Impossible to escape [Snooker Controversy, Interesting situation]
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- Sometimes even the top players can't tell for sure how to play certain shot. Here are two interesting moments when the players potted red and got themselves in all kinds of trouble. Usually miss call depends on referee's interpretation of the shot you've played. What to do when it's literally impossible to get out of snooker? I think that it was right not to call a miss in Jamie Jones's situation. Though I'm not quite sure if it's okay that he didn't nominate any colour before his push shot. And I completely don't understand referee's decision to call a miss when Michael Holt tried to escape for the first time and then not to call a miss after his second (the same) attempt.
When you're in a literally impossible snooker (i.e. can't directly hit any cushion), like Jones was in, you're required to shoot directly at an object ball, regardless of what other balls are in the way. The ref does not then call a miss, and play continues with a foul. It's in the rules, there's no ambiguity about.
The ref handled that Holt situation terribly, Jones played it exactly the way it's supposed to be played.
Holt situation was different because he could hit a cushion, which he proved by hitting the cushion.
@@itsmegeorgeous But he had to swerve it to hit the cushion, which means he couldn't hit it directly, couldn't hit it with any variation in pace and couldn't hit it with a controlled amount of side off the cushion. What he did (twice) is the only thing it was possible to do, except play direct at a ball in the way Jones did. It should never have been called a miss first time.
@@dislecsyk991 he has to jack the cue up to apply the side that is necessary to hit the bottom cushion. That doesn't mean he couldn't hit the side cushion directly without doing so.
@@itsmegeorgeous Yeah, to be fair, it's impossible to tell if he could have got to the cushion without the swerve, so I'll concede on that. Still think the ref got it wrong in calling a miss on the first attempt, though.
@@dislecsyk991 this actually isn't the rule. I just went online to check:
"a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on.
In the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the
ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with
sufficient strength, in the referee‟s opinion, to have reached the ball on
but for the obstructing ball or balls."
I think you missed the 'directly or indirectly' bit, as you've described only the 'directly' case.
Marco Fu, a total gentleman and a credit to snooker, wish there was more like him in the game
He's a class act that's for sure.
I think in general snooker is a very gentlemanly sport compared to others. Players frequently call out their own fouls, rarely argue with the ref (and if so, they're polite about it), etc.
@@MijinLaw Except Ronnie? (The referee part)
@@yuanheli307 Sure. Like I say, _in general_ , not always. It's still a far cry from sports like football, featuring diving and players aggressively getting in the referee's face.
@@MijinLaw there have been some of acts of bad sportsmanship over recent years - selby is the main culprit but you have allen not calling a foul on himself - mcgills performance against clarke -ebdon screaming and shouting etc carter barging into ronnie etc, the quinten hann saga
Marco being a gent saying it's not a miss.
If only Bingham had the respect he should have. The miss rule was put in place for people taking advantage missing balls deliberately. Please use that as a guideline refs...
Simon the way holt played the shot it was a miss every time, holt has to nominate the green and push through the reds with sufficient pace to reach the green for it to not be called a miss. Thats the difference between the clips
He was stuck between the reds. The shot he played was a push shot, so a foul if he did or didn't hit the green.
A miss shouldn't be called on the first shot because it is a very delicate situation, Bingham should step in and try to convince the referee that it is almost impossible to escape from there.
GTKomissaR Because it's amazing how he even called the first miss. Then Stuart stepping in saying he should leave something on just boggles my mind. I'm startled by the whole situation and the lack of respect from Bingham.
It wasn't even him who played the snooker.. Goes to show the great sportmanship of some players.
In my opinion the ref should always call a miss. If you seriously cannot hit an object ball then you're stuck having to leave your opponent a shot he will take or concede the frame. I can't see why that's so terrible, and it's certainly less divisive than allowing the ref to subjectively decide whether he should call the miss or not. If you pot the white the ref doesn't get to decide that it's not a foul just because you made a valiant attempt or were stuck with a bad shot, he shouldn't have that option with a miss either.
First case:bingham is saying to holt “try once maybee its possible”. Second case:fu is accepting that its impossible to hit a colour.
In both case there’s finally (thow different cases)a gentleman’s agreement,ONLY in snooker!!!
But i love among all the procedure:first the player look at is opponent by saying “i can not escape”, then his opponent has to agree with him.but its not enough:he has to turn to the judge and receiving his agreement too. And then the judge goes and talk to the opponent by asking him what would be the shot he would be quite happy with without calling a “miss rule”.
That’s why
I LOVE SNOOKER so much,its a gentlemen’s(and ladies)game.
Bingham isn't a gentleman. Follow the conversation. He wanted him to leave something on, then he'd agree not to call it a miss. That's why you hear Holt complaining about the miss rule. He had a safety, but chose to get some free points.
bingham only took the shot because there was a red on, not that he's being a gentleman. He was one if he did what Marco did and say that there's no way to hit a color and that it should be a foul, not a miss, as long as Michael try to make a shot in his best effort.
Raymond Liu
Allrighr maybee you’r right,i didnt get what they were saying exactly.
Thx for the explanation
it's all about the miss rule and the discretion the referee can exercise when a player is in a extremely difficult snooker. In the first case the referee should have exercised it but didnt not.
You can know more by reading others' comments.
Raymond Liu
THX
Jones' shot was an outstanding shot. As I understand the rules, if it is impossible to escape a snooker, you have to aim directly at a legal ball with enough pace that you would hit it if there was nothing in the way, and in doing so you avoid the "miss" being called. Fair play to Fu for agreeing it was indeed an impossible escape, although it clearly was, and any ref would see that.
For Jones to not leave an easy red, and get the cue ball to baulk, that was outrageous.
You are correct, but what you describe only apply, when you have to hit a colour. Jones puts a red and then has to put a colour, and then the rule you describe apply :-)
I think jones gained an advantage there. By blatantly hitting the red and aiming the white to the bulk area.
@@enkaan1676 Still Marco can put him back in again as you can do after every foul. Advantage gone.
I know what you mean though. He can chose the lesser evil so to speak if he has the choice between definitely leaving something or having to play a possibly difficult safety next.
@@enkaan1676 every time a player hits a shot in snooker he's trying to 'gain an advantage' while abiding to the rules of the game. Jones did this. What you blathering on about?
2:15 when you are deciding what you want from the chippy
An Barr Buadh
😂
Is that a vending machine?
@@CPR306
The Chippy = A fish and chips shop.
Gauntlet Ah I see :) From the U.S.
😂
I like Holt, he's got a sense of humour.
Great character is Michael.
SavageArfad you mean craic right?
Look like 45 years old crackhead
Very mercurial talent, on his day he can wipe the floor with anyone
Hes a miserable git and never stops moaning
It's funny the ref doesn't explain the rule to Jones in English.
Instead, he explains it to Marco in Cantonese, and then Marco does the translation.
What surprise me is that the ref can speak Cantonese instead of mandarin
I speak fluent Mandarin and what the ref actually said was “yo momma SOOOO fat”!
Theodore Yuen What surprises me is your reckless disregard for grammar when pointing out other people’s mistakes.
Theodore Yuen really?... he prob born and from Hong Kong.
@@farikomike524 Fuk yu
"You're just gonna keep putting it back until I leave him on...that's what the miss rule is for, yeah?" 😂
It's a self inflicted snooker so fair enough.
No it isn't, that's not what the miss rule is. In the event you're in an impossible snooker, there is no miss. The ref and player got that call wrong
@@Buggaton what if the opposing player is then left with a very difficult shot to either pot a red or get the cue ball safe? Bit unfair to be put in that position from an opponent's foul.
PS I'm aware that it's a free ball if you're snookered from a foul.
@@XaviRonaldo0 Good question but I'd say; that player can opt to make his opponent play the next shot. As one can do after any foul. Just not replacing all the balls.
@@XaviRonaldo0 you're supposed to try and leave your opponent in a difficult position 🤦🏻♂️ 😂 as you say you can't snooker someone from a foul but you don't need to make it easy for them.
Is the ref really saying to Holt in the first clip that a miss will be called until he leaves something on for Bingham? If so that shows a complete failure to understand the miss rule by a professional referee...
@richjhart;
Yeah, I believe you are correct- if Holt leaves Bingham with an easy starting red the ref won't call a miss as Holt obviously hasn't gained an advantage by missing.... it would actually be the opposite with Bingham gaining the advantage so to call a miss wouldn't be needed (it is obvious anyway that Holt is trying his hardest to escape, there should be no miss called wherever the white ends up, easy red or not)
The referee didn't say that; Holt did.
I disagree. Holt was the one who messed up in the first place to get himself in that situation, so under no circumstances should Holt be the one to prosper from his next shot, genuine attempt to escape or not. Only if the shot gives the advantage to his opponent (i.e. leaving a red on) should the shot not be called a miss. Otherwise, someone can mess up and still end up with the advantage, which wouldn't be fair.
@@fredjimbob2962 Fairness has nothing to do with the miss rule, and for good reason: There is no independent measure of what is fair or not fair; it is a highly emotive judgement which varies wildly from person to person. Run of the ball is a well understood component of snooker and every player goes into the game knowing it well -- there's no need to try to legislate against it in the rulebook.
@@jonobrow True but there's no independent measure of whether a shot is a genuine attempt, probably even more so. And I agree, a miss should not be called if this was an attempt to escape from a snooker, given the difficulty, but this was a position Holt got himself into which I think is a different situation. To say that your opponent should be put in a difficult situation because of your own mistake would be open to abuse, someone could just commit a foul and leave their opponent with no shot because no miss would be called.
Bad refereeing in the first case "Foul and a miss" being a default response.
Bengt Handlebars some referees are better than others...
I agree, the first referee should never have called a miss
I think it was fair. Bingham didn't have a good shot to play.
@Question Time what if there is no legal shot?
@Question Time just because a rule is the same for everyone doesn't mean the rule isnt bullshit
The ref is correct, its still a miss if the other player ends at a disadvantage after the shot is played. You need to understand, players at that level can play a miss so well, it looks like an attempt on target but with more emphasis on playing it safe. You cant just call a foul because its an “impossible” snooker without calling a miss if the other player ends up at a disadvantage.
This guy here knows whats it is about.
I don't think you can compare both situations identically. Holt was able to hit a cushion without hitting a red as seen in the video while it was impossible for Jones to miss a red from that position. However, both were unable to hit a color either way. I agree with how the situation was addressed by Fu with the referee. It's going to be a foul, inevitably, but a miss should not be given on any sort of attempt to get out of the situation.
Marco was just way too kind to Jamie. It is pretty obvious to see that Jamie did not try his very best to hit any one of color balls. He was just simply trying to get the cueball safe after discussing with Marco. Ref should have called miss.
Every credit to Marco, a true gentleman. Yet, there should be some protocol for referee to not apply any players suggestions before the shot.
It has to be clear that the player is making an attempt to hit the called colour, regardless of what's in the way. The shot Jamie played was perfectly fine, and let's be real, it's nigh impossible to get the cue ball safe and judge x amount of cannons on other reds (and not leave anything on!) but that's more of a case by case argument.
If the referee did call a miss in that scenario, I think Marco would've played on anyway. His word didn't really matter, he was just helping Jamie because the referee could've called it wrong.
Fu is a gentalmen BECAUSE he knows that it is impossible to hit a colour.don’t underestimated jones-he knows exactly the game and shurly doesn’t neglect it
That's more or less it. Basically if it's an impossible escape, you have to strike the cueball hard enough that it would reach your nominated colour were there no balls in the way. It's to stop the situation where a player just taps the white and leaves a stalemate.
Have another watch... literally impossible to hit any colour other than red unless your David Blaine of course
RESPECT Goes to....... MARCO FU!!!
I really hate it when a player asks for the white to put back when the opponent has snookered himself accidentally. I think that's poor sportsmanship what Bingham did. I know that's in the rules but a player should be sporting.
In a situation like this the player should make an attempt to hit a colour, a good way to do it is to act as if there are no red balls blocking a colour and there is a line to hit a ball. Then they play the shot with enough power to hit the colour otherwise a miss is called. This prevents tapping a red gently.
EDIT: a miss shouldn't have been called in my opinion since holt made a clear attempt to hit a colour with no tactical advantages
Exactly. In this situation the only thing to be judged is if the player made something to gain a tactical advantage. And clearly he did not.
That first ref doesn't even know the rules! At least the second one got it right, the player should know the rules though he's supposed to be a professional
It is also a 7 point penalty as he didn't nominate any ball.
@@nightattheoscars No, the ball on is the green they said that at 6:07
@@enumeration Marco Fu suggested the green, Jones didn't say anything thus constituting a foul which incurs a penalty of 7 points as soon as he played the white ball.
@@nightattheoscars You don't actually have to nominate the ball out loud, so long as it is obvious which ball you are going for (imagine there only being the black on the table and you line up a straight shot and the ref says foul because you didn't *say* black). Since they had a discussion with the ref where they decided he would hit it towards the green, the ref knows which ball he is going for.
@@enumeration It was not up to Marco to decide what shot to play for Jones. Jones should have definitely declared to the referee verbally his intended colour. Foul 7 away.
I wish there was commentary. I do not know the rules but I am fascinated by this game.
How interesting. First time I've seen this occur.
How could he call miss for the first shot and then not call it for a similar 2nd shot ?
On the first shot, all the reds were left safe, so the player had effectively gained an advantage. On the second shot they weren't.
This just happened with Anthony McGill and Mark Williams gave him a rerack. What a genuine guy.
That is against the rules. I want a link.
@@noegojimmy the ref can decide to rerack if the frame is going to a dead end
@@MrLGrovesThat is exactly what I am saying, ref can, not players. Also ref will warn players he will restart frame after next round so players could choose to play different shot and continue the frame.
P. S. : read comments carefully. Someone wrote player can rerack...
Also these 2 examples have nothing to do with restarting the frame.
@@noegojimmy but also Bingham is a piece of work. What a disgrace
@@MrLGroves I am totally disappointed in Bingham. Shame.
When the situations like that for michael holt... as long as hes deemed too have made a genuine effort, and hes hit it hard enough too hit the colour he nominated, he shud not be deemed a miss... and bingham deffo shud not av put the ball back either... ref clueless... bingham unsportsmanlike...
It's deemed a miss to be on the safe side when it doesn't leave the opponent with a shot, as it's hard to tell the difference between an intentional foul and snooker and an unintentional one. the reason why it wasn't deemed a miss after the second attempt is because it left Bingham with a shot. The ref is making the right decision.
@@jama211 he wasnt a miss in 1st play... genuine attempt made... and bingham had a shot on after 1st attempt... just not a easy shot... but he cud of still potted a ball... shudnt of been allowed be put back... and bingham shud of used the miss rule in 1st place... unsportsmanlike...
It is my understanding that "foul and a miss" is declared by the referee when there's a realistic possibility of hitting the "on" ball, but in the referee's view the player did not do enough effort to do so. However, I have seen dozens and dozens of times almost impossible snooker situations where it would take almost literally a superhuman feat to get out of it without a foul... yet the referee keeps calling "foul and a miss" again and again, even though the player _very clearly_ is trying his best to not to foul. I never understood that.
What you're missing, is one of two possibilities. Sometimes, it's that it's not about whether there's a realistic possibility of hitting the ball they're going for, but when there's a realistic possibility of hitting any ball on. Sometimes what you're not seeing is there's a slightly easier ball or tactic in the ref's point of view the player could be going for, even off a cushion, but the player doesn't want to go for because it would put their opponent in a poor position, and it's worth the risk of giving your opponent some foul points to attempt to avoid. If they went for the easiest ball on in the refs point of view, it likely wouldn't be a miss if they missed it.
The second possibility, which was why the first shot was called a miss with Bingham, is that It's usually deemed a miss to be on the safe side when it doesn't leave the opponent with a shot, as it's hard to tell the difference between an intentional foul and snooker and an unintentional one.
IIRC the other player is entitled to a foul and a miss if the person takes a shot and fouls. If the player is not snookered from an available ball, after 2 fouls and a miss, the referee will warn him that if he does it a third time, he’ll lose the frame. If he is snookered however, he will not get that warning.
Well, it's one thing if the fouls are a result of a very clever snooker - then I see it as well-earned points to have them repeat a couple of times. The game is, after all, called “Snooker”!
But if a player fluked themselves snookered, then the end-of-break and foul points really should be punishment enough.
He should never have called a miss on Holt, what a joke.
@Question Time the miss rule is for trying to gain an advantage from a foul shot, or for playing it in an advantageous manner. He did neither of those.
@Question Time okay but your question is irrelevant to my point. That isn't how the miss rule is supposed to be applied, and he had no way of determining that that shot would leave him in a better position, as exhibited by the fact that his next attempt didn't.
Also people get in a better position from a foul shot regularly when they pot the white.
@Question Time That is a terrible idea, in impossible situations like this you would have endless resets and the entire frame won with fouls.
@Question Time Not many but thats kind of irrelevant.
@Question Time For 99.9% of the time, it doesn’t matter and the current rules work fine. For the 0.01% of time, we have ref discretion which can sometimes cause a bit of "controversy" in the loosest use of the term. With your way for that 0.01% of the time we will be stuck watching some player give 10000 points away in fouls while the referee will endlessly have to reset the table and the entire audience will want to shoot themselves because of the sheet stupidity they are forced to watch, or alternatively the player stuck in the impossible snooker will have to concede, either way it’s worse than what we currently have, even if what we currently have is not perfect.
Holt could try to catch black by swerving left to the side rail that would have left several pottable reds. Instead, he called green and swerved to the right, there seemed no route. I think the miss call is right in that aspect although the referee didn't mean that.
This is ridiculous, the correct snooker etiquette in this situation is for one of the players to pull their pants down and shit all over the table.
lol
Tough spot because the ref has to judge if it was a good enough attempt to hit a color or if it was just an attempt at leaving the opponent with no shot without really caring about hitting a red
You can't call a miss on a shot like that, it's just a foul. I've seen Bingham in situations like this before - he;'s not a good sport.,
He should have made an attempt on the black instead of the green. That would have been an easier shot, but would have left his opponent with a better setup on a red and would have been a foul of seven instead of four (if he had missed). Had he made that attempt it wouldn't have been a miss.
Bad sports rarely win anything of substance hence Bingham's lack of victories
I think they should just crack open a nice packet of Hob-Nobs and have a good game of soggy biscuit to decide the outcome.
It's the only way...
You’re fucking gross.
You only play soggy biscuit on digestives.
The second situation seemed to be handled much better.
In the first, no way should that have been called foul & miss, and pretty poor from Bingham too (in my opinion) to put Holt back in the same spot.
It was a miss because the black was fairly straightforward to hit and he went for the brown instead
Jones took advantage and made no attempt to even try hitting a colour. should have been called a miss. or should be free ball. Marco was too nice hope he won that match.
The official rules state that if the snooker is impossible the player must nominate a color and hit at it with enough force that the white would reach the object ball if the reds weren't there.
The rule is actually quite simple. If snookered on all balls on, then the striker must hit towards the ball on with the same force as if the snookering ball was not there.
@René Artois yes but that is for the referee to decide if the cue ball was struck with adequate force to reach the ball on!
@RedBeard81 I am happy to see there is at least one other person who watched these clips and understands the proper rule that applies to them. As you said, it really is quite simple. But you would never know that from these comments....there 100 different opinions, 99 of which are incorrect.
richjhart that’s the reason Bingham was right in saying you could have gone for the black = miss
I'd like to see moments like this, where a player is in an impossible to escape snooker, be a frame conceding moment. Give these impossible snookers the value of a checkmate. Adds value to safety shots and raises the skill ceiling.
Agree 100%
The miss-rule is good; its only possible in a Gentleman's game like snooker, though. In many instances, I have seen players who just didnt take the miss even if the ref called it because they knew it was either almost unhittable or a good enough attempt, even if it was a foul. I'm surprised Bingham didnt just continue playing after the first shot.
I think that in the case of having Holt try it once and if there was no way to hit a color, then the next attempt wouldn't be a 'miss'.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the miss rule, but I'll be buggered to within an inch of someone else's life if I can figure out a better way.
As the 1st player showed I'd pass the cue to the ref aswel and love to see them attempt them shots as nothing on at all
Respect ... Marco
The rule is simple: An impossible shot leads to a foul, but it's not a miss!
So they can just play the shot in a way to put their opponent in trouble with no worry of a miss being called?
Should ask the ref "If that is a miss then please tell me how to attempt the shot better so as no to have a miss call?"
I'm still a bit confused about the first shot.
Michael Holt's two efforts were essentially very similar to each other - but produced two outcomes, the first being he didn't leave Stuart on an easy red, and the second being - he did leave Stuart on an easy red. Why did the referee call a miss the first time but not the second time? Surely, the matter of leaving your opponent on a red or not is completely irrelevant to the situation.
What if the same situation occurred with only a few reds on the table, all of which were evidently safe (i.e. tied to each other on cushions)? I honestly feel the referee got it wrong here, along with Stuart's rather odd action of accepting the miss.
Michael Holt played a perfectly good shot the first time, should never have been called a miss
they generally call a miss to easily, its supposed to stop people deliberately not putting full effort into trying to escape and preferring to give up 4 points but leave the cue ball safe.
so the second snooker was fair. However for the first one there was an easier shot going for the black but the result would likely leave an easy shot
Well, these are very interesting situations.
I like what Marco Fu did, that is nice!
The first one is more special, from a referee's perspective.
Had it been one of mine leagu-games, I would have done the same as he did. I understand the question from Holt, but I would also call miss the first time. The reason is; The miss-rule is there to ensure that a player does his best to not disrupt the play. So if a referee thinks that the player COULD do it better, we call miss, and gives the discision to the opponent player.
If the referee belives that the player has done the best possible try to hit the ball, we don't call miss.
So to explain why I think that a "miss" is correct in the first one?; Holt gives it a try, that is fine. But, in order for the referee to let Holt try and find a better shot, he calls a "miss" and tests Holt. When it, after the second attempt, becomes apparent that this shot WAS the best possibility, and that Holt gave his best, the referee only calls foul.
To me, that is very OK done by the referee, and I would have done the same :-)
How disruptive to the game is it....when the referee needs to put all the balls back in their respective spots?
Both snookered guys should have asked the ref to clean the white ball.
How do they not know what to do here? That situation must come up ALL THE TIME.
Miss rule is a joke. Its saying you either hit it or miss and leave your opponent an easy pot. You could one red left on top cushion with white in the D, you miss it by fraction ends up on bottom cushion or back in same place in the D and it would still be called miss. Snooker players are the only sports people who are honest and will call fouls on themselves even whilst effectively giving a frame to an opponent. So 99.99% they are trying to hit the ball. Even when they are snookered and the vastly underhit the ball they are still trying to hit it, they are trying to hit it and stay safe. Understand a miss being called then but not when its so close to the object ball
The ref totally wrong if a snooker is impossible to escape from, the rules says to use enough speed in a direction of the colour you call .
The worst part is that he has to nominate a color. Also the not calling a miss on holts second is the right (judgment) call. The ref believes on the first shot that the ball can be struck, missing the same shot twice indicates that it cant be hit.
In the first case I think the referee is wrong. You can only call out a "Miss" if there is an easier possibility available which was not taken by the player. I would be interested to hear from the referee what this easier solution would have been. At least I don't see any, and I played snooker for decades.
This would make more sense of I had the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I love you Marco.
I give him credit...of all the players in this video, Marco is the ONLY one who knows the Rules of Snooker.
They aren't following the rule properly. You are supposed to aim 'directly' at a colour in a straight line even though you are aiming at the reds. It's a weird rule anyway. I think you have to nominate the colour you are going for.
As a Referee I cannot say what I think about that call, all I can say is that you all should read Section 3 Rule 14 (a) (iii) The rules do cover this situation. (iii) says - a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on, in the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referees opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing balls. N
I disagree with most comments here on the first one. The easiest shot was to play the white off the side cushion with left hand side to come back towards the black. Holt chose a far more difficult shot
Exactly, unless he doesn't nominate the easiest colour, it always has to be a miss.
No matter what the sport, no matter what the laws/rules are ,there comes a time when they go out of the window and simple straightforward commonsense must prevail.....
What was the point of ref calling holt's first attempt and miss when it was so obvious he couldn't get to it.
Surely you just have to forfeit at that point. If all you can do is foul then it's never going to be in your opponent's interest to take the shot on.
I hate when ref's call "Foul & a miss" automatically like a robot without taking the situation into account, they need to use a bit of common sense & not let the miss rule spoil the frame. (Its not as bad as it used to be but some ref's still speak the phrase on every foul like a robot. 😣😡😧
Holt's laugh reminds me of Mickey mouse on South park 😂
Tricky. Bingham is gaming the situation. But Jones might be too - it looked like he was trying to get the white as safe as possible, through as many non-nominated balls as needed. Maybe a new rule is needed?
It did strike me as a touch ungracious.
it's a simple rule , if the escape is impossible you nominate colour and hit the cue ball in a straight line to the nominated ball hard enough to reach it ,foul called no miss
The player has to play towards the object ball with a speed that would have brought the cue ball to the object ball if there were no other balls covering the object ball. Then a miss would not be called.
If, however, in such situation you play the cue ball not towards the object ball, then it would be likely to get a miss ;) he plainly never played the ball towards the object ball so it should have been a miss .
As you said "if there were no other balls covering the object ball". Well what do you call the 2 reds he's stuck between?
JAYZ3O3 you didnt quite understand what he is saying. Read it again, maybe you'll click 🤷🏻♂️
Where is Mark Fu disappeared now a days, he is such a great player.
He had eye surgery about 2 years ago. Ever since then he hasn't been quite the same... Hope he can return to being the great player he can be.
Since his eye surgery he has beaten Ronnie O'Sullivan.
@@Annifloyd ya he was one of them players that could play really well under pressure but only really in the big ones is where he shone most and could have easily won the worlds in 2016
If an escape is absolutely impossible then I really do not know any solution. Perhaps just let the player do what he wants and the ref calls a foul + enough points to the opposing player to mean the player in the predicament would need to pot every ball.
Why was there an issue with the non shooter when the shooter played a bad shot?
This is why the miss rule makes no sense. This is just some BS.
Not to mention the fact that you can get a zillion points in fouls out of a snooker only if you're not in a snookers required situation, which makes no sense.
The miss rule is wrong, I mean if you pot a red, go into the pack and are then completely surrounded by red's like petals on a Daisy🌼 if your opponent is an asshole he could make you foul over and over until you need Snookers?
The proper and correct shot to take was the black from the bottom cushion with a touch of left spin, obviously employing the rest.
Pretty sure the red below the cue ball is covering a shot off the bottom cushion, although I could be wrong.
The only option I see for Holt is to either try a swerve/masse for the black or off the right hand cushion with quite a bit of left hand side.
The miss rule should go, because it's killing snooker. Look at old footage from the 70s and we don't have all this nonsense of shots being played over and over. However, we do need a rule to stop top players getting an advantage from missing, so why not make it a free ball if you miss? Let the game flow and be more fun to watch.
What is the rule on it not being a foul?
He has to touch a colored ball or net the black one, right? It looks tough but not impossible to try for the black in that first shot.
Bingham looks like Wilson Fisk from Daredevil
I think alex higgins would have taken the first shot.
I think he would have escaped from both scenarios, and got a snooker! LEGEND!
EDIT: BUT a bit of a dick personality wise!
Quite funny how everyone seems to know the rules here.. the referees know what they’re doing (most of time)
The 'miss rule' was a really horrible idea with a very simple solution. It's stupid that one impossible snooker can win the frame for you, just keep making your opponent play it until you have enough points. How about, if your opponent commits a foul which leaves a bad position for you, make him or her play it instead. That way they won't purposely fail to escape a snooker in such a way as to leave another snooker or poor position. No need for ugly 'miss rule'.
The foul and a miss is ridiculous. It should only be for clearly intentional misses, that was not one of them
The ref's smile after that doesn't help to believe he genuinely believed that was a miss
I cant help but feel there should be a snooker player not taking part in the tournament on standby that the referee can phone to get their input on whether a situation is impossible to escape or not
That awkward moment when Fu had agreed not to call him a miss but jones played a safety shot. Fuck this gentlemen sport lol....
I'll check the exact wording of the rule later, but I don't see how you can call a miss on the first attempt there.
Having checked the rule, definitely. How in the world is the referee not satisfied he's made a good enough effort.
Where are the commentators to explain what the problem is for those of us who dont understand this game?
If I understand this correctly, in a situation where it is impossible to escape without commiting a snooker, the player has to hit the balls, in such a manner, as to leave an easy shot on for his/her opponent.
Is that correct?
jones played the shot right
Dont quite understand why Holt nominated green twice when it was obvious he cudnt get anywhere near it
To only concede 4 points as opposed to 6 or 7 for nominating pink or black, respectively.
The first one isn't impossible, but it's a one in a hundred shot. Or maybe 20 or 30. And I think, Bingham had the right to ask for a second go. The second one is impossible. There is no escape - you can't even get to a cushion.
He didn't even try in the open side he just choose the red that's not fair
I think Bingham point was that he could have nominated and hit the black. Whether he was correct in that I couldn't tell you but that was his point.
the shot wasn't on, it was impossible to hit without fouling a red
They haven’t a clue
first clip = why was the first one foul and a miss and the second "take" just a foul?
Wasn't there a rule somewhere if the cueball is trapped you nominate the color and hit as if there was no ball interfering and that counts as a fair attempt? Can't quite remember...
Yes. Part of 3.14 Foul and a Miss.
Referee needs to use some initiative and not call the miss...he clearly tried his best to get out of it, could've easily tapped the cue ball or something and left it awkward for Stuart, but he didn't. Similarly, Stuart should have done the decent thing and not taken the miss 🙄
So if the opponent calls a miss then the shot is reset? When does it end if you can't play a shot without fouling? In theory you could make opponent play the same shot till they concede the frame?
In this situation or in general? In the first clip, the ref did not call a miss when he left Bingham on a ball. Also if you are in snookers required stage, a miss cannot be called. The first clip situation should not even have been called a miss, the rules say if you are in this situation all you have to do is hit the cue ball towards a colour with sufficient power.
In general, the ref should only call a miss if he believes your skill is enough that you should be able to make the shot without fouling. If you have taken 10 serious shots and missed them all, they might reconsider and let you off only missing by 1mm.
Looks like an H2O molecule 😂
Ref should know that you play towards a nominated ball at a pace that would reach said ball in an impossible to hit situation.
Couldn't both cases have been possible with some side and a cushion? The first situation it looks like he could have gone off the black cushion with some left spin and hit the black. The second situation it looks like he could have gone off the right cushion with some right spin and hit the black, although he might have to go off the black cushion also to get around the red.
the referee should not be refereeing if he doesnt know the rules . the rules are simple . if you dont go directly towards the object ball then it is a miss .
In first clip, maybe must play black ball from black cusion.
The first is bad because he automatically called a miss when he clearly should not have.
The second is bad because without nominating a color first, the foul should have been worth 7 points as per the rule book.
Ali Carter’s should have been called a miss...he intentionally missed in a way where he was getting the ball safe.
Ali Carter wasn't in this video
Super unsportsmanship from Jones !!! God damn,if u make a mistake and get in a situation like that,he should have at least tried to get out from the right side even if it's impossible. Instead he played it "safe" actually trying to get white to safety... Just my opinion,but miss should be called at least as long as there's,let's say 90% sure ball ready?
If we're going to have the miss rule it needs to be called a miss every time, not according to the judgement of the ref. If you really just can't hit the object you simply have to leave your opponent a shot he will take and hope he screws up later down the road. I think a better rule would be that on ANY foul your opponent has the option to hand the shot back to you and make you take it.
Jones could have tried the old, "Oh my gosh everyone look up there" then played the shot.