Marco Fu Match refs decision ?

[sprogbasket]

Did anyone see the Marco Fu match and the frame where the white was just behind the black (which was on it's spot) and he tried to trickle into a red just to the right of and the other side of the black?

The overview camera clearly showed Marco playing the white plain ball and for his first two atempts and the white appeared to veer off to the right - just missing the intended red. ( perhaps due to a finger mark or similar)

Twice the ref called "foul and a miss"- but ...and here's the point the ref should surely have warned Marco that if he missed again the frame would be awarded against him...because it appeared he could hit "any part of a ball on".

What happened next - Marco played off the side cushion and hit the black !...againref called "foul and a miss" and next time Marco hit the red off the cushion.

I don't get it - the only explanation would be that Marco could not have hit the red direct -so why did he try to do so two times playing plain ball ?

Answers on a post card please.

[Gerry Armstrong]

"Any part of a ball on" isn't the rule. You must be able to hit an object ball full ball before you can have a frame awarded against you for 3 consecutive misses.

[DawRef]

Section 3 Rule14(b):
If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless either player needed snookers before, or as a result of, the stroke played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.
Section 3 Rule 14(c):
After a miss has been called under paragraph (b) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or that could have been on, such that central, full-ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:
(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the same position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless of the difference in scores, and
(ii) if asked to play again from the original position, the offender shall be warned by the referee that a third failure will result in the frame being awarded to his opponent.

I didn't see the match, so can only assume that FULL CENTRAL BALL CONTACT was not available, hence the reason why a warning was not given after the second attempt. Also, if the referee forgets to give the warning, then if the player does not hit the red (or ball on), then he cannot have the frame awarded against him. He is still given another chance.

[sprogbasket]

Guys,

thanks for that- clarifies things - however it does seem a bit of a weak rule given a pro should be able to hit "any part of a ball on" given three attempts !

[DawRef]

however it does seem a bit of a weak rule given a pro should be able to hit "any part of a ball on" given three attempts !

The rules were re-written in 1995 to cover ALL player levels, both pro and amateur alike, of the game. You cannot have one set of rules for an amateur and a different set for professional. Unofficially, I have been told that a 'pro' will always be called for a foul and miss, if he doesn't hit the ball on.

[Ross]

Section 3 Rule14(b):
If the striker, in making a stroke, fails to first hit a ball on when there is a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to any part of any ball that is or could be on, the referee shall call FOUL AND A MISS unless either player needed snookers before, or as a result of, the stroke played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.
Section 3 Rule 14(c):
After a miss has been called under paragraph (b) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or that could have been on, such that central, full-ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:
(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the same position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless of the difference in scores, and
(ii) if asked to play again from the original position, the offender shall be warned by the referee that a third failure will result in the frame being awarded to his opponent.

I didn't see the match, so can only assume that FULL CENTRAL BALL CONTACT was not available, hence the reason why a warning was not given after the second attempt. Also, if the referee forgets to give the warning, then if the player does not hit the red (or ball on), then he cannot have the frame awarded against him. He is still given another chance.

Well you learn something new every day!