Patsy Fagan V David Taylor 1970’s

[Nifty50]

In the modern game would this be seen as a concession? Warning from the ref? Anyone have a view?
https://youtu.be/bbFH2FOXyhc

[itsnoteasy]

I can just get audio and a green screen but from the comments I got the gist. Didn't Gary Wilson do the same type of thing pretty recently, I think he missed a pot then whacked the cue ball again, it was just called a foul iirc.
https://youtu.be/9MUWp5lmsrQ

[vmax]

Fagan didn't concede so a deliberate foul was the correct call IMO and replace the object balls that were moved by the cue ball and play from in hand as the cue ball would have gone in the pocket. I think that's what Jim Thorpe called but the blue was poorly positioned after the fact, but Taylor had a simple enough green from in hand, should have potted it.
Maybe now the rule has changed, not sure.

[DeanH]

Let's see if I can make this easy

1. By the OLD rules at the time of the match, I believe the referee should not have replaced any balls and the cue ball played from whether it came to rest because the cue ball had not left the playing area or entered a pocket.
2. By the NEW rules the referee is correct, replace balls and ball in hand.

The rules change came about after the Dott/Selby game to cover such incidents and came into effect in August 2013.
The non-offender has the option to play from where the balls comes to rest, or put the opponent in; or have the balls replaced and also elect the opponent to play again.

3.16. Ball Intentionally Moved

Other than striking the cue-ball to commence a stroke, or contacting a ball during a consultation period, if any ball is intentionally moved or picked up by the striker from the playing area, it will be deemed forced off the table.

(a) The referee shall call FOUL and the non-offender may then:

(i) elect to play themselves or request their opponent to play again from the position left.

(ii) in case of a Red, elect to have the Red replaced to its position prior to the infringement, or removed, and play themselves or request their opponent to play again from where the balls have come to rest;

(iii) in case of a colour, elect to have the colour replaced to its position prior to the infringement, or spotted, and play themselves or request their opponent to play again from where the balls have come to rest; or

(iv) in case of the cue-ball, elect to have the cue-ball replaced to its position prior to the infringement, and play themselves or request their opponent to play again from where the balls have come to rest, or play themselves from in-hand, or request their opponent to play from in-hand.

(b) In a situation where a moving ball is intentionally moved or picked up, the referee shall make the best possible decision in the interest of fair play.

[vmax]

What we don't know and was edited out was any discussion between players and referee as to how the decision was arrived at. Obviously Taylor wouldn't have wanted the balls replaced in their original positions and for Fagan to play the shot again as he might have potted it. Fagan obviously didn't give a damn as he was sure he'd lost the frame anyway and Thorpes decision to place the balls where they would have been if Fagan hadn't played the shot was accepted.
Happend to me sunday night, my practise partner saw the cue ball was going into the centre pocket and picked it up before it dropped and gave it to me so I simply played in hand from the D, Olivier Marteel style refereeing and Shaun Murphy pendantry isn't needed, just carry on.