Snooker - Was that a foul or not? (Snooker Tournament 2009 - 27.04.09)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- I'm referring to the second one, since the ref states it didn't leave the table. Contraversial.
The match was a second round match between Mark Selby and Graeme Dott.
(C) BBC 2009
why didn't Dott just pot the cue ball as a sign of fair play? Selby woulda gotten his 4 points back and would be allowed to play the shot he was originally going to
Because it would have been a miss as Dott could hit a red. He would of had to of pot cue ball twice to give Selby the 4 points back as once would make it level then he'd be forced to hit a red on the 3rd shot anyway or he would lose the frame if he played 3 misses.
+goldenkoi23 Yes it would be a miss, so what? Selby wouldn't take the miss obviously and would play with the original option of ball in hand. And the scores would be fair too, as Selby received 4 points for the original foul from Dott. So the 4 points he gave to Dott accidently would be given back to him by Dott potting the cue ball. Would have been the only correct thing to do in my opinion.
+Sean Borg I think he should have just touched the cue ball with his hand giving a foul and returning play to selby?
I'm not too sure but I think an intentional foul is not allowed and forfeits the frame. I could be wrong but I think that's what happens if you make an intentional foul.
+stephen collins An intentional foul is exactly what Dott did though.
Also, the ref did not purposefully mislead Selby, since he is not allowed to advise a player if he believes they are about to foul.
he also didnt say its not ball in hand.
@@coltino99 if Selby had asked before he took his shot, then he would have told him. It's like saying if a player pots a red, then goes for another red, the referee cannot tell him he will commit a foul and that he needs to hit a colour
I think thats why Reflees are telling "foul and miss"
That referee doesn't like Selby. If that wasn't a ball in hand should it be a free ball. He didn't say anything only because he wants Selby to make that foul.
It might not be a free ball but the referee should at least checked if it was a free ball.
Dott should have just pott the white and be done with it.
Mike S as I understand it a deliberate foul the player should lose the the frame,so apply this rule to both of them and see how it works then.,well the ref want to stick to the letter or the law,if he pots the white he loses.
He could have taken the ball in hand and then called a foul on himself for accidentally touching the yellow while resting his left hand on the cushion with the cue ball in near the yellow while considering his next shot. This would have given Selby his four points back and ball in hand himself as it should have been.
I agree. Areshole move by Graham to play his shot. He should have just potted the white. Dott gained an advantage by stopping the white going in off!
If Dott had of deliberately fouled, the ref could decide that he has forfeited the frame.
Surely that was a deliberate foul? He stopped the white going in the pocket. How was that not deliberate?
Faults-
Dott 1: Shouldn't have petulantly knocked the ball back out from the pocket. Intentional foul.
Selby: Should have asked the referee if it was ball-in-hand (and that's if there's anything at all wrong with what he did here - I think he's completely blameless here).
Chamberlain: Shouldn't have acted like a smartarse and revel in the situation as he seemed to. Discretion is supposed to be used in order to keep it at a level playing field, not to shit-stir. Prat.
Dott 2: Should have directly potted the cue ball as an act of gentlemanly conduct to restore Selby to the position he should have been in after Dott went in-off. Poor sportsmanship.
Don't think you are allowed to deliberately foul in snooker thought mate? He might've lost the whole frame if he did, although having said that Dott initially stopping the ball going into the corner pocket with his hand could technically cost him the frame also?
I think it's only fair that Wilt explains his decision to the players. Nothing smartarse-like here. Graeme Dott was the donk in this situation - twice.
@@andymerrett aye it was just a bit petulance from Dott here, just like the commentator says its something you'd do in the club, I know I've done it before.
I agree Selby should have asked but being i have played snooker most of my life i would have done the same and thought i could put the ball in the D as a situation as never happened before so even the players dont know the full rule, i disagree, the ref had every right to continue with his ruling as its the rule no matter how extraordinary, the only dick here was Dott.
You can deliberately foul ronny was fouling on purpose potting greens when on a red in one game
Dott should have potted the white at the very least.
The Gentleman way to deal with this yes, you're correct.
The guy Selby & Dott talk to at 1:17 has been at every single session in the World Championship this year so far, in exactly the same seat. Now THAT'S dedication.
Dott should have fouled on purpose when he realised what had happened.
nonsense
@@snookerref100 Why?
I think the foul at 3:12 was deliberate. But I think he didn't want to make it obvious.
Note: in 2014, the WPBSA amended the rule so that intentionally moving a ball by hand (as Dott did) is defined to have forced it off the table. Loophole: intentionally moving a ball by foot (lol)
But again that could lead to problems. It may be that your opponent is faced with a more difficult shot if the cue ball has to return the D, than if it remained where it was when you moved the ball by hand.
So can I concede 4 points to my opponent and force them to play from the jaws of the pocket as long as I stop the ball from going in with my hand as opposed to giving them the better position of playing from the D?
I assume so but that's why the rule is in place that the fouled player can always let the opponent play on so in this instance, Dott would've had to play from the jaws of the pocket.
No. Your opponent can force you to play from the resulting position.
Under current rules, your opponent could take cue ball in hand from the D, since intentionally moving the cue ball with your hand is now considered the same as having sent it off the table.
Yes, technically you can.
The referee is actually in the wrong here technically as well. If a player intentionally fouls outside of the context of a legal shot i.e. moving a ball with your hand then they forfeit the frame
It's something we all do at the local club tables playing with friends, and I understand it saves a little bit of time, but at a match like this procedure must be followed. Should have let the cue ball fall into the pocket.
I've never seen it done before!
1. Foul, Selby 4 because Dott touched the cueball. = Right decision
2. Foul, Dott 4 because Selby touched the cueball ( The cueball never left the table, so it isn´t Ball in hand) = Right decision
3. Ball in Hand for Dott = Wrong decision, because the cueball never left the table, during Selby touched it. Selby didn´t take the ball in his hand, he touched it. The Cueball was still on the table, all time. The right decision in this situation were that the cueball stays on the position and dott is the striker.
The cue ball does actually leave the table when he knocks it away from the pocket
+Moritz Menzel I would of taken Dott's deliberate foul as a frame concession.
Looks like Selby picked the ball up ever so slightly when he moved it, so I'd say #3 was also a correct decision. The main problem here is Dott's unprofessional behaviour and rules that didn't cater for this particular situation.
Dott's stopping the ball entering the pocket with his hand prevented Selby having a shot he would have preferred and been entitled to instead- so assuming the referee was correctly interpreting the rules, then the rule is at fault, effectively allowing players to ensure the ball ends up where it will be more difficult for their opponent. What would prevent them intercepting the ball in other circumstances too? Snooker would become a farce. It seems to me unfair on Selby.
+mizofan there is the rule, that after a fault, you are allowed to let your opponent play the shot. So if your opponent are making a fault (deliberately or not) which leads to a difficult cueing, you can give back the opportunity to your opponent to make a shot. No faul and a MISS is needed.
there is something called " again"
But the fact is that putting your opponent back in may be less advantageous than having the opportunity to play from in-hand. So mizofan is correct - a person about to go in-off can stick his hand over the pocket to prevent the cue ball going in, knowing that his opponent won't get a chance to play from in-hand. The fact that the opponent can put the offender back in again does not seem to me to be adequate remedy in these circumstances.
@@RogerJJSmith Ye it seems like there is no disadvantages but plenty of advantages when doing this
When the ball hit Dott's hand, the ball jumped leaving the bed of the table... technically the ref was wrong.
Yes, I can understand that and it did seem like the cue ball ‘jumped’ as it hit Dott’s fist as it was about to enter the pocket but at the end of the day, Dott shouldn’t have done what he did, so the referee was correct to ensure fairness to both players and the commentator even said that Dott was wrong and that caused the controversy.
Alan Chamberlain was professional and did what was right
@@chillired5389 right? no it wasn't right. they can use discretion and if you want to go by the rules. the fact dot moved the ball with his hand (twice) while ball is in motion means he's forfeited the game, so he throws the book at selby but doesn't at dott
This rule is effectively an incentive for players to always knock the cue ball if it's heading towards a pocket. Even better, you can take the ball in hand and place it wherever you'd like - it's a 4-point foul either way.
+Edan Coll After any foul you can ask your opponent to play again - so no good putting the cue ball in a difficult place!
Better though to put it in a more difficult place than allowing ball in hand but not making it so difficult that the opponent is likely to hand it back to you.
If the ref thinks it's an intentional foul to gain advantage he can award the opponent the frame.
But if the player who fouled put the white ball into a difficult position for the other player, the other player would just put him in again.
I'd laugh in their face and either get a free ball or put them back in.
I have watched both of these player's careers and it's an absolute disgrace, firstly by Dott behaving like an amateur and secondly, for him not purposely fouling to give the shot back to Selby. Extremely disappointed in the behaviour shown here. No fair play shown by Dott.
i think u r talking nonsense
Technically the ball did leave the bed of the table when Dott gave it a nudge, the cue ball bounced so ref is wrong
+HACKERHITMARKER333 No, to leave the bed of the table means to finish up off the bed of table: e.g; in a pocket or on the floor. Just bouncing or what Dott did doesn't count.
+lsbrother Then why did the referee say that the cue ball left the bed of the table when Mark Selby slid it and moved it inside the D? Even though it's not supposed to be a ball in hand as it never left the bed of the table.
+Smoke Nandos Well not entirely sure, but Dott pushed the ball back from the pocket and it didn't leave the bed whereas Selby picked it right up.
lsbrother Selby didn't pick it up, he slid it. Dott pushed the ball back from the pocket and it bounced which means that it left the bed of the table as for a few milliseconds the ball wasn't on the table.
+Smoke Nandos I think you're right! They seem to have modified the rule now - possibly to account for this confusion:
"A ball is 'forced off the table' if it comes to rest other than on the bed of the table or in a pocket, or if it is picked up by the striker, or intentionally moved by hand whilst it is in play ...."
So both Dott and Selby forced the ball off the table !
That man at 1:20 has always been at the crucible at the same seat (I even saw him yesterday).
+Smoke Nandos yeah, who is that guy?
Probably some special WSC fan that comes every year until he dies
His name is Brian Wright, he's been the last 22 years or so, alwyays wearing a Coventry top and I think he proposed to his girlfriend live there one year
How do you who he is?
correct
So now everyone can just stop the cue ball from dropping and leaving the other player with a harder shot ?
It was still called a foul and opponent (Selby) then may request the player to strike again (like a miss, but without repositioning the balls).
In extension to what ZorbaTheDutch says, the referee can also call a lost game, if a player disrespects the game. So if a player does that repeatly, the ref can disqualify him...
Most comments on this video are way off track. What Dott did was exactly the same as if you play a shot with the rest and you don't move it away in time and it's struck with the cue ball. Or... You accidentally drop your cue during a shot and strike the object balls with it. Maybe the ruling by the referee is clearer now, but in saying that, Dott should have just let the cue ball foul in off to spare any misunderstanding.
The rule has now been changed. However, Alan Chamberlain was technically correct at the time. He couldn't warn mark not to pick it up as the rules state that a referee may not tell a player when he is about to foul. Referees will always be on a loser. If you go by the book - you are wrong - if you use your discretion - we get blasted for not applying the rule book.
"Because the ball left the bed of the table when he lifted if" selby never picked the ball up from the bed of the table he just slid it along...
+Paul Masterton Now that IS interesting. Yes, as you said, Selby did NOT pick up the cue ball so is it still a foul. Get the rule books out folks!! Good call!
+Mrphilharmonic Yes it's still a foul but Graham should not have been able to then have ball in hand because the ball never left table when Selby moved it. He should have had to play it from where it was like Selby was supposed to after Graham knocked it away from pocket.
+David Winter carry on watching dip shit
you like it up the ass?
Paul Masterton ooh yes please baby lol
Isn’t it a double foul from Dott when he knuckles it twice?
Is there such a thing as double foul?
humm... so i can move the cue ball to the place close to a red ball whenever I want, and only be given a foul?? then my opponent has to play at that place even it's not a good position.
That’s a very good point. There should be a more severe points loss and intervention from the ref.
This should obviously have been called under judge's discretion, in that he saw that the ball was obviously going into the pocket, and the original shooter deliberately stuck his hand down and kept it from going in. The key fact is "deliberate" vs "unintentional," but in any case any result that occurs should benefit the incoming shooter, not he original shooter.
Frankly, if they are going to be literal, then they may as well go the whole route and say that if a player deliberately interferes with the movement of any ball, he forfeits the frame. While holding one's hand in the pocket to catch or block the ball from going into a pocket may be considerate in casual play, for an official play, such a rule should be implemented.
I would have given Selby the frame as a concession of the frame
Actually the ball *did* leave the table when the first foul was committed if you look closely. So the ruling is incorrect if that's the basis.
And to top it off,Mark slided the bal when he positioned it so it didnt leave the bed of the table. The ref was in fact technically wrong in BOTH occations
Graeme is at fault for not allowing the cue ball to enter the pocket. Mark is at fault for picking up the cue ball. What most people don't understand is that the referee cannot tell Mark he is about to foul - the clue was that he never picked the white up off the table to declare a ball in hand, which he did for Graeme's shot. Graeme, knowing he was at fault, should really have smashed the cue ball straight into the pocket to give Mark his 4 point foul and ball in hand. Actually playing the shot was really bad sportsmanship.
So as bad as it looks for the referee, there wasn't much he could really do in that situation.
Daniel McCrae there's plenty he could do. He don't have to be smart ass trying to prove that he knows the rules. He could have just not said anything and let Selby play from hand. Does a referee really have to apply the rules so rigorously in every situation. In my opinion no
"Does a referee really have to apply the rules so rigorously in every situation."
Yes. That's his job. Enforcing the rules. Chamberlain did the only correct thing here. One might even argue about whether Graeme's move was to be taken as a frame concession.
Selby didn't pick up the cue ball though and it never left the table, so why then did the referee give Dott the ball in hand?
If the referee is saying Selby shouldn't have had the ball in hand if the cue ball never left the table when Dott stopped it going into the pocket, then he should be saying the same when Selby slid it to where he wanted to play the shot and if he's calling a foul for that, then Dott should have had to play it from where Selby left it and not via the referee giving it to him ball in hand.
Seems to me that the referee contradicted his own ruling on the second call compared to the first.
It's hard to see what Selby did, he has his fingers around the ball, it could have been a few millimetres off the table when he moved it.The ref may well be completely correct here.
+ZorbaTheDutch - The thing is though, even if the ball did leave the bed of the table by a few millimetres after Selby pushed/slid it into place, from where the referee was standing he wouldn't have been able to tell if that was the case anyway.
Leaving aside that it seemed more likely that the rebounding of the moving cue ball from Dott's fist was more likely to see it jump a fraction and leave the bed of the table by a few millimetres (albeit that the referee might not see that either) I'm sure he was just waiting for Selby to slide the cue ball in so that he could call the foul.
This particular referee likes to put himself in the limelight and in another match refused to clean a ball that Selby asked him to and I don't get what he found so amusing about this incident here, unless it's because he enjoyed the attention over the controversy. He tried to be a bit too clever here though and got it wrong.
I bet you a pound to a penny too that if Selby had put Dott back in, then Dott would have slid the cue ball into the D too. Plus what if Dott knocked the cue ball behind the green so that Selby was snookered on every red, would he have had to play it from where it came to rest? Or if the answer would be to put Dott in again, I'm sure he would have played the cue ball from hand and moved it then too.
The Ref was right the ball didn't leave the bed of the table, until Mark lifted it. Great call Mr Chamberlain
Well, IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY the ball actually left the table when Dott pushed it out of the pocket (there was a small jump). But the referee was too eager to show his knowledge of the other rule (that didn't apply to the situation) so he didn't notice it.
Can't believe Graeme Dott accepted it and didn't give back a foul!
Ref was absolutely right to call both fouls. Selby should have known the rules.
The referee should have used a bit of descretion and not said anything when Selby moved the white. If taking the rules to that extreme then what Dott did was effectively conceding a frame by touching a ball before it went into a pocket.
The ball does leave the table when he knocks it away from the pocket
David Jones how ?
"A ball is forced off the table if it comes to rest other than on the bed of the
table or in a pocket, or if it is picked up by the striker whilst it is in play."
But as I said in the first post, at the time this match was being played, Chamberlain was quite right in how he interpreted the rule. I know it wasn't right to Mark, but subtle differences are being introduced to make the game fairer.
I recently wrote to WPBSA to define the rule for 'a concession'. Does someone who unscrews his cue mean that he is conceding? nothing is stated in detail, and as a ref, I have had one or two hairy incidents concerning concessions.
I don't understand the decision by the referee. Dott made a shot where the white would have gone into the green pocket and would have been replayed by Selby from the D. But Dott foresaw the scratch and held his hand so that the ref would not have to take the ball out of the pocket.
That ball had to be replayed from the D. It should be played from its ending spot only if the fault was not a scratch, but that cue scratched. Am I getting anything wrong?
this is the same ref that refused to clean the cue ball for someone once, cuz he had cleaned it a couple shots back!
+Ben Richards Yes, for Selby. :D I
it was a red ball he refused 2 clean mate its on you tube as well. can someone explin 2 me what happened in this vid tho? the rule i mean?
+David Winter You get foul and ball in hand only when the cue ball leaves the bed of the table. Dott pushed the white with his hand and didn't let it drop in the pocket, so it never left the bed of the table. That's why Selby didn't have ball in hand, only foul. He didn't realise that and moved it with his hand which is a foul. And here comes the confusing part - perhaps the referee thought Selby lifted the cue ball while moving it (which means it left the bed of the table), so he gave Dott foul and ball in hand. But if you watch it carefully, you'll see Mark just pushed it the same way Dott did and didn't lift it. A mistake from Allen Chamberlain IMO.
I think you're right there.
@@Henman5 But if you watch it even more carefully you can see when dott bumbed the cue ball it actually jumped just the slightest and mark's touch obviously didn't jump at all.
HUGE HUGE flaw in the rules. Selby should have been awarded the frame as soon as Dott stopped the ball. Otherwise, If you're going to leave your opponent with an easy sitter, you can just knock the ball to somewhere safe and the other player has to play it from the new awkward place.
Why did Chamberlain award the frame to Joe Perry when Ronnie knocked the moving cue ball with his cue after missing in another match? Why didn't he just let perry play on? A lot of rules in snooker need seriouswork
@pmanngw
That is a major loophole in the rules. But yes, everything you just said is correct. I think they need to look into that rule. In fairness, I don't think a player would do that, because snooker is a very sporting game.
There was a similar incident at the 2010 Masters. Maguire blocked the white with his hand, and a split second later, he obviously remembered this incident, so he quickly picked the white up, to make sure it did leave the table and give his opponent ball in hand.
deliberate fowl, so should this forfeit the frame by concession?
@kranser it is not a question of whether or not it actually left the table.
As soon as Selby held the white in his hand, Dott gets ball in hand, whether or not the white actually leaves the table.
The ref was wrong here, he shouldn’t have penalised Selby. He’s not as clever as he thinks.
Doty touched it twice , so it should been called a foul twice in favour of Shelby
Section 2 Rule 14. Forced Off the Table
A ball is forced off the table if it comes to rest other than on the playing area or in a pocket. A ball is also forced off the table if it is moved or picked up by the striker as described in Section 3 Rule 16.
The cue-ball is in-hand:
(iii) when it has been forced off the table;
@maxyeung No, because if a player takes hold of the ball and moves it, like Selby did, it counts as the ball having left the table. In which case, the opponent is awarded ball-in-hand.
Which, according to rules as they were then, the Ref could not do that. Due to this incident, the rule has now been changed. If the ball is obviously going into the pocket when it is stopped by the striker, referees may now put the ball where they think it would have finished before being impeded - ie in the pocket - hence refs can now allow the ball to be 'in hand' to the incoming player. We are still looking at about 4 other rules to see if they can be better applied
Thanks for the response. I was confused because the ref talks about "lifting the ball" and "left the bed of the table", when it never did. But I understand that moving it with your hand brings about the same result.
@bobnoggin It's not a case of whether or not the ball physically leaves the table. Dott only knocked the ball, but Selby actually held it and moved it, which technically counts as the ball leaving the table. In terms of the rules, the referee is absolutely right.
Selby didnt actually pick up the que ball, he dragged it on the cloth to a new position.
@SavageArfad exactly
it's still a foul. When the other player has committed a foul you have play the cue ball from where it ends up (unless it's a foul and a miss) or you can ask your opponent from where the cue ball ends up
Omg saying cloth is Just cringey
@@jamie.mcevoy cloth
@adp1070 It's not a case of whether or not it left the table physically. The ref was correct. The rule is, Selby took hold of the white, when he wasnt allowed to, which gives your opponent ball in hand, whether or not you actually lifted it.
Your other comment: Yes Dott touched it twice, but you can't foul twice in the same shot.
Like when a player pots the black and sends the white into a pack of reds. If one of the reds goes in, its a 7 point foul, but if 2 go in, its still 7 points.
If I was Dott, I would of re-potted the cue ball out of courtesy, so Selby could have ball in hand again
@Patrick Names ok you middleclass nonce case. Gel on.
@pmanngw
That doesn't make a difference. The rule is, Selby held the white in his hand, and moved it. If a player does that when he's not allowed to, the rules say it has left the table, even if it didn't physically leave the table.
The difference between what Dott did and what Selby did, is this - Dott did not hold it, he only touched it, but Selby held it and moved it.
The referee is absolutely correct.
If you watch carefully, the ref claims that cue ball never left the bed of the table when Dott nudged the cue ball, when infact it did jump slightly. To the contrary, Selby slided the ball over. He didn't lift it as the referee claims.
Sure, touching it without verifying it was ball in hand wasn't the best move on selby's part, but the ball didn't leave the bed of the table with selby either so it was a bad call to award ball in hand to Dott.
The only thing I don't like about this is if the ref is correct on his judgement then what's to say you couldn't do that all the time to avoid giving ball in hand. its either a bad rule or a bad judgement. Imo Selby done nothing wrong. He done what any other player would have done picking it up.
@the147break If a player picks the white ball up when he's not allowed to, like Selby did, it counts as the ball leaving the table. So before Selby moved it, it had not left the table, but when Selby moved it, it DID leave the table, so Dott has ball-in-hand.
i do have 1 specific question. My Dad and i were playing snooker today and we had a disagreement about something. All of the reds had been played so all that was left were the colored balls . It was my dad's turn to start playing the color sequence so he sank the yellow, then the green, then he mis-hit the brown ball (which stayed on the table) but the black ball went in the pocket , thus him losing 7 points . But the issue here is , he wanted to take the black ball out of the pocket and put it back on the table since it wasn't the ball that was supposed to be sunk next (in order). I told him No No leave that black in the pocket. The only time that you take the colored balls out of the pockets are after you have played a red ball and there are no red balls left . He argued that after he started the color ball sequence of yellow and green , then since he accidentally got the black ball to sink in the pocket , that he could put it back on the table. So who is right? My view is you can only take the colored balls out after sinking a red. Period.
You're wrong.
4 years late to reply but the coloured balls still to be potted if done so accidentally always come back to the table. There's scoring potential issues otherwise as you've removed the opportunity for the other player to score that 7 that he might have needed to win the frame.
@slug182
Because,
When Selby held the white in his hand, that counts as the ball leaving the table. The difference is, Dott only touched it, but Selby actually held it and moved it.
As you can hear on the video,
Dott: You said Mark's fouled, but then you've lifted the white
Ref: Because the ball has left the bed of the table, when HE lifted it.
What is supposed to be controversial here? 100% correct call. Yes, the cue ball would have left the table, but what would have been isn't being taken into consideration. It doesn't make any difference whether this occurs an inch away from the pocket or, say, near the blue spot. Mark wasn't misled, it was a lapse of concentration. Oh and a donk move by Graeme Dott, that's all there is to it.
Of course Graeme could have potted the cue ball to make up for his error. Ref calls a miss, Mark doesn't take it, places the ball in the D and the game goes on from there.
Smart play by Dottie, making his opponent look like a fool. He went on to clean the table, win the frame and the match. Dottie knows the business and loves shenanigans, that's for sure.
Not at all. The fair thing to do would have been for Dott to pot the white with his next shot and leave Selby in the original position he would have been in if Dott hadn't stopped the cue ball going in the pocket.
Instead he exposed himself as a sneaky, cheating little prick.
@@FlameFlickers Dottie plays to win and he knows what's best. He always had a competitive attitude. The mindset of a champion!
@@fabianstoehr5909 Rules lawyering has never been, is not, and will never be in the mindset of a champion. It’s in the mindset of someone weak who knows they are not really good enough. Not saying that’s what Dott was doing here only that your idea of what a champion mindset is, is just wrong.
It is not a question of whether or not the ball physically leaves the table.
Selby took hold of the ball when he wasn't allowed to. If you do that, the ball is ruled to have left the table, and Dott rightly gets ball in hand.
When play was returned to Dott, he should have lifted the white off the table and put it on the floor. Selby would had the ball in hand and he would have his 4 points again. Very unsporting from Dott. Also, he should know that putting in hand in the pocket to stop the cue ball from going in is technically wrong in professional snooker. He’s not down in his local playing a game of pool.
as I've said before if this is the rule then when your opponent is in prime position then you could just fick the white to a safe position halfway through his break=no snooker
If the ref decided called a foul for Dott deliberately moving or obstructing any ball on the bed of the table, cue ball or not, the ref should have awarded the frame to Selby. By not doing so he indicated he recognised the in-off and Selby therefore was correct to move the cue ball into the D, ideally the ref should have picked it up and placed it on the back cushion or handed it to the player. The ref could have equally called a foul if Selby played from where the ball landed, and the frame should have definitely been could if the cue ball have interfered with any other ball e.g. rolled into the green.
Since Selby fouled by picking up the white, Dott would have had the option to put Selby back in; effectively taking the shot he thought he was about to play anyway (albeit having forfeited 4 points)
Yes, he should have put Selby back in.
@chad6258 agreed... i would have done that myself. But then there is the deliberate foul rule where the referee can award the remaining value of the balls on the table ( or the frame ) to the opponent if you were to deliberately knock in the cueball. Given what happened here Chamberlain would have probably done just that
Does this all mean that it's perfectly okay to stop the ball with your hand for tactical reasons so that it doesn't land in the pocket?
There are quite a few people on here getting at the referee on this one. He did nothing wrong. Dott prevented the ball from going in the pocket, which is correctly called as a foul. Selby assumed he would have ball in hand and moves the cue ball accordingly, which is also a foul, and is correctly called as such. Selby is confused as to why, and the referee explains why. Dott's initial action is a little childish; it's the sort of thing you might do when you're playing your mate at a game of pool in the pub, but it's not what you should be doing in a professional tournament. However, Selby not knowing the rule (albeit a very unusual rule) is not the referee's fault. For those suggesting Dott should have simply potted the cue ball, it probably didn't occur to him at the time, having been a little embarrassed by his own behaviour and being in a high pressure match. In addition, a deliberate foul can cost a player the frame, as the referee has the discretion to award it against him.
Did Selby actually lift the cue ball from the bed of the table, as Chamberlain alleged? Or did he just drag it along the bed?
No,he just slided it.
@mrPidgeon No, you've got that wrong.
However pedantic, the referee is right.
It's not a question of whether the ball physically left the table.
The point is, even though Selby was only sliding the white, he did take hold of it. If a player takes hold of the white when he's not allowed to, the opponent gets ball in hand.
The difference is, Dott only knocked it, but Selby actually took hold of it.
A strange rule, I know, but the referee was 100% correct.
I highly doubt it was the intention of Dott to not allow Selby a shot of choice. Even he wouldn't have thought the ref would give such a decision.
People really shouldn't be talking about Alan Chamberlain as if he's some kind of pub pool referee who's biased towards the top players. He's one of the best referees in the game, he's refereed a Crucible final, he's been refereeing at the top level of snooker for nearly 30 years, and in terms of the rules, he did absolutely nothing wrong in this case. It's just that some referees are stricter than others in terms of applying the rules in black and white.
that should be considered a deliberate foul and therefore mark Selby should have won the frame.
I think it's clear that the white 'didn't leave the bed of the table' when Graeme used his fist to prevent it going in the pocket, but when Mark moves the white at 0:32 it also doesn't seem to leave the bed of the table, as he just pushes it along the cloth.
Then, at 0:57 we see the referee picking up the white and placing it against the top cushion for Graeme to have it 'in hand', then at 1:32 the referee says that Mark did lift the ball from the table.
The commentator is definitely wrong when he suggests that the referee should have explained the position to Mark before he moved the ball, as the rules state the referee should not notify a player if they are about to commit a foul.
@scrumpymanjack Agreed about Dott. But no, the ref did not break the rules. Even if Selby didn't actually lift the ball off the table, he held it in the control of his hand and moved it. By doing that, he gives his opponent ball-in-hand. The difference is that Dott only knocked it, but Selby actually controlled it, even if he didn't actually lift it.
Why could Dott get to move the white ball? The referee said it was because Selby lifted the ball from the table. He didn't - he pushed it and it never left contact with the bed of the table. I declare a rematch.
It appears the ball slightly jumps when it hits his hand so it actually left the bed of the table then.🤔
@athull08
Selby didn't lift the ball. Watch it carefully, the ball doesn't leave the table, he slides it along the cloth.
There's your reply!!
I think when Mark Selby sat the cue ball down and was called for a foul the next shot should have been were Mark set it and the referee was wrong to pick it up and let Dott play from in hand
Section 2, rule 14.
14. Forced off the table
A ball is forced off the table if it comes to rest other than on the bed of the table or in a pocket, or if it is picked up by the striker, whilst it is in play except as provided for in Section 3 Rule 14(h).
Section 3, Rule 14.
Foul and a Miss.
--
(h) During such consultation, if either player should touch any ball in play, he shall be penalised as if he were the striker, without affecting the order of play. The ball touched shall be replaced by the referee, to his satisfaction, if necessary, even if it was picked up.
Mark Selby picked the ball up, so it was forced off the table, and thus it was ball-in-hand for Dott
Why do people keep asking why Dott was given ball in hand? That's answered in the video.
Dott to ref: "You're saying Mark's fouled, but then YOU'VE lifted the white up"
Ref to Dott: "Because the ball has left the bed of the table when HE (Selby) lifted it"
There's your answer!!!
@killercabbage1 because that's the rules. He explained that. "Because the ball has left the bed of the table when HE (selby) lifted it"
Everyone on here saying Dott should have fouled on purpose as a gentleman and restored play to Selby. Ever stop to think that's maybe what he did at 3:20?
Well strictly by the rules, of course it was a foul...
But a) the referee could have informed Selby it wasn't ball in hand and b) (correct me if I'm wrong) the referee always has the "ability" to supersede rules to maintain a fair game.
Wrong twice.
The ref is NOT allowed to inform a player that they're about to commit a foul. The player may ask the referee though. And no, the rules can't be superseded.
Yes actually the referee can supersede the written letter of the rule to uphold the spirit of the rule, in their opinion. I just watched a video on it actually haha.
What I don't understand, and what could have prevented the whole issue: why wasn't Chamberlain positioning himself behind the white to see if it was a free ball from where Dott's foul had left it? Looked very much like a free ball to me (doesn't look like Selby could hit the outermost edge on both sides of any reds). If Chamberlain had done his job properly there, Selby might have realised the ball was to played from where it was and he'd have known he could nominate a free ball rather than play off the reds.
It was a foul from Dott, the ref awarded 4 points to Selby. The issue is when he called Selby picking the ball up as a foul. The ref was spot on, though a tad pedantic
Sorry, after watching again I have to correct mysefl, Selby also did not obviously picked it up, yet he touched the ball with his hand and took control of it. You can look on comments below, Tom Wright explains it there pretty well.
the ball didn't leave the table when the second player moved it either
Dott stopped the cue ball with his hand and then hits it with his knuckles so an obvious foul. Selby had to play from where the cue ball ended up. Because Selby moved it with his hand, it is another foul, but because he's moved it from where it was with his hand, the ball is considered to have left the bed of the table as the ref explained. The difference between his and Dott's foul is Dott touched the cue ball twice rather than once. He is entirely to blame for his situation. he treated it like he was playing the club with his mates but should've treated it with more respect.
I'll give you another example. I hit a red which is the ball on and I know the cue ball is going in the pocket. I hit the cue ball and send it around the table. You can't just then pick it up or even slide it along the cloth and move it to the D. That's what the ref meant. Even the commentators have acknowledged by the rules of the game he was right but was too strict in his spproach in applying them
@@rs-qt1qg the difference between the two fouls is that Dott touched the ball twice? so if Dott had only bumped the ball away from the pocket once, Selby would have been granted ball in hand? does that mean if I see the cue heading for the pocket I can avoid giving the other player ball in hand by making sure I bump the ball _twice_ not once? not only is that rule asinine, i'd like to see if you can cite a source for it as well, that's not what the ref said, the ref said Selby didn't get ball in hand because the ball didn't leave the table, so you say the ball is "considered" to have left the table because Selby moved the ball with his fingertips rather than his knuckles? so can I move the ball to anywhere I like on the table without giving my opponent ball in hand by using my knuckles, and being sure to touch the ball more than once? you're not really convincing me that these rules makes any sense here guy
@@robmckennie4203 ok let me explain this another way. What the ref is saying if the cue ball went into the pocket the cue ball has left the bed of the table. Dott prevented that from happening, so the ball didn't leave the bed of table, so it was not ball in hand
The act of Selby moving the ball to the D from where it finished is a foul and considered to have left the bed of the table, which is what the referee was saying. I quote from the actual WPBSA rules:
"A ball is forced off the table if it comes to rest other than on the bed of the
table or in a pocket, or if it is picked up by the striker, or intentionally moved by
hand whilst it is in play except as provided for in Section 3 Rule 14(g)."
The commentators are right that given the situation, the referee should have exercised discretion.
@@rs-qt1qg okay, that does make sense, but did dott not break that exact rule by bumping the ball away from the pocket, thereby giving Selby ball in hand?
@@robmckennie4203 what Dott did was no different to a player hitting a cue ball twice in the same shot. The other player then has to play from wherever the cue ball comes to rest or he can ask the other play again from that position. He can't move it to the D because it hasn't left the table by entering a pocket or jumped off the table to the floor.
Because Selby did move it to the D, it was ball in hand to Dott.
A very messy situation overall. By the way I do not agree with what the ref did because as the commentators said he should have used discretion.
Players are so focussed on game that they don’t really get these technical things. Referee was being a complete Jerk by not telling Selby that its a foul he has option to either play the shot or let Dott play again from where the cue ball is. He is lucky Its not Someone like Ronnie. We all know what he is capable of in these situations
The fact that Selby didn't actually lift it makes no difference. He held the ball when he wasn't allowed to, and if that happens, the rules say the ball has left the table, even if it hasn't literally left the table.
@charliephoenix Look, what is the point in having rules if you're just going to pick and choose which ones you enforce?? And the rule is that Selby had to play from where Dott knocked the white to. The ref got it spot on in this situation.
@thegoodnamesrallgone No, the ref was 100% RIGHT to give Dott ball in hand.
it is not a question of whether or not it actually left the table.
As soon as you hold the white in your hand illegally (like Selby did), your opponent gets ball in hand, whether or not the white actually leaves the table.
Furthermore this is NOT a case as suggested by Clive Everton in commentary of where Chamberlain could have exercised discretion. His procedure was laid out by the rules and he followed it.
The ref is technically correct, but he was at fault for not informing Selby about what happened. If a ref is obligated to inform a player about the 3 miss rule, then there's no reason why he shouldn't do so here.
1- Dott should've been warned for stopping the white ball near the pocket (as he did this intentionally).
2- The Referee must've warned Mark not to move/ lift the white ball from the bed of the table.
3- Since the mistake was done by Dott at the first place, he (Dott) should've played the white ball to the pocket because even the foul that was applied on Mark must not be counted.
The ref can't give any advice butchers should have this time.
Sorry. So the rule is about the ball leaving the bed of the table. So what's to stop someone rolling the ball with their finger in to a snookering position? Not picking it up, but just rolling it. It's a foul and they'll give their opponent 4 points, but does that guy then have to play the shot from that snookered position?
@191246mann NO!!!
A deliberate foul DOES NOT automatically lose the frame!
A player loses the frame if he deliberately touches an OBJECT ball, not the cueball!
However pedantic it seems, the referee is completely right.
The ref was correct, but he was also delighting in knowingly being an arse.
You as the player should know the rules. Blaming others for your own ignorance does not make it "technically correct"
Yep, it was the red that he refused to clean, but same difference. I've uploaded that here too. You can tell on that clip that Selby looked pissed off as the ref refused and tried to give a reason, Selby just went, "Ok, right" and moved on. The ref was only called in at the last minute as well as another ref took ill apparently.
It did not leave the bed when Dott pushed it, but Selby picked it up, so it left the bed of the table.
To further specify this, Dott was not penalised by foul at first for sinking the white ball, he got a foul for touching the white ball with his hand, what referee did not exactly specify, what the foul was really for.
Clive Everton is wrong, the referee is not allowed to tell a player they are about to foul. There never was a technicality. The referee is 100% correct.
Hold on guys the ref has made a mistake himself, 0.58 the ref picked the cue ball up and cleaned it and gave a ball in hand, NO the ball should have been in play from where Selby left it! Agree or not??
if it was pool, Dott conceded the frame by doing that... is it not the same with snooker???
(Ronnie did the same last year, i think it resulted in a foul and a warning)
Graeme moved the cue ball with his hand, so incurred a 4-point penalty. Then, Mark also moved the cue ball with his hand, instead of playing it from where it was, so also incurred a 4-point penalty. What I find bizarre is that Graeme then had the ball 'in hand' for his next shot, instead of having to play it from where Mark had left it. If the ball was 'in hand' for Graeme, why wasn't it 'in hand' for Mark?
Because when Selby fouled, the cue ball come off the table. Because Dott nudged it keeping it on the cloth it wasn’t a ball in hand, just 4 points.