Pete Williamson Snooker Referee - corrupt or just incompetent?

[Gerry Armstrong]

Mark Williams was having a good laugh with Michael Holt on Twitter about the incident so I'd be interested to know what you heard Mark say about it.

[neilcounter]

Pete Williamson Snooker Referee - corrupt or just incompetent?

Perhaps you would yourself like to precisely replace 3 or 4 balls, on a 72 squared foot snooker table!! Without the use of video I'm sure you will agree this is impossible!

Did the referee make an error? Probably

Is he a corrupt cheat? Probably not?

Is he fat? Hell yes, looks a right miserable git too, but what does this have to do with his ability as a referee?

[Odrl]

Can anyone hear what is actually being said? How do you know what Holt is saying to the referee for example?

I say that, because from the way Holt and Brecel look at each other a couple of times, it seems they both know the position is wrong.

Any attempted escape from a snooker which fails to hit the ball on is a miss in professional snooker. The referees are not allowed any discretion, the rule is subject to a World Snooker directive affectionately known as the Must Hit directive for Pro Snooker.

The referee had no choice but to call a Miss and every single pro referee would have done the same.

Well, that's certainly not true. There have been quite a few cases of the miss not being called in recent years. If you remember last year's WC, both Eirian Williams and Terry Camilleri decided not to call a miss at one point, when the snooker was extremely difficult to get out of.

[Gerry Armstrong]

Can anyone hear what is actually being said? How do you know what Holt is saying to the referee for example?

I say that, because from the way Holt and Brecel look at each other a couple of times, it seems they both know the position is wrong.



Well, that's certainly not true. There have been quite a few cases of the miss not being called in recent years. If you remember last year's WC, both Eirian Williams and Terry Camilleri decided not to call a miss at one point, when the snooker was extremely difficult to get out of.

It is most certainly 100% true that Pro Referees have been told to always call a miss in all circumstances by World Snooker.

[DeanH]

the attitude you display

good grief Charlie Brown, "kettle and black" comes to mind

I will keep an eye out for any outcome from any investigation. cheers for bringing this to the Forum's attention.

[Odrl]

It is most certainly 100% true that Pro Referees have been told to always call a miss in all circumstances by World Snooker.

Interesting... Is this a fairly recent thing then? I actually can't think of a situation where the miss wasn't called this season... Although to be fair, apart from this one, I don't remember any controversies either.

But we've certainly seen referees not calling a miss in the past. I can't imagine they would have done so had they been instructed to call it no matter what. Surely it can't literally be "all circumstances"? Why not just put that in the rule then?

[dantuck_7]

Holt plays a clear push shot ( watch the video) to bring the cue ball behind the black totally obscuring the path to the red situated right next to black, the frame at a very delicate juncture with Brecel leading by just 3 points, and this being the last red on the table, there is NO possible escape from the snooker...

Firstly I was watching this frame throughout and it didn't occur to me at all that Holt played a push-shot in getting the snooker. Secondly, Luca actually hits the red on his last escape - so you can't claim there was NO possible escape!.

The miss can be called at the discretion of the referee - in this case the 1 cushion escape with side was possible (at first - but was very tough to judge!). I agree tho that where the balls were replaced it did make the snooker slightly harder, so this may not have been possible on subsequent attempts...

... If the 3 cushion escape (avoiding baulk colours) was the only possible option and Luca had played this well enough, and maybe missed by a very small amount then in that instance the miss may not have been called?

[lbs]

I think all professionals will put the ball back on after a miss had been called, ESPECIALLY when it landed in an unfavourable position. Unless you talking about matches between White and O'Sullivan.

I like to see the video of the suspected push shot, anyone has a link?

[The Statman]

Firstly I was watching this frame throughout and it didn't occur to me at all that Holt played a push-shot in getting the snooker. Secondly, Luca actually hits the red on his last escape - so you can't claim there was NO possible escape!.

The miss can be called at the discretion of the referee - in this case the 1 cushion escape with side was possible (at first - but was very tough to judge!). I agree tho that where the balls were replaced it did make the snooker slightly harder, so this may not have been possible on subsequent attempts...

... If the 3 cushion escape (avoiding baulk colours) was the only possible option and Luca had played this well enough, and maybe missed by a very small amount then in that instance the miss may not have been called?

Note: I haven't seen the footage so am commenting based on what I have read.

Indeed. In fact, one of the things that surprised me about this thread is that one of my clearest memories of a non-Miss call, in the evrything's-a-miss era, was in fact by Pete Williamson.

If he thought the route chosen on the initial attempt was not possible, then he is justified in calling a Miss. If he consdieres that the initial route is possible, then he would have to base the call on whether it was a 'good enough' attempt.

[nrage]

Note: I haven't seen the footage so am commenting based on what I have read.

Indeed. In fact, one of the things that surprised me about this thread is that one of my clearest memories of a non-Miss call, in the evrything's-a-miss era, was in fact by Pete Williamson.

If he thought the route chosen on the initial attempt was not possible, then he is justified in calling a Miss. If he consdieres that the initial route is possible, then he would have to base the call on whether it was a 'good enough' attempt.

For the initial attempt the white was right up against the black, and I think Luca had to go directly to the rail (to avoid the curve of the pocket) /and/ then apply left hand side to make the white travel below the black.

The result of his first few attempts suggest to me that it maybe wasn't possible for him to apply the required side (due to the black), or he miss judged where on the cushion he could strike (perhaps he could have come closer to the pocket without coming off the jaw on an odd angle) .. so perhaps his initial escape plan wasn't possible.

[Dubliner]

This is not exactly the same but the link shows that again the miss rule is subject to immense controversy; Have a look at the pictures I posted in a separate replay on this blog on the same subject I think they speak for themselves.

ts_lp@yahoo.com.cn

We havnt yet seen the video showing the original shot which put brecel in the snooker. i watched the shot holt played to get the snooker on live stream. holt was snookered, maby hampered by a baulk colour im not sure, but he went off a couple of cushions and hit the red, it was a great shot....i dont know how you came to the conclusion he played a push shot? I dont see how it could have been to be honest with you.

The pictures you posted in the other thread of where you believe the balls were is your opinion by the way, at 1st view the pic could be mistaken for a video still but its actually clubs balls on a club table.

Can you explain these 2 points jp?

Oh and in my opinion your comments would be taken a bit more seriously if you make them without expressing your obvious dislike for holt and the referee, you see most people dont care who you care to dis-like, i think people would rather just have a discussion about the incident :afro:

[lk8]

that's exactly how i remembered it too, Holt was snookered behind the baulk colours on the left hand side of the table (ie. yellow side) and he played off the side and bottom cushion hit the red and snookered behind the black, with the red slightly on top and left of black...

and as the red had to move under the black to get to the right of black, and the white brushing against the black from the bottom cushion before resting on the black, there MUST be more than 1 ball width under the black, otherwise the red wouldn't be there in the first place, thus I believe the referee have replaced the ball wrongly, he should've paid much more attention to where the red and black were as it's clearly the most important ball under such situation...

there was a few obvious chances for Holt to get back into the frame, even when he was 19 in front and free ball awarded, if he showed any sportmanship he could've potted the free ball and lay the snooker again instead of relying on that fluke snooker and misplacement of balls, but when so much is at stake who could blame him? If the referee keeps calling misses and you know it's virtually an impossible snooker, then who could blame him?

[PaddyLowson]

The Miss rule was brought in to counter attempts by snooker players to gain an unfair advantage by deliberately missing shots they normally would not to deny their opponent a possible frame winning opportunity.

Miss: The striker shall to the best of his ability endeavor to hit the ball on. If the referee considers the rule infringed he shall call foul and a "miss." The incoming player (1) may play the ball(s) as they lie, or (2) may request that the ball(s) be returned to the original position and have the offending player play the stroke again. Note: if the ball on cannot possibly be hit, the striker is judged to be attempting to hit the ball on.

Let us have a look at what transpired in the World Championship qualifier April 12 2012 between Luca Brecel and Michael Holt, Referee : Pete Williamson.

Holt plays a clear push shot ( watch the video) to bring the cue ball behind the black totally obscuring the path to the red situated right next to black, the frame at a very delicate juncture with Brecel leading by just 3 points, and this being the last red on the table, there is NO possible escape from the snooker, Brecel attempts to overcome the snooker by playing, raised cue butt onto the cue ball directing it to the top side pocket opening hoping to catch an impossible angle to get back to the object ball, he fails as he invariably must. The correct decision by the referee would have been to call a foul and have Brecel if Holt so decided play the next shot from where the cue ball landed or have Holt take the shot instead.
Only a totally incompetent or corrupt referee would call a foul AND A MISS in this situation - but that is exactly what Williamson did, time and again, until Hold had accumulated over 30 points in fouls enabling him to steal this very important frame.

We must clearly understand this, the frame an extremely important one was won by Holt as a result of a corrupt/incompetent decision on the application of the miss rule by the referee and not by his good and fair play on the table - And this cannot be.

Williamson aggravated the situation by his incompetence of failing to replace the balls to where they were, the rule clearly states that the balls must be replaced where they were prior to the foul so as not put the player at a disadvantage, Williamson not only failed to replace the balls correctly, he allowed Brecel's opponent and beneficiary of this corroborated mess, Michael Holt to dictate and instruct him where to place the balls, which was in a position far worse then the original one.

Common Barry Hearn how much more evidence of cheating do you need to act against cretins like Pete Williamson?

Luca Brecel to his credit was to much a gentleman and his sense of fair play far exceeds that of Williamson and Michael Holt, he simply should have refused to play the shot from the position Holt dictated to compliant Williamson.
This smacks of stinking corruption and puts snooker back years, players like Holt and referees like Williamson have no place on the pro tour.

The rule as it stands is quite clearly open to miss-use by cheating elements within our game, it would serve the game well if the rule were to be modified to make it impossible for cheats to use it as a tool to win frames.

This was by no means the only miserable decision Pete Williamson made in the match, and all of them to the detriment of Luca Brecel, Williamson awarded Holt a free ball when quite clearly Holt was able to easily hit both sides of the object ball, again at a situation that allowed Holt to win a frame he was well on the way of losing, there is video coverage of the match if the tape still exists Barry Hearn should have it looked at, Barry made comments that he had a zero tolerance for match fixers, and so he should, how about taking a close look at Pete Williamson, if the guy claims to be unbiased then his decisions clearly show a level of incompetence that is quite simply not acceptable.

A huge congratulations to Luca Brecel for beating his opponent and the Referee, the final score of 10 - 9 in Brecels favour should have been 10 - 6 3 frames were won by Holt in circumstances that warrant investigating.

Assume you are speaking about this as a referee then?

[FOXMULDER]

I heard Holt fluked the snooker? Was that the case?

If so, surely that should have been taken into consideration. No player should be allowed to gain so many points from a fluke.

[Dubliner]

I heard Holt fluked the snooker? Was that the case?
yeah


If so, surely that should have been taken into consideration. No player should be allowed to gain so many points from a fluke.

Your mistaken snooker for american pool there pal.