Higgins vs. O'Sullivan

[Jreptile]

Hi,

Was van der Haas (sorry about spelling) call the right one to make? Could he have called a 'foul and miss" according to the rules, or did he do a mistake?

GREAT game by the way!

Cheers. :snooker:

[HK1]

I think he was right to call it a foul but it is a loophole that can be exploited.

[Jreptile]

Alright!
Seems like he was right. And it's Jan Verhaas apparently, my spelling was ridiculously off...

Now it's thumbs crossed for Ding tomorrow.

Cheers. :snooker:

[Rane]

I found this quote on the Mirrors web. It seems like Higgins fully agree on the decision.

"Controversy and confusion reigned in the 13th frame after O'Sullivan snookered himself on the black.

After six unsuccessful attempts to escape, O'Sullivan then called a foul on himself after touching the black while bridging over it. However, that was not deemed to be a miss like his escape attempts and a bemused Higgins was forced to play safe with the cue ball tight up against a red.

A poor shot let Sullivan in for a break of 49 and he eventually took the frame to reduce his deficit further.

"That rule has to be cleared up," Higgins added. "Ronnie didn't plan to touch the black with his hand but someone could do it on purpose. It was a difficult one for the referee because I don't think it's ever happened."

[andy carson]

i didnt think a miss could be called after a self admitted foul...

i think ronnie went using the rules to advantage to stop giving poitns away at the time

[excellentrocket]

i didnt think a miss could be called after a self admitted foul...

i think ronnie went using the rules to advantage to stop giving poitns away at the time

no that not fair to say ronnie used that to his advatage and cheated. ronnie like most players are honest when calling fouls on themselves, especially when refs didnt see.

not ronnies fault

[gettingbetter]

Am I just playing a club rule then? I thought after commiting a foul, the opposing play could send the fouling player back in again?

If that is true, what is the issue? John didn't have to take the shot did he?

[AndyG]

If he'd put Ronnie back in, Ronnie would have been on a red, just like the shot Higgins faced. If Higgins could have got through to the red it wouldn't have been an issue.

Still think the rule is wrong though - bit of discretion from the referee would have helped (section 5(a)(ii) provides for this).

[Wimm]

If it was just a foul; then why did Jan move the white so it was touching the reds?

[AndyG]

He said (to John Higgins at the time) that he must have failed to replace it properly as it was supposed to be touching the red. I don't know whether he's allowed to correct that mistake after both Higgins and O'Sullivan had agreed the replacement was correct - which must happen prior to Ronnie attempting to take his shot (the one where he touched the black).

[ore]

He said (to John Higgins at the time) that he must have failed to replace it properly as it was supposed to be touching the red. I don't know whether he's allowed to correct that mistake after both Higgins and O'Sullivan had agreed the replacement was correct - which must happen prior to Ronnie attempting to take his shot (the one where he touched the black).

So.. if not because of his own previous mistake, Verhaas would not have touched the white?

Seems all the discussion is about that.

Though isn't this not the main issue to argue about. That is, if the white would have been touching the red before Ronnie's foul, Verhaas would not have touched it.

So actually the rule to give the position back to Higgins after Ronnie touched the black is the strage one (ie against common sence) here, right?

[AndyG]

Accepted wisdom seems to be that Ronnie did not play a stroke so it wasn't a miss. That is clearly an embarrassing loophole in the rules which needs to be resolved. No way in the world did Ronnie do this purposefully but people will try it on all over the world now!

[doorag]

did anyone catch what higgins said to veerhas after THE frame?

[breakman16]

I missed the match from 8 4 onwards, is there anyway or does anyone know a place where I can watch a stream of it? I can't believe it went 8 all, how many times does Higgins produce under massive pressure, the man is awesome when the chips are down!

Ronnie's an awesome player too but he has some sort of hoodoo over Ronnie in the big matches like the commentators said about the records in ranking semi finals!

Hope someone can help me, come on John in the final!

[magicman]

This situation happened to me in a county final and the ref got it right in calling a foul and no miss(I think I'd missed 3 times at the time of the foul) so I was one of the very few players I know who'd already come across this scenario.

The average snooker player tends to call their own fouls and so I don't think AndyG is right when he says people will 'try it on'. The loophole needs closing just the same however.

The miss rule in general also needs revising though. When it first came in, it was tinkered with and slightly altered and since then has remained the same. I have felt for some time that one shot(whether a poor positional one or an intentional snooker shouldn't be rewarded/punished with 20/30/40 points or more(I think 15 misses is the record? Which is 60 points for one shot and an absolute nonsense IMO.) I think rules should be universal throughout the frame aswell, and so stopping the miss rule when one party needs a snooker has always seemed unfair to me. A fluked snooker early in the frame gets you 30 points but the exquisite snooker your opponent played late in the frame can only ever get him 4 points (or a maximum of 7 if you are very careless.)