I thought I understood the miss rule - at least at a very basic level, but a couple of incident today had me and my dad debating.
When Ronnie tried to swerve around the blue in an attempt at a plant (other reds were available) and caught the blue in passing, a five point penalty was awarded as you'd expect, but when no miss was called the commentator explained this was because it was simply a foul shot.
Later on Ronnie was tucked up behind the brown (snookered on all reds) and in a similar fashion fouled the brown in trying to swerve around it. On this occasion a miss was called. The obvious difference in the two situations is that with the latter Ronnie was snookered, but the result was the same, namely that he fouled the ball he was trying to swerve around.
I suppose what I'm asking is why was no miss called when he fouled the blue in his attempt to swerve around it?
The miss rule... again.
When Ronnie tried to swerve around the blue in an attempt at a plant (other reds were available) and caught the blue in passing, a five point penalty was awarded as you'd expect, but when no miss was called the commentator explained this was because it was simply a foul shot.
Later on Ronnie was tucked up behind the brown (snookered on all reds) and in a similar fashion fouled the brown in trying to swerve around it. On this occasion a miss was called. The obvious difference in the two situations is that with the latter Ronnie was snookered, but the result was the same, namely that he fouled the ball he was trying to swerve around.
I suppose what I'm asking is why was no miss called when he fouled the blue in his attempt to swerve around it?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire