Foul and miss rule?

Foul and miss rule?

Post by avin.. » Sun, 18 Jun 1995 04:00:00


I was watching a snooker match; only blue, pink and black were on the
table, and the striker was leading by 24 points.  The blue was snookered
behind the pink, and the striker clearly played to get his cue ball to a
position from where laying another snooker would be difficult.  Referee
awarded a foul and a miss; striker argued that by convention in the amateur
game, if one player is leading such that more than two snookers are required,
a miss is not awarded!

Now, some of the billiards pros were  watching (G.Sethi et al), and they
confirmed the existence of such a convention.  

Anyone know if such a rule is written/quoted anywhere?(Attn: Jari Kokko!!)

Although the logic given by the protagonist (since the leading player already
has the other out of the game, why would he concede a foul deliberately and
bring the other back into the game?) had some substance, this was a clear
case where the striker benefited by not playing the most easy shot to break
the snooker, and got away with it!

Avinash

 
 
 

Foul and miss rule?

Post by David Gareth Morg » Mon, 19 Jun 1995 04:00:00

: awarded a foul and a miss; striker argued that by convention in the amateur
: game, if one player is leading such that more than two snookers are required,
: a miss is not awarded!

I thought that the miss rule only applied to the professional game.

Cheers

Dave.
--

                                        **************************

                                        **************************

 
 
 

Foul and miss rule?

Post by Steve McGow » Tue, 20 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>: awarded a foul and a miss; striker argued that by convention in the amateur
>: game, if one player is leading such that more than two snookers are required,
>: a miss is not awarded!
>I thought that the miss rule only applied to the professional game.

You're right. It *does* only apply to the professional game.

A 'miss' shot can never be awarded in amateur games.

Why? Well, an amateur should not be expected to reach the same level of
proficiency as a professional - which means you cannot always
expect them to escape from snookers, or to get as close to the object
ball as you would a pro.

--Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                I think we're in for a bad spell of wether.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Foul and miss rule?

Post by Jari Kok » Wed, 21 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>[...].  Referee
>awarded a foul and a miss; striker argued that by convention in the amateur
>game, if one player is leading such that more than two snookers are required,
>a miss is not awarded!

>Now, some of the billiards pros were  watching (G.Sethi et al), and they
>confirmed the existence of such a convention.  

To my knowledge, no such convention exists in the amateur game, but
it's hard for me to disagree with Geet Sethi. What I do KNOW is that
it isn't written down in the amateur rules. I know there is such a
rule in the professional referees' guidelines, except that it says,
"when a player is needing snookers", not "more than two".

As far as I know, in the amateur (== non-WPBSA) game, the miss rule is
simple and entirely up to the referee and his OPINION: has the striker
to his best ability attempted to hit a ball on or hasn't he. Don't
know about the newly rewritten IBSF rules, though.

Quote:
>Although the logic given by the protagonist (since the leading player already
>has the other out of the game, why would he concede a foul deliberately and
>bring the other back into the game?) had some substance, this was a clear
>case where the striker benefited by not playing the most easy shot to break
>the snooker, and got away with it!

There is no requirement to try the easiest escape from a snooker,
unless it causes the referee's opinion to change. This is a difficult
thing, but I think the striker must be allowed to choose his
shot. Who's to say what is difficult? For instance, two cushion
escapes are more easy for me than one cushion ones, because I've used
them a lot and they aren't as sensitive to tiny amounts of side spin.

Jari

 
 
 

Foul and miss rule?

Post by Jari Kok » Fri, 23 Jun 1995 04:00:00

Quote:
>A 'miss' shot can never be awarded in amateur games.

Not so.

Quote:
>Why? Well, an amateur should not be expected to reach the same level of
>proficiency as a professional - which means you cannot always
>expect them to escape from snookers, or to get as close to the object
>ball as you would a pro.

What does this have to do with anything? I suspect there might be
problems with terminology here. "Amateur" == "Non-WPBSA"; "Professional"
== "WPBSA" in my snooker dictionary. There most certainly and without a
doubt is a miss rule in amateur snooker, meaning IBSF (International
Billiards and Snooker Federation) rules. Most national organizations are
members of the IBSF and use its rules.

Some "amateurs" have scored 147s, so I think they might have a chance
of escaping snookers.

The miss rule is in the rules to force the snookered player to try and
escape snookers instead of playing deliberate fouls, can you think of a
better rule to accomplish this, without changing the whole game?

What do you mean by "A miss shot  can never be awarded in amateur
games"?
--
Jari Kokko                                      // "Windows on huono." -Oku