Post a reply

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Andre147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Andre147 wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Iranu - I believe the referee to have been correct.

The relevant rule states:

"If any ball enters a pocket and rebounds onto the playing area, it
does not count as having been potted or pocketed. The striker has
no redress if this occurs."


There is also Section 5 which constitutes to fair play and common sense.

Yes the object ball didnt stay in the pocket, BUT common sense prevails in this situation because why did that happen? Because the referee didn't take the reds out.

But the referee would be acting against a rule that is in the official document (2nd point on page 15 of this document) - https://www.wpbsa.com/wp-content/upload ... s-2019.pdf

I understand that they can use discretion but I do not believe they can in this situation as the ball has not been 'pocketed' same as if it hit the back leather and bounced out onto the floor it would be a foul.


You are mixing different situations.

Hitting the back leather and returning to the table is not pockected of course, that is not even up for debate.

But the other situation is different, the red didnt stay in the pocked due to a referee mistake, and a player is never penalised by a mistake from the referee, unless it's not noticed which isnt the case here.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Yes - it is a different situation. I agree with that and I was wrong to mix the two situations.

I still maintain that if the ball in the described situation comes to rest on the table then the break ends.

I have PM'd Acesinc as an independent adjudicator but he is on a different timezone and often busy so he might not be along for a while.

I would be equally happy to be overruled by a reliable independednt source that you could provide.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Andre147

Well I can be wrong of course, and even top referees have been wrong at times.

I would use common sense here and in the interest of fair play.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Andre147 wrote:Well I can be wrong of course, and even top referees have been wrong at times.

I would use common sense here and in the interest of fair play.

Well to be fair, you would never let the balls stack up in the pocket so the situation would not arise <ok>

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Dan-cat

Can i ask a question while we wait to decide who's right?

Who is the only professional player to have won the World title as both an amateur and a pro, winning the amateur title after the Pro title?

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby acesinc

Badsnookerplayer wrote:...

I will PM Acesinc


I have read through most of this (section of this) thread (,not the whole thread of course as that would take days or months......perhaps I will do that when I get to my desert island; read through this whole thread that is), but I digress. I will be happy to offer up my opinion with the admission, as always, that it is nothing more than my opinion.

And with that, like King Solomon, I will cut the baby in half! And each mother shall receive one-half of the child!

That means that I will wimp out here and straddle both sides of the fence. BSP and Andre are both correct (in my opinion) for different reasons but it looks like you have that worked out between you two already. For THIS argument's sake, I will have to go with BSP (sorry Andre, give me a chance to explain my reasoning) and so I guess that Iranu should get the honors of the correct answer. By the time I post this, however, I expect you will be three or four questions down the road by then.

So....

BSP's situation is purely hypothetical. I cannot see it ever happening in a professional match (although Iranu says he believes he saw it in a professional match) because this is not a situation that a professional referee should ever allow to come to fruition. On the other hand, I can see this occurring in an amateur match that is maybe refereed by other players in the local league or whatever. And those people simply are not familiar with proper procedure and decorum. So the amateur "referee" doesn't pay attention when the bag is full and the amateur "player" surely will see the pocket loaded with Reds as he sights but he is not smart enough to ask the acting referee to clear it. So he plays the stroke, the ball pops back out of the pocket and so here we are. He knowingly played the pot attempt into a full bag. NO POT in my opinion. It never should have come to this.

Now, in Andre's defense, I believe he was injecting HIMSELF into the hypothetical situation. And so he thought, "It never should have come to this. How, oh, how did I ever let it come to this?" and so he invoked the all powerful Section 5, Rule 1, which basically says that, as the controlling Referee, he is allowed to do anything that he sees fit in the interest of fair play. And as I read through the thread, of course, Andre eventually came to explain exactly the same point.

So that is my opinion. The former (amateur, no proper referee) is this situation that I believe is within the context of the question, but Andre is also definitely correct if somehow he has a complete brain fart on table and allows this situation to occur when he is in charge (which we all know can never happen in a million years, he will prevent the problem before it ever occurs, always).


EDIT.................................
Okay, I just re-read the original question, and it is Judd Trump on his way to another 147, but clearly, this must have (hypothetically) occurred in exhibition without a proper Referee. Judd ought to know better than to play a pot attempt into a full bag. Andre never would have allowed it to get to that point.
Last edited by acesinc on 03 Jun 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby SnookerEd25

Badsnookerplayer wrote:OK - I am not going to claim I am definitely right but I took the ruling from the EASB referee training website so I was confident in my assertion.

I will concede if Acesinc agrees with Andre but the training site said that if the ball does not come to rest in a pocket then it is not deemed to have been pocketed.

I will PM Acesinc


If you call him, he will come...

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Dan-cat

In 1972, a crack snooker man was sent to prison by a military court for a crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Chicago underground. Today, still wanted by the government he survives as a soldier of fortune. If you have a snooker problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find him....maybe you can hire The Acesinc.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Andre147

Many thanks Acesinc for your answer and understanding.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby acesinc

Dan-cat wrote:In 1972, a crack snooker man was sent to prison by a military court for a crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Chicago underground. Today, still wanted by the government he survives as a soldier of fortune. If you have a snooker problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find him....maybe you can hire The Acesinc.



I am innocent, I tells ya! It was the one-armed man that did it!



....................................

On another note, before I wised up and learned to not bother replying to the many, many foolish things being said in the Comments of YouTube snooker videos, I had gotten into an argument or two with knuckleheads saying things like, "That ref is so stupid! He ought to be calling that a Foul and a Miss!" or "That ref is so stupid! He should never be calling that a Foul and a Miss!"

A couple times, I tried to make the point that one really does not need to be very smart to be a great player, and in fact, one does not even need to understand the Rules very well. In order to rise to the top, one need only have the talent to consistently knock little spheres into seemingly smaller holes with greater prowess than others with similar talents.

On the other hand, to remain employed, a Professional Referee needs to pass a competency test every single year. Or maybe it's every three years. I don't know, Andre will know. The point is, whatever lunacy is spewed in YouTube comments sections, very often, the Referee is the only one in the whole building who actually understands what the hell is going on on the Snooker table, and what the hell just happened, and what the hell to do about it now. Thanks for that, Andre.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby SnookerEd25

and thanks all for an entertaining diversion from the usual quiz.

BSP for the original question, Andre for his professional opinion, AcesInc - as always our favourite arbiter - & Dan for his A-Team parody.

(sounds like i’m giving a speech at an awards ceremony)

Very entertaining reading through retrospectively...

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Iranu

Dan-cat wrote:Can i ask a question while we wait to decide who's right?

Who is the only professional player to have won the World title as both an amateur and a pro, winning the amateur title after the Pro title?

Must be a woman as I doubt any men have done it. I’m sure we wouldn’t stop hearing about it otherwise.

Guess one: Reanne Evans
Guess two: Kelly Fisher

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Ck147

Yes, decent thread

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby SnookerEd25

Should have added Alex to my ‘thank you speech’

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Iranu

SnookerEd25 wrote:Should have added Alex to my ‘thank you speech’

Yeah, shameful omission that.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby SnookerEd25

As punishment, I will listen to the next Yates/Bingham commentary on full volume through headphones while saying ten ‘hail virgoes’

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Dan-cat

Bingham at least has won the World Title (automatic qualification for a commentator, regardless of broadcast skills) but how the hell did Perry get the job?

Thata what we have to look forward to isnt it... Perry, Murphy, Bingham in the box until we die. Oh god.

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Dan-cat wrote:Bingham at leasr has won the World Title (automatic qualification for a commentator, regardless of broadcast skills) but how the hell did Perry get the job?

Thata what we have to look forward to isnt it... Perry, Murphy, Bingham in the box until we die. Oh god.

Multiple bungkes

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Ck147

Dan-cat wrote:Bingham at least has won the World Title (automatic qualification for a commentator, regardless of broadcast skills) but how the hell did Perry get the job?

Thata what we have to look forward to isnt it... Perry, Murphy, Bingham in the box until we die. Oh god.

Hope they get Robbo once he retires, I know you will think this is biased, but he was interesting and insightful when he did a couple of stints on Eurosport, and he's actually "broadcastable"

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby Dan-cat

Ck147 wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Bingham at least has won the World Title (automatic qualification for a commentator, regardless of broadcast skills) but how the hell did Perry get the job?

Thata what we have to look forward to isnt it... Perry, Murphy, Bingham in the box until we die. Oh god.

Hope they get Robbo once he retires, I know you will think this is biased, but he was interesting and insightful when he did a couple of stints on Eurosport, and he's actually "broadcastable"


Robbo would make a brilliant commentator. As long as he doesnt mention Warhammer as much DT does golf

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby SnookerEd25

Seems to go in bursts, doesn't it?

I suspect its getting a little neglected at the moment because we have live snooker (whatever your opinion of it) to focus on.

Not even sure whose turn it is to ask the question, but they're probably close to forfeiting it, if they haven't already.

Dan to adjudicate?

Re: Never Ending Quiz

Postby donthittheblue

Dan-cat wrote:Who was known as the voice of snooker?


Ted Lowe


   

cron