Foul and Miss Disagreement between Ali Carter & Ricky Walden

[thelongbomber]

A rather strange foul and miss situation arose between Ricky Walden and Ali Carter in the 8th frame of the China Open 2014. Unfortunately, I wasn't watching the entire frame and I only started recording once I saw something happening.

I wasn't watching prior to this recording but I presume that Ali Carter fouled, and the referee called a miss. At this point, Ricky Walden must have been awarded 4 points, and then presumably asked Ali Carter to play again from in baulk. Ali Carter felt he shouldn't have had to, and asked for a second referee's opinion. Is that what happened? Can someone clarify? You can see by the points that even after the situation was seemingly resolved, Ricky Walden still required a snooker to win being 52 points behind, with 51 on the table. According to rules, when snookers are required, a foul and miss cannot be called. BUT, is it possible that if the offending player seems to have intentionally missed (because doing so would still be in his favour), that a miss CAN actually be called? Is this what happened? Isn't the miss rule up to the referee's discretion? If indeed Ali Carter DID miss, and the referee believed it COULD actually be a MISS, then perhaps the referee was actually correct? If someone has the complete frame, I would be interested to see what happened prior to this as I'm making assumptions about what actually happened. I think Jan Verhaas stepped into the situation not fully understanding what actually took place.

Turn your speaker volume up to hear the conversation between Jan Verhaas and Ricky Walden.

If someone can translate the Cantonese/Mandarin speaker that would be helpful as well.

[Odrl]

It was Walden who had fouled, needing a snooker as a result. Carter had the balls replaced, and only when coming back to the table to play the shot again did Walden realize he now needed a snooker, so the missed had been called incorrectly.

While the referee does indeed have the discretion to call the miss anyway, if he thinks it was deliberate, I don't think he was thinking along those lines here. He just made a mistake, either misreading the score or just being confused about the rule.

[SnkrRef]

I didn't see the incident, but it seems to me that the referee misunderstood the rule.

The F&M rule states, as we all know that, generally, a F&M can only be called provided they weren't at the 'snookers required' stage. However, once a F&M has been called when there is central full ball contact, then a second and third miss can be called, irrespective of the scores.

It seems to me that the referee was trying to call a first miss, irrespective of the scores, because there was central full ball contact.

[jb134]

I'll need to read that again two or three times. Do you have a flow chart?

[DeanH]

there is a flow chart in the SRA Referees guide, sorry not at hand at the mo.

[cantpotforshíte]

Just happened again in the Selby - Dunn match.

[lk8]

it's only when you see centre ball on the first shot, but snookers not required or scored not equal on the table before or after the shot, where you call the miss on the first shot based on the "3 misses rule"... but because in this scenario, the first miss already brings the scores to the "snookers required stage", therefore the "3 misses rule" doesn't apply... hope that makes sense

[lk8]

so yeah.. unfortunately the referee got the rules confused this time...

[SnkrRef]

This is the SRA Flow Chart. However, many senior referees would disagree that you can only call a Foul if a player doesn't make a fair attempt when snookers are required: most senior referees will (IMHO quite rightly) call a Miss if a proper attempt at hitting a ball on is not made, regardless of the scores.

F&M Flow Chart.jpg

[vmax4steve]

I'll just put these into the pot and leave them to stir a while.

Which are correct and which are not.




(1) You're 42 behind, snookered with two reds left and you fail to hit a red on, it can be called a miss and the cue ball replaced because before the foul was made no snookers were required.

(2) You're 42 behind, snookered with two reds left and you fail to hit a red on, a miss can't be called because snookers are required as soon as the foul is made.

(3) You're 44 in front, snookered with two reds left and you fail to hit a red on, it can't be called a miss because snookers were required before the foul was made.

(4) You're 44 in front with two reds left and fail to hit a red ball on, though you can see a red full ball it's not called a miss because snookers were required before the foul was made.

(5) You're 42 behind with two reds left and you fail to hit a red on, even though you could see a red full ball it's not called a miss because snookers are required as soon as that foul has occurred.

(6) You're 44 in front with two reds left and you fail to hit a red on, even though you could see a red full ball, it is called a miss and the cue ball can be replaced because although snookers were required before the foul was made, it's an automatic miss when a ball on can be seen full ball.

(7) You're 44 in front with two reds left, can see a red full ball, and touch the yellow with the finger of your bridge hand, giving your opponent a four point penalty. A miss can't be called because snookers were required before the foul was made even though a ball on can be seen full ball.

(8) You're 42 in front, snookered with two reds left and touch the yellow with the finger of your bridge hand giving your opponent a four point penalty, a miss can't be called as no stroke was played and the aggrieved has the option of playing from where the cue ball lies, putting you back in or taking a free ball.

[SnkrRef]

In determining the answers, the question is were there sufficient points on the table for both players to have won outright (without a respotted black) both before the stroke and after it. If YES then a Miss can be called, if No then a Miss cannot be called.

(1) Incorrect - snookers were required as a result of the stroke so no miss can be called
(2) Correct - snookers required as a result of the stroke so no miss can be called
(3) Correct - snookers were required before the stroke so no miss can be called
(4) Correct - snookers were required before the stroke
(5) Correct - snookers were required as a result of the stroke. Central full ball contact is only relevant in determining whether a frame can be lost after three misses AND whether a second and third miss can be called if the first was called when neither player needed snookers
(6) Incorrect - snookers were required before the stroke
(7) Sort of correct - a Miss won't be called because a stroke hasn't been played
(8) Correct - no stroke has been played

[DeanH]

Foul and Miss Disagreement between Ali Carter & Ricky Walden

I would also caveat that I took all attempts were fair and not an intentional failure ;
I got the same as above woohooo!

[vmax4steve]

So I'm 42 down on the last two reds and committ a foul to go 46 down, it cannot be called a miss as the foul immediately comes into effect on the actual foul stroke and the miss cannot be called as I now need a snooker on my next stroke even though I didn't need one on the last stroke, until I fouled, and didn't need one before the foul stroke was made.

Yet when I'm 44 down on the last two reds and force a foul out of my opponent to go 40 down, the foul doesn't immediately come into effect on the actual foul stroke so that a miss can be called as I no longer need a snooker on my next stroke even though my opponent also didn't need a snooker on the foul stroke he just played, a position where a miss can be called according to the rules, but then the rule changes as soon as the foul is made.

[SnkrRef]

So I'm 42 down on the last two reds and committ a foul to go 46 down, it cannot be called a miss as the foul immediately comes into effect on the actual foul stroke and the miss cannot be called as I now need a snooker on my next stroke even though I didn't need one on the last stroke, until I fouled, and didn't need one before the foul stroke was made.

Yet when I'm 44 down on the last two reds and force a foul out of my opponent to go 40 down, the foul doesn't immediately come into effect on the actual foul stroke so that a miss can be called as I no longer need a snooker on my next stroke even though my opponent also didn't need a snooker on the foul stroke he just played, a position where a miss can be called according to the rules, but then the rule changes as soon as the foul is made.

No, it's not quite right to refer to the foul coming immediately into effect in determining whether a miss can be called. The rules clearly refer simply to whether penalty points were required by either player either before or after the stroke.

In your second scenario, NO miss can can be called as you needed snookers before the stroke was played. It is as simple as that.

[itsnoteasy]

Why isn't the first shot a miss ? As he didn't need snookers on that shot, if put back and he misses again ,no miss, as he then needs snookers, wouldn't that be fairer.