Tim Dunkley takes another look at snooker’s controversial miss rule. Is this the answer?
AS YOU know, I’m not one to bang on about the miss rule. Oh, all right, I am. But I stumbled across a piece of genius the other day that certainly deserves a wider audience.
Let me say first of all that there is nothing wrong with the current miss rule. It’s just that nobody works to it. And I include the professional circuit in that. They have come to an understanding amongst themselves. It’s the same on every tour and every local league. Some put by-laws in place. Some make assumptions about the standard. Some even allow the non-striker to call a miss when there is no referee – if you can believe that! But, anyway, that’s all been said before.
A guy known as BiskitBoy – who I believe is a certain Chris Dietrich from Queensland, Australia – wrote a post on the Snooker Island forum (www.snookerisland.com) in February, 2015.
I have heard lots of suggestions over the years but nothing quite so clever as this.
He said that if the non-striker elects to have the cue-ball replaced, the striker should have two options. The striker can either have the balls replaced and try again. Or he can pick the cue-ball up and give the non-striker ball in hand, in other words, the non-striker can place the cue-ball anywhere on the table and play the next shot from there.
What is so brilliant is that it caters for all levels of ability. Professionals would rarely give ball in hand. Beginners would gladly give ball in hand rather than give away 30-40 points in fouls.
Author: Tim Dunkley
Tim Dunkley is a World Snooker coach and freelance writer from Southampton. He coaches and runs junior leagues at Chandlers Ford Snooker Club and Waterlooville Sports Bar. And he is heavily involved with Cuestars, an organisation that runs grass-root tournaments across central southern England. Tim can be contacted via firstname.lastname@example.org.
See Tim’s previous post “Seven things wrong with snooker’s miss rule”