100%, sure, black first...?

[taipafan]

Wondering how the referee are so sure about that, 100%...with quite a distance, not a good angle, while walking...While both Ronnie and Mark Selby are having doubt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMmkDxS_S7s

[MrRottweiler]

Even with the video slowed down it's still difficult to tell which was hit first but it looks like black first or at best both red and black at the same time which I think would still be a foul.

[taipafan]

If the referee said, he could not tell which one is hit first, so that it is a foul. Then it is ok. But he said, 100% sure, black first...What makes him so sure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GIqEImUanE

If we use Dr Dave "Tangent line" method in this case, we can see after contacted with the red and black, the cue ball goes to left hand side of the screen, means the last ball contact is the black ball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EBSGWrnzjs

[vmax]

Red first all day long, referee standing behind the player again and was walking when he made the call. In situations like this the referee must be standing close to the target object ball when contact is made, not six feet away and moving.
Peggy Lee missed an obvious one in the final and Luca had to call a foul on himself.

[itsnoteasy]

Red first all day long, referee standing behind the player again and was walking when he made the call. In situations like this the referee must be standing close to the target object ball when contact is made, not six feet away and moving.
Peggy Lee missed an obvious one in the final and Luca had to call a foul on himself.

Bit of a thing that annoys me, probably more than it should , refs insisting on standing behind the player when it's obvious the action is going to happen at the other end. They then have to rush down the table to try and have a look.

[vmax]

Bit of a thing that annoys me, probably more than it should , refs insisting on standing behind the player when it's obvious the action is going to happen at the other end. They then have to rush down the table to try and have a look.

Exactly, and they hold up the quicker players as they have to wait for them to walk behind them, sometimes they're still walking when the player is taking his shot. Another thing is that a ref will take a colour out of a middle pocket and walk around to the other side of the table to spot it because that's the side where the player is standing in order to take the next shot, so the player has to wait.
It's about time someone had a word with a ref to stop this or they would report them for deliberately making them wait and putting them off their game, I would.

[itsnoteasy]

Exactly, and they hold up the quicker players as they have to wait for them to walk behind them, sometimes they're still walking when the player is taking his shot. Another thing is that a ref will take a colour out of a middle pocket and walk around to the other side of the table to spot it because that's the side where the player is standing in order to take the next shot, so the player has to wait.
It's about time someone had a word with a ref to stop this or they would report them for deliberately making them wait and putting them off their game, I would.

Did players complain about refs being in their eyeline, or is it for TV so the refs not in the shot. When did this change? I can't remember it in Hendry time, so it must be pretty recent, probably a Hearn thing.

[Cue crafty]

For a lot of shots it makes some sense but in these situations if the ref is down the end of the table to the side ( so not in line of shot) surely that should be their position. 🤔

[vmax]

Did players complain about refs being in their eyeline, or is it for TV so the refs not in the shot. When did this change? I can't remember it in Hendry time, so it must be pretty recent, probably a Hearn thing.

I think some players did complain and a new directive for referees was to always stand behind the player so referees being the jobsworth's that they are of course comply fully with no thought about how it's affecting particular players and their flow when in the zone and also having to make acute observations from maybe eighteen feet away if one takes into account the length of the table plus the player they're standing behind.

This directive was brought in because of some complaints so it's only fair that those players who are affected by it should also have the right to complain. I saw Ronnie playing really quickly one time that the ref called foul as he hadn't spotted the colour fast enough before Ronnie played the next shot, many times the ref will get in his way when he's walking from behind him to take the black out of the pocket while ronnie is also walking in the same direction for the next shot.

This of course also applies to both players seemingly having the need to sit down at their own table everytime their opponent is at the table. I was watching a qualifyer the other day when both players were simply tapping into the pack and both of them waited for the other to go back to their table and sit down before playing a half inch roll up to the reds, it was farcical.

[Delphi]

I honestly can't believe some people think it was black first, red is clearly moving before the black is being hit, no foul & send ref to specsavers.

[vmax]

I honestly can't believe some people think it was black first, red is clearly moving before the black is being hit, no foul & send ref to specsavers.

Those that can, play, those that can't, referee 😉

[Cue crafty]

I've seen some terrible decisions made recently thankfully the ROS one was overturned thanks to video slo mo evidence, that's the way forward. Nothing worse for a player who knows he hasn't fouled getting penalised and losing a frame, that's mental torture that many will struggle to overcome. The right outcome needs to be delivered fast.

[taipafan]

This is another question, "Hitting Two Balls Simultaneously=Foul".
Cue ball hits black and red at almost the same time, or the speed is too fast. The referee cannot see clearly which ball is hit first, in both cases. What should the referee do?
In the pool game, there is no foul if Hitting Two Balls Simultaneously. Also, it says give the benefit of the doubt to the striker in the rules.
so how is it in Snooker?

[DeanH]

This is another question, "Hitting Two Balls Simultaneously=Foul".
Cue ball hits black and red at almost the same time, or the speed is too fast. The referee cannot see clearly which ball is hit first, in both cases. What should the referee do?
In the pool game, there is no foul if Hitting Two Balls Simultaneously. Also, it says give the benefit of the doubt to the striker in the rules.
so how is it in Snooker?

In snooker, a simultaneous hit on two differing balls is a foul and has been as such since at least 1885.
To me is seems the thinking is that when the hit is simultaneous then the "ball NOT on" was struck in the first instant (as well as the ball on) therefore it is a foul.
The thinking is NOT the ball on is hit in the first instance (as well as the ball not on) therefore an ok strike, no foul.

Most rules in snooker do come down to NOT giving any player an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

You are correct in pool a simultaneous hit is not a foul as long as one of the balls involved is a ball-on (the player's group).

It is best to not try to apply pool rules to snooker - there lies madness

[taipafan]

In snooker, a simultaneous hit on two differing balls is a foul and has been as such since at least 1885.
To me is seems the thinking is that when the hit is simultaneous then the "ball NOT on" was struck in the first instant (as well as the ball on) therefore it is a foul.
The thinking is NOT the ball on is hit in the first instance (as well as the ball not on) therefore an ok strike, no foul.

Most rules in snooker do come down to NOT giving any player an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

You are correct in pool a simultaneous hit is not a foul as long as one of the balls involved is a ball-on (the player's group).

It is best to not try to apply pool rules to snooker - there lies madness

It is because someone brought the question to a facebook group, then the reply:

" the referee had to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume ball on was hit first."

I followed :"[the referee had to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume ball on was hit first.], I remember I heard this somewhere, but for the pool only, not for the snooker. I might be wrong: I used to say, if the referee cannot see clearly it is first contact to the ball on, it would be a foul."

Reply on my question: "the general practice is that if the referee is not CERTAIN a foul is committed then he should not call one."

I doubt about it, so I asked again: "Can I say this? : All the decided simultaneously hitting of two balls, is due to the referees could not tell which one was hit first...(It is because the limit of a human ability.)"