Ronnies 147 2010 World open Shouldn't stand?

Quick question to someone on here who knows the snooker laws/rules but officially once you shake your opponents hand then the frame has been conceded? so when Ronnie pots the pink and turns around and shakes Kings hand that means that anything that happens beyond that point shouldn't be counted?

Yes I'm most probably being pedantic but is what I'm stating correct?

Thanks

shanew48 wrote:Quick question to someone on here who knows the snooker laws/rules but officially once you shake your opponents hand then the frame has been conceded? so when Ronnie pots the pink and turns around and shakes Kings hand that means that anything that happens beyond that point shouldn't be counted?

Yes I'm most probably being pedantic but is what I'm stating correct?

Thanks

Yes you are 100% correct that shouldn't have counted by the letter of the rules.


Just imagine if someone conceded not realizing he could still win the frame then changes his mind.

Yes - definitely should be struck off

Wildey wrote:

shanew48 wrote:Quick question to someone on here who knows the snooker laws/rules but officially once you shake your opponents hand then the frame has been conceded? so when Ronnie pots the pink and turns around and shakes Kings hand that means that anything that happens beyond that point shouldn't be counted?

Yes I'm most probably being pedantic but is what I'm stating correct?

Thanks

Yes you are 100% correct that shouldn't have counted by the letter of the rules.


Just imagine if someone conceded not realizing he could still win the frame then changes his mind.

Like the Alan Mcmanus vs Tony Drago incident?

Andre’s probably the best person to answer this question.

Iranu wrote:Andre’s probably the best person to answer this question.

Yea but the fact is Ronnie was actually walking out and decided to hit the black in because Jan Verhas begged him to pot it.... When you think realistically how could that be a 147?

Doesn't matter its 10 years ago and it did not cost anyone a match and by potting the pink that made a 140 the highest break of the event so it did not cost someone else the £4,000 highest break price.

Wildey wrote:

Iranu wrote:Andre’s probably the best person to answer this question.

Yea but the fact is Ronnie was actually walking out and decided to hit the black in because Jan Verhas begged him to pot it.... When you think realistically how could that be a 147?

Doesn't matter its 10 years ago and it did not cost anyone a match and by potting the pink that made a 140 the highest break of the event so it did not cost someone else the £4,000 highest break price.

Well perhaps there’s a rule we’re not aware of that states it’s down to a referee’s discretion when a match officially ends.

I’m not arguing, I don’t think it makes a difference either way. I just think Andre’s better positioned to answer the question than anyone else.

Following the rules to the letter, that particular 147 should not have counted, because Ronnie effectively shook Mark King's hand, and that means the match is over, win or lose, in this case he did win it.

You can compare this situation to the one John Higgins v Yuan Sijun had at the German Masters. Sijun won 5-4, potting final black, but as the cue ball travelled, he didnt realise he left his cue extension on the table, and the cue ball touched it, thus being a foul and Higgins eventually winning the match. BUT Higgins also didnt realise this, and shook Sijun's hand before the cue ball touched the extension, therefore he also conceded the match. And the referee couldn't have done anything about it.

In Ronnie's 147, Jan Verhaas kinda persuaded Ronnie to do it for his fans, and he applied common sense and in the interest of fair play because no fan in the arena or indeed at home would want the final black for the 147 not to be potted. But like I said, following the rules to the letter, that 147 shouldn't have counted and only the 140 break.

New member.

Welcome Shane, you've made some thought provoking posts.

It was pure theatre, and I loved it, one of my faves of his maxis.

SnookerFan wrote::welcome:

New member.

Seconded.

Dan-cat wrote:Welcome Shane, you've made some thought provoking posts.

It was pure theatre, and I loved it, one of my faves of his maxis.

Monique used to suggest that Jan The Man knew it was going to happen pre-frame.

Dan-cat wrote:Welcome Shane, you've made some thought provoking posts.

It was pure theatre, and I loved it, one of my faves of his maxis.

The Max that never was you mean right up there with Doherty miss Black in the Masters.

SnookerFan wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Welcome Shane, you've made some thought provoking posts.

It was pure theatre, and I loved it, one of my faves of his maxis.

Monique used to suggest that Jan The Man knew it was going to happen pre-frame.

They had planned it for months if the opportunity arose. We also had a debate about this in a previous thread a couple of years ago, me claiming it as pure brilliant theatre and to remember that sport is entertainment, you saying it should always be serious and that it should never have happened. Or something like that. Let's not open it up again now. Oh wait Shaney-boy already has

Just mucking about, love you SF