Referees' score calling protocol and purple gloves!

[The Statman]

What a bizarre thread title!

But I have just come across this coverage of the 1974 World final.

One interesting background observation is that the referee, rather than simply calling the score for the break as is the practice nowadays, actually calls the full score of both players with seemingly no reference to the actual size of the break.

Also, when shaking Reardon's hand, it is noticeable that the glove which the referee removes from his hand is purple.

Can anyone shed any light on whether this was standard practice or whether this was a peculiarity of this particular referee?

[Souwester]

I have to say I've never heard any referee calling scores like this before!

[DG GIBERT]

never mind that, it looks like Judd Trump is wearing Graham Miles dicky bow!

[cuemick147]

hi, i think the ref calls out the frame score so the crowd will know the frame score. no big score disply in them days. as for the gloves, they match his shrit and tie

[DeanH]

I love it where the referee walks right in the way of Ray, see 0:40+
would not happen today, of course

[vmax4steve]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it was once standard practise to subtract the points for a foul stroke from the perpetrators frame score rather then add it to his opponents as is the case now.

[The Statman]

hi, i think the ref calls out the frame score so the crowd will know the frame score. no big score disply in them days. as for the gloves, they match his shrit and tie

That was my first thought when I heard it but he does it after every shot, and in fact we cannot tell what Reardon's break actually was.

I've often seen clips where referees preiodically called the full score - as you say, because the display wasn't sufficient for the audience - but not after every shot and not instead of the running break.

Besides, it's always (as far as I know) been in the Rules that the referee cannot indicate the difference in scores. When I've reffed in a situation where I've needed to call the dual score, it's only ever been "On the board Player A 53, Player B 37 and Player A is on a break of 12". And in any case, I would normally only call them voluntarily at the end of a turn.

[Cyril]

This is the only footage I have seen where the ref has called the scores like that. In fact I have other footage of this ref, Bill Timms, and on all other occasions he called the break in the usual way.

I used to like the "foul stroke" call instead of the usual "foul". Len Ganley always did that, as did Jim Thorpe.

[Cyril]

By the way, I have this on video and there's more of the frame shown. From memory, I pretty sure the sequence went like this: Reardon played a safety snookering Miles on the remaining 2 reds. Miles played off the top cushion, clipped a red very thinly and returned the baulk, snookering Reardon. Ray came off 2 cushions but referee Timms declared that he struck the pink fractionally before the red so "foul stroke, 6 to Miles" was awarded. Miles then stretched over the table and attempted to cut a red into the top left pocket but missed by a fair margin. Reardon then came to the table and cleared 2 reds, a black with each (I think), followed by the 6 coloured balls to take the title.