Severe loop hole in the miss rule

[maqsood]

Hi Steve, you being a qualified ref, it may be worth you forwarding this scenario to World snooker.

Player A is playng Player B.

Green, Brown , Blue, Pink and Black left. Player A is 31 points ahead with 25 on. Player B needs two 4 point fouls or one 7 point foul.

It is player B's shot.
The Black ball is hanging right on the very lip of the corner pocket. Player B, rather than trying to get 2 snookers decides to risk rolling the green on to the black and leave say 12 -13 ft between green and white BUT NOT SNOOKERED.

It is now Player A's shot .
He knows full well that if he hits the green the black will almost certainly drop in and further more the green will be left hanging on the pocket and if player B clears up he will win the frame.
Player A decides to "deliberately" have no intention on hitting the green but the leave the white "far nearer" to the green. He does this and now leave the white say 2-3 inches from the green and concedes 4 points. Player B will obviously plays him again. Player A then has a far easier shot to move the green away and does so leaving player B to try and get one more foul.

Clearly this is Unfair, as no "foul and miss" can be called on Player A's first attempt to hit the green and he has gained a humongous advantage.

Hence, I beblieve that the "miss rule" should be amended to :
"irrespective of the score, if a player can see both sides of the object ball (i.e is not snookered) and fails to his the object ball then a "foul and a miss" should "ALWAYS" be called.

I am sure you all agree and it's not rocket science !!

Most loopholes tend to be "highly unlikely" situations, but I personally don't think the above is a "highly unlikely "situation.

Incidentally, this is what was running through my mind when playing Hanzla, where I needed 2 snookers, and left him not snookered on the green and completely missed it - that's when I called you over for a ruling.

Interesting to say the least.

Thanks all.

Bash

[Mike Langdon]

Doesn't the ref have the option of awarding the frame if he feels the player has deliberatly fouled to gain an advantage? Does it come under unsporting behaviour?

[Steve Butler]

A classic example of somebody not reading the rules correctly and jumping to the conclusion that the there is a loop hole!

It's a myth that a foul and a miss can never be called if snookers are required.  A referee can always call a miss if he does not believe that a genuine attempt has been made to hit the ball on.  See the highlighted part of rule 14 below:

(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.

This is why, even if snookers are required, a referee will always look to see where the balls are on the table, just in case a player tries to something like what you have eluded to.

It is also covered in rule 14, part (e):

(e) All other misses will be called at the discretion of the referee.

I won't bother the WPBSA just yet!

[dwayne46]

Doesn't the ref have the option of awarding the frame if he feels the player has deliberatly fouled to gain an advantage? Does it come under unsporting behaviour?

The player gets warned of his conduct and yes I believe the Referee can award the frame.