Mark Allan v Andy Hicks

[Nifty50]

Interesting referee incident in frame 2. Mark feathered the white which was not noticed by ref Leo Scullion. After the shot was played the marker pointed the incident out to Leo and he retroactively called a foul. Never seen this happen before. Has VAR been introduced to snooker?

[JimMalone]

Good question. Didn't they say once, the marker can't call such decisions?

Dean, enlighten us please!

[DeanH]

well, 2 points...
1. as said in commentary and punditry, Alan McManus is incorrect (half so) when he says a foul can not be applied "retrospectively" - a foul unnoticed by the referee can be claimed by the non-offending player BEFORE the next stroke is taken. In this scenario the next stroke had not been taken (the stroke on the blue being the "foul-stroke"). After the next stroke the foul would be condoned and play continues as is no foul has occurred. If Alan McManus means retrospectively as in AFTER the next stroke he is correct
2.One thing I do not agree with is that I don't think the marker should have brought the foul to the attention of the referee, a player can but a marker or anyone else no - my opinion.

The Rules states that "The marker shall keep the score on the scoreboard and assist the referee in carrying out their duties." but I don't think calling out fouls not seen or claimed as "assisting". The referee can ask the Marker - or anyone else, but not the other way round

Look forward to other opinions

[JimMalone]

well, 2 points...
1. as said in commentary and punditry, Alan McManus is incorrect (half so) when he says a foul can not be applied "retrospectively" - a foul unnoticed by the referee can be claimed by the non-offending player BEFORE the next stroke is taken. In this scenario the next stroke had not been taken (the stroke on the blue being the "foul-stroke"). After the next stroke the foul would be condoned and play continues as is no foul has occurred. If Alan McManus means retrospectively as in AFTER the next stroke he is correct
2.One thing I do not agree with is that I don't think the marker should have brought the foul to the attention of the referee, a player can but a marker or anyone else no - my opinion.

The Rules states that "The marker shall keep the score on the scoreboard and assist the referee in carrying out their duties." but I don't think calling out fouls not seen or claimed as "assisting". The referee can ask the Marker - or anyone else, but not the other way round

Look forward to other opinions

Thanks Dean, that's the way I would see it as well.

[PatBlock]

But isn't it a good thing that a genuine foul was picked up? Whatever it takes to make sure the game is played fairly AFAIC.

-

[Nifty50]

But isn't it a good thing that a genuine foul was picked up? Whatever it takes to make sure the game is played fairly AFAIC.
-

Suppose so, but rules just need to be clarified. Never seen this happen before. If it’s ok for the marker to “assist” the referee by pointing out fouls then I would like it stated in the rules.
PS. Was nice to see Mark Allan accept the decision and be happy that a foul was picked up which was not noticed by Leo. Good sportsmanship.

[DeanH]

Suppose so, but rules just need to be clarified. Never seen this happen before. If it’s ok for the marker to “assist” the referee by pointing out fouls then I would like it stated in the rules.
PS. Was nice to see Mark Allan accept the decision and be happy that a foul was picked up which was not noticed by Leo. Good sportsmanship.

Agreed, if the Marker IS allowed to point out missed fouls (before next stroke) then this should be clearer in the rules. "...assists in their duties..." maybe is not clear enough

I was watching the football last night (not a regular thing) and this scenario came to my mind - image the audience in the Crucible all shouting out "Foul"?

[DeanH]

https://www.worldsnooker.com/wpbsa-r...tee-statement/

"The WPBSA Rules Committee has decided that the whole incident was correctly handled by both the referee and the marker."
I doubt they would say anything else
I do wonder if we will not see the Marker "stopping play" again

"The Committee would also like to stress that in no way, shape or form it was assumed that the action of the striker was wilfully unfair. It was just an unfortunate incident that required a Ruling based on fair play."
Mark was never under any such suspicion anyway.

"No further statements on the matter will be made."
So they don't want a drawn out discussion? strange that

[Londonlad147]

FWIW I think the Rules Committee have it spot on.

[crocodile]

Allan > Allen?