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!