Tv decisions in snooker???????

[drury1986]

Hello all,

just seen on BBC website about the williams selby final to be investigated, due to a foul not being called for hitting the pink possibly? (didnt see the game myself)

So leads to question (if not come up before)

Should a ref or players be allowed to defer a decision to the tv footage????

[The Statman]

As far as I know, officially technology has been introduced only with regard to the replacement of balls and not as a reply for confirmation of whether something happened or didn't happen.

However, it has always been in the Rules that the referee may ask any well positioned witnesses for their opinion before coming to his final decision. That could be either of the players, a marker if there is one, or even spectators. So it is essentially only an extension of this that Eirian Williams did and, given the important juncture of the match and the ramifications of the decision he was about to make, I think he should be congratulated for handling it in the way that he did, regardless of whether he was explicitly entitled to do it (and indeed, regardless of whether he came to the correct conclusion after doing so, which most seem to conclude that he did).

I'm not sure what the investigation will conclude. The shot was (most likely) a fair one, and even if it wasn't, the referee will always give benefit of the doubt to the striker. So essentially, besides all the hoo-ha that has stirred up from the incident, I don't think there's much that can be done to 'improve' things. You are always going to get the odd shot where it is disputed exactly what happened - be that which ball was hit first, whether it was a push shot, whether it's a free ball, etc. - and the referee is always going to have to decide one way or the other. The player 'disadvantaged' by the decision, even if it is a correct one, will always feel disgruntled.

[deant1982]

As far as I know, officially technology has been introduced only with regard to the replacement of balls and not as a reply for confirmation of whether something happened or didn't happen.

However, it has always been in the Rules that the referee may ask any well positioned witnesses for their opinion before coming to his final decision. That could be either of the players, a marker if there is one, or even spectators. So it is essentially only an extension of this that Eirian Williams did and, given the important juncture of the match and the ramifications of the decision he was about to make, and I think he should be congratulated for handling it in the way that he did, regardless of whether he was explicitly entitled to do it (and indeed, regardless of whether he came to the correct conclusion after doing so, which most seem to conclude that he did).

I'm not sure what the investigation will conclude. The shot was (most likely) a fair one, and even if it wasn't, the referee will always give benefit of the doubt to the striker. So essentially, besides all the hoo-ha that has stirred up from the incident, I don't think there's much that can be done to 'improve' things. You are always going to get the odd shot where it is disputed exactly what happened - be that which ball was hit first, whether it was a push shot, whether it's a free ball, etc. - and the referee is always going to have to decide one way or the other. The player 'disadvantaged' by the decision, even if it is a correct one, will always feel disgruntled.

Well said. I called a foul on a guy in a match once for his t-shirt dropping onto a ball. He decided to argue black was white that it didn't touch, even though he could not possibly see it from how he was cueing. Ultimately, their captain, who was sat in a line behind me, actually told him I was correct and it did touch. Immediately, he went to pieces and ended up getting spanked as he was convinced I was wrong. After the game, he threw a strop - "I don't care about losing, as long as I lose fair and square" before storming out of the club.
If the referee is uncertain, they can ask a spectator, which as the statman says, by extension, can be a monitor. If it helps the correct decision to be made, where is the issue? If the shot had been a foul, the balls would have been replaced no doubt, so the monitor would make the next shot happen quicker than all of that rigmarole!
I just don't get Mark Williams at the mo. 2 finals, 2 collapses, and throwing his toys out of the pram too is not like him at all!

[Souwester]

I really don't see any reason why new technology should not be used, if available, to assist the referee in making the correct decision. After all, cameras are now an integral part of line decisions in tennis, and have been accepted by all concerned. I agree with Statman that using the cameras is a logical extension of taking opinion from well placed third-parties.

I've refereed a greta many games over the years, and the hardest decisions to call are which ball is hit first, was it a jump shot, was it a push shot, and indeed is it a free ball? I've never had the luxury of being able to turn to technology to help me, but thankfully the number of times decisions have been queried is very very small.

In over 20 years I've been overruled by the players just once or twice, where both players have disagreed with my decision to call a foul. If they both agree then I'm happy to accept that. Sometimes referees cannot be in the ideal place to make a unequivocal judgement, because we have to weigh up where fouls are most likely to occur... cuffs touching balls, cue touching a ball being bridged over, using a rest placed in amongst the balls, failure to hit a ball on etc. With some shots there are a number of potential fouls and we have to position ourselves according to what we consider most likely. Sometimes we are caught out completely by the player making a totally different stroke to what we expect (and I suspect that Eirian was probably not expecting such a high speed whack from Selby last weekend!). Young juniors, in particular, are dab hands at playing 'unorthodox' shots, that can catch us out.

[drury1986]

For me its not whether the ref is right or wrong, i didnt see the shot in question so am at no point questioning eirians decision (as in snooker you do see very few and minor mistakes which is a credit to referees)

but a good example in tennis they can challenge a call go to hawkeye etc... the same tech is used in snooker, I couldnt see a problem where a player could challenge go to tv, if theyre are right the keep the chance fo another, if wrong they lose it.

to be fair i dont think it would effect snooker that much due to minor and minimal mistakes that are made, but that 1 challenge thats correct could change a frame

[wildJONESEYE]

For me its not whether the ref is right or wrong, i didnt see the shot in question so am at no point questioning eirians decision (as in snooker you do see very few and minor mistakes which is a credit to referees)

but a good example in tennis they can challenge a call go to hawkeye etc... the same tech is used in snooker, I couldnt see a problem where a player could challenge go to tv, if theyre are right the keep the chance fo another, if wrong they lose it.

to be fair i dont think it would effect snooker that much due to minor and minimal mistakes that are made, but that 1 challenge thats correct could change a frame

in tennis a challange happens very often in snooker decitions are pretty clean cut so you would proberbly get on avarage one challange every 2 tournaments.

[DawRef]

As said, will it make a difference to the result? Will either player or Eirian Williams be penalised? My view is that using technology to replace the balls is a godsend, lets leave it at that and for the referee to decide on other 'infringements' there and then as per the rules.

[debs]

Well i did not see the Williams match but it is unlike him to complain?

What i did see was the supposed foul???? called on Stephen last night. I rewound sky repeatedly and seen NO FOUL!

[arbitrage]

As far as I know, officially technology has been introduced only with regard to the replacement of balls and not as a reply for confirmation of whether something happened or didn't happen.

However, it has always been in the Rules that the referee may ask any well positioned witnesses for their opinion before coming to his final decision. That could be either of the players, a marker if there is one, or even spectators. So it is essentially only an extension of this that Eirian Williams did and, given the important juncture of the match and the ramifications of the decision he was about to make, I think he should be congratulated for handling it in the way that he did, regardless of whether he was explicitly entitled to do it (and indeed, regardless of whether he came to the correct conclusion after doing so, which most seem to conclude that he did).

I'm not sure what the investigation will conclude. The shot was (most likely) a fair one, and even if it wasn't, the referee will always give benefit of the doubt to the striker. So essentially, besides all the hoo-ha that has stirred up from the incident, I don't think there's much that can be done to 'improve' things. You are always going to get the odd shot where it is disputed exactly what happened - be that which ball was hit first, whether it was a push shot, whether it's a free ball, etc. - and the referee is always going to have to decide one way or the other. The player 'disadvantaged' by the decision, even if it is a correct one, will always feel disgruntled.

"which most seem to conclude that he did". i rather doubt that statement. at least mark williams didn't and neither do i.
"The shot was (most likely) a fair one". totally subjective opinion.
"I don't think there's much that can be done to 'improve' things". emm, hawkeye can track serves that go at over 300km/h in tennis, why can't they use this technology in snooker so that similar incidents don't happen again.

[debs]

''hawkeye can track serves that go at over 300km/h in tennis, why can't they use this technology in snooker so that similar incidents don't happen again''.

Great idea even giving the player 3 times a match depending on its lenth to challenge the ref.

[Souwester]

emm, hawkeye can track serves that go at over 300km/h in tennis, why can't they use this technology in snooker so that similar incidents don't happen again.

I've been led to believe that having Hawkeye is quite expensive, so it's down to budgets.

There is regular need for Hawkeye in a tennis match, with several contentious calls in each match. In snooker, however, thankfully their occurrence is much rarer, so I guess cost just wouldn't be justified.

[debs]

I've been led to believe that having Hawkeye is quite expensive, so it's down to budgets.

There is regular need for Hawkeye in a tennis match, with several contentious calls in each match. In snooker, however, thankfully their occurrence is much rarer, so I guess cost just wouldn't be justified.

Spoken by someone who does not make there living by playing Snooker???

[The Statman]

Spoken by someone who does not make there living by playing Snooker???

Well, as Souwester is one of the most experienced referees at everything but the highest professional level, he may not make a living playing snooker but he has a pedigree which makes his comments worth listening to.

I think the point he is making is that in snooker, we very rarely have to call whether a ball travelling at 90 miles per hour falls on one side of a line or the other. Snooker's decisions are based on whether a ball goes into a pocket or not, or which of two balls is struck first. It is only on the very rarest occasions that this is disputed to any great degree.

The most difficult thing to do as a referee is to replace balls after a Miss call, when several balls have moved. The expense that Hawkeye would entail hardly seems worthwhile when a still camera does the job perfectly well and is available anyway at the highest level. When refereeing in amateur or other non-tv situations, we just have to replace balls as best we can, if not hand-on-heart in the original position, at least so that the player has about the same degree of difficulty of shot. Assuming the two players and referee are three adults, this should be fairly easy to accomplish. I have never had any problems.

We all need to take a step back from this red-pink incident and not kid ourselves that this sort of contentious decision takes place all the time when, simply, it doesn't.

[debs]

Well, as Souwester is one of the most experienced referees at everything but the highest professional level, he may not make a living playing snooker but he has a pedigree which makes his comments worth listening to.

I think the point he is making is that in snooker, we very rarely have to call whether a ball travelling at 90 miles per hour falls on one side of a line or the other. Snooker's decisions are based on whether a ball goes into a pocket or not, or which of two balls is struck first. It is only on the very rarest occasions that this is disputed to any great degree.

The most difficult thing to do as a referee is to replace balls after a Miss call, when several balls have moved. The expense that Hawkeye would entail hardly seems worthwhile when a still camera does the job perfectly well and is available anyway at the highest level. When refereeing in amateur or other non-tv situations, we just have to replace balls as best we can, if not hand-on-heart in the original position, at least so that the player has about the same degree of difficulty of shot. Assuming the two players and referee are three adults, this should be fairly easy to accomplish. I have never had any problems.

We all need to take a step back from this red-pink incident and not kid ourselves that this sort of contentious decision takes place all the time when, simply, it doesn't.

Well thats me told eh!

If you look at my post i did put ???? in referance to my ''not make there living by playing Snooker???'' remark.
So safe to say i did not know but i do now eh boss.

So it is now that it is established that i do not have the pedigree to comment on this matter i appologise for any offence.

[The Statman]

As far as I know, officially technology has been introduced only with regard to the replacement of balls and not as a reply for confirmation of whether something happened or didn't happen.

However, it has always been in the Rules that the referee may ask any well positioned witnesses for their opinion before coming to his final decision. That could be either of the players, a marker if there is one, or even spectators. So it is essentially only an extension of this that Eirian Williams did and, given the important juncture of the match and the ramifications of the decision he was about to make, I think he should be congratulated for handling it in the way that he did, regardless of whether he was explicitly entitled to do it (and indeed, regardless of whether he came to the correct conclusion after doing so, which most seem to conclude that he did).

I'm not sure what the investigation will conclude. The shot was (most likely) a fair one, and even if it wasn't, the referee will always give benefit of the doubt to the striker. So essentially, besides all the hoo-ha that has stirred up from the incident, I don't think there's much that can be done to 'improve' things. You are always going to get the odd shot where it is disputed exactly what happened - be that which ball was hit first, whether it was a push shot, whether it's a free ball, etc. - and the referee is always going to have to decide one way or the other. The player 'disadvantaged' by the decision, even if it is a correct one, will always feel disgruntled.

"which most seem to conclude that he did". i rather doubt that statement. at least mark williams didn't and neither do i.

Well "most" suggests not all, and "seem" would dilute them even more. I have seen the video clip and I think it probably was fair, but my assertion that most seem to think it was a fair shot was based on the comments I have seen from those who stated an opinion.

"The shot was (most likely) a fair one". totally subjective opinion.

Er, not quite "totally subjective" (although what is an opinion if not subjective?). An opinion based on seeing the clip and judging for myself. But, you quote a small part of a sentence in which I said that even if it wasn't a fair shot, if it was in doubt (which it clearly is, as you have implicitly acknowledged), then the referee would give the benefit of doubt to the striker.

"I don't think there's much that can be done to 'improve' things". emm, hawkeye can track serves that go at over 300km/h in tennis, why can't they use this technology in snooker so that similar incidents don't happen again.

How many times in snooker, honestly, would Hawkeye have been in a position to judge something in snooker that a video still wouldn't have been able to check satisfactorily? (See also succeeding posts.)