to play.
Yes he would probably have left an easy opening - but it's his choice! Refuse the easy shot and you are bound to have 'miss' called. Otherwise you could have players deliberately going for some ridiculously difficult escape (to leave the cue ball safe) and missing but not being called 'miss' !
McGill in the world semis in 2020 essentially lost a tight match to K Wilson cos of the miss rule.
Bible says where your heart is there will your treasure be also .john Virgo said the width of a lottery ticket .
the one @2:00 massive target and tried to glance it!
Miss, failure to contact an object ball with the cue ball. Result, successful snooker and ball in hand to other player. ONE chance ONE fail One ball in hand. Would stop the intentional miss.
Probably because nowadays there's so many players cheating their way through..
Should be five times only then free shot from the Dee
Does anyone know when a player CANNOT use the miss rule in a match? is it A - if opponent needs snookers / b if you need snookers / c - never, a player can always use the miss rule? d - if any player requires snookers?
d. a miss will never be called if there aren't enough points on the table to make a comeback without snookers. Penalizing the player behind extra is unfair at this point, and if multiple snookers are required, you aren't allowed to comeback with one snooker.
Players can't 'use' the miss rule - the referee calls it a 'miss' or not. If snookers are needed by a player then a 'miss' cannot be called on either player. rule 3.14 here; wpbsa.com/wp-content/uploads/WPBSA-Official-Rules-of-the-Games-of-Snooker-and-Billiards-2020.pdf
Should be 3 misses max then your opponent can either take it from were it is or you can put them back in if the opponent is making you take it more than 3 times there cheating can only make them take it again from a different position 3 times max how its done in the club these days
Here an example of where a miss was not called, (well, after the third or fourth attempt), at the stage of the game where snookers *not* required:
ua-cam.com/video/8jnF_k8Fbxg/v-deo.html
But that was 2013. Cant say I've ever seen it not called since (again: where snookers are *not* required)
This is a problem because it is only the referee who can decide about it, and not which referees are not perfect either.
I do not remember exactly, but there were a few really difficult situations on the table and the referee decided "miss". I thinh he should to stop after 2-3 shots.
For me this is dead simple... if you miss the object ball, it’s a MISS. If a player elects to play a glancing shot aimed to skim the object ball (to achieve a better safety / defensive cue ball position) then that’s a calculated risk, taken at their own risk! Almost every clip shown in this little feature shows scenarios in which the player has other options. The game is called ‘snooker’ after all, the fundamental principle of which is to prevent your opponent from being able to clearly hit their object balls whilst potting your own. Miss means miss, end.
I don't agree with the ball in hand idea
Why didn't they ask Ronnie O'sullivan about it.?
Cause Ronnie doesn't miss. So he doesn't know much about it.
Ronnie does miss ua-cam.com/video/AGMXh9otUBU/v-deo.html
GET RID OF THE FOUL AND MISS RULE.
The foul and miss rule should be put in the rubbish bin where it belongs, whoever thought up this stupid rule shouldn't be in a position to frame rules.
It can't be applied to any game that doesn't have a referee, there are ample penalties for any foul shot without making the game so complicated.
Besides the penalty points gained from a foul shot, a player can make their opponent play again if they feel disadvantaged by the foul, or if the foul shot results in a snooker another ball can be chosen to represent the ball in play.
This is enough without taking all the enjoyment out of the game and starting conflicts with this stupid foul and miss rule that most players don't understand.
The rules for chess and so many other games don't change every ten years but it seems that the officials who make the rules just can't leave the game of snooker alone.
It can't be right where a player trickles up to a colour then gets 30+ pts where there is just 1 or 2 reds left and very difficult escape
@@keiththomas1091 I'm not sure of the meaning of your comment, if a player is on a colour and trickles up to it to play a snooker then that is all part of the game but after a 'foul and miss' rule is applied and a player keeps missing the object ball and has to continually have the cue ball placed back where it was initially then it seems unfair that his opponent could gain so many points from the situation. the game was fair and not so ambiguous before the 'foul and miss' rule was introduced and I believe most of the top players would like to see it gone.