Was it a miss?
Seeing as there is some down time in the Snooker world this week, I want to revisit the shot Mark Williams played when 41 in front with 35 left in the decider again Neil Robertson in the UK Semi Final. From 2.10 below
Dominic Dale said in commentary that a miss could have been called. Here is the relevant rule:
14. Foul and a Miss
(a) The striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red, or a free ball nominated as a Red, has been potted. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, they shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless:
(i) any player required penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke being played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional
I personally think the miss was intentional and as such should have been called a Foul and a Miss. Williams was not snookered and has only missed the red as he chose a more difficult route than was necessary, in order to make sure he didn't give away 7 points instead of 4.
Does anyone agree or disagree? Am I being too harsh?
Dominic Dale said in commentary that a miss could have been called. Here is the relevant rule:
14. Foul and a Miss
(a) The striker shall, to the best of their ability, endeavour to hit the ball on or a ball that could be on after a Red, or a free ball nominated as a Red, has been potted. If the referee considers the Rule infringed, they shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless:
(i) any player required penalty points before, or as a result of, the stroke being played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional
I personally think the miss was intentional and as such should have been called a Foul and a Miss. Williams was not snookered and has only missed the red as he chose a more difficult route than was necessary, in order to make sure he didn't give away 7 points instead of 4.
Does anyone agree or disagree? Am I being too harsh?
- Minimum Break
- Posts: 745
- Joined: 15 February 2022
- Snooker Idol: Tony Drago
- Highest Break: 1