Ruling Foul & Miss without a referee ??

Ruling Foul & Miss without a referee ??

Post by Stev » Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:27:40


The rules of snooker indicate that a foul & a miss will be awarded if
in the referee's opinion a genuine attempt was not made to hit the
ball on.

Watching some games on ESPN (embassy championships) - I am yet to see
a foul that is not also called a miss by the ref - they seem like
genuine attempts to me ?

How does one determine a genuine attempt without a ref ?

Cheers.

Remove 'antispam' to reply via email...
Have a nice day !!

 
 
 

Ruling Foul & Miss without a referee ??

Post by technocr » Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:13:56

Quote:

> The rules of snooker indicate that a foul & a miss will be awarded if
> in the referee's opinion a genuine attempt was not made to hit the
> ball on.

> Watching some games on ESPN (embassy championships) - I am yet to see
> a foul that is not also called a miss by the ref - they seem like
> genuine attempts to me ?

  The reason for you not having seen any on the telly is at that level
the      interpretation of the rule is very strict, the cueball has to
pass within a hair's breadth for the ref to call it a genuine
attempt.Even I have not seen any of those for a very long time, but I
do recall one instance, not in the WSC, where it was a really terrific
attempt and the BBC commentator remarked that there was no way it was
going to be called a miss (or rather 'there was no question of it
being called' ).
   I have played for more than 3 years without having at any time
this rule
applied, at our level we very much dread its application (the DREAD
very much as in duckworth & lewis!).Hell ... who knows, the frame
maybe over in one snook!!

Quote:
> How does one determine a genuine attempt without a ref ?

   I have seen this done !!. Where the opponent determines the attempt
for you
 obviously then it has to be a hit.But if you miss and leave a break
on, it is
generally expected to be tried , I think .I've had chats with many
guys about this and some are of the view that this rule is unfair &
should be amended. But
then what is to compel a player not to just push the CB in the open
without  making any attempt to hit the on ball( i have seen this too!!
too many times ).
     Can this rule be applied at the lower level with a liberal
interpretation
 I wonder ? can this be the way out ? .Tell me your views on the
subject.

Quote:

> Cheers.

> Remove 'antispam' to reply via email...
> Have a nice day !!

same to you .
  TECHNOCRAT.

 
 
 

Ruling Foul & Miss without a referee ??

Post by Stev » Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:11:51

Quote:

>   I have played for more than 3 years without having at any time
>this rule
>applied, at our level we very much dread its application, who knows, the frame
>maybe over in one snook!!

Welcome to my world...
yesterday, playing a race to 3 frames... I lost 2 frames as I could
not get out of the snooker.
I was ahead on points in both games and was on average potting more
consistently. But lost the frames because he made 1 good snooker. VERY
annoying.

I think the frame should be won by the best, most consistent potter,
not won by 1 lucky snooker...  <grumble, grumble>

My oponents argument is that if he makes a good snooker, he should get
more than 4 points for a single genuine attempt to get out of it.
Also, he says the rule is the same for both players, which is valid.
He harps on about a major part of the game of snooker is being able to
get out of them - I agree - but it comes down to skill level.
I dont make 50 point breaks like the pro's, nor can I get out of
snookers like the pro's.

Quote:
>> How does one determine a genuine attempt without a ref ?

>   I have seen this done !!. Where the opponent determines the attempt
>for you
> obviously then it has to be a hit.

Can you clarify this point ??
The opponent says in advance how to attempt it ???
Speed & direction perhaps ???

Quote:
>But if you miss and leave a break
>on, it is
>generally expected to be tried ,

Yeah, a decent (respectable) player would try to rack up points by
sinking balls - not having the cueball (and possibly other object
balls) re-spotted.

The downside to this gentlemans rule is that it is possible for the
opponent to be semi-disadvantaged as a result of a genuine attempt to
get out of a snooker - he has to play if it is not ruled a miss and is
not a foul snooker.
He should be able to at least play a semi decent safety I suppose...

Quote:
>I think .I've had chats with many
>guys about this and some are of the view that this rule is unfair &
>should be amended. But
>then what is to compel a player not to just push the CB in the open
>without  making any attempt to hit the on ball( i have seen this too!!
>too many times ).

That would be a fairly obvious non-genuine attempt ?

I think if I cant convince him its in the best interest of the game to
not apply a compulsory miss to all fouls - I will simply not apply the
rule as he does to me - try to lead by example and shame him into
playing like a gentleman...  I may lose many frames in the short term
though. ;-(

Cheers.

Remove 'antispam' to reply via email...
Have a nice day !!

 
 
 

Ruling Foul & Miss without a referee ??

Post by Tjander Nathoen » Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:08:56

Quote:

> Watching some games on ESPN (embassy championships) - I am yet to see
> a foul that is not also called a miss by the ref - they seem like
> genuine attempts to me ?

If the referee was Colin Brinded it probably was a too strict
interpretation... he's renowned.

It is not in the rules but it is generally agreed that the referee in
determining what is a fair attempt will take into account the skill
of the players and how difficult the snooker is. Ofcourse you and I
can get out of a snooker if the last red is behind black and the CB
is in the open, but it is another thing if the CB is also burried
behind any of the baulk colours.

The skill of the players you see on the telly is astoundingly high.
In practice they easily make centuries, top players are not unknown
to making 147's in practice. Ofcourse in a match they are more
conservative but if the occasion arises they can produce incredible
feats of cuemanship. So the referee is compelled to be strict in his
interpretations.

Quote:
> How does one determine a genuine attempt without a ref ?

That is a whole grey world of its own. In some amateur leagues the
rule is simply not applied (as stated in the rules of that league).
A good deal of people think this is the right way to go.

Strictly speaking the rules provide for this. In Section 3 rule 19
part c, it is said that if there is no referee that the opposing
player will act as one. Still then loads of people think this is
just to count the score and spot balls.

Generally I think it is wise to know these disputes about rules
and agree on a certain interpretation of them before you start to
play. Personally I think the rule should always be applied even
in social games. It is hard to know the skill of a stranger but
any decent player knows his own skill and how that compares to
his opponents skill from the play he has just seen. If you cannot
be honest and a good sportsman and need to win with sharking
techniques you obviously don't belong aside any billiard table
(or any sport for that matter).

Cheers,
Tjander