Pete Williamson Snooker Referee - corrupt or just incompetent?

[The Statman]

Hmmm, I've watched what bit of the coverage there is on that link. Thanks for providing it. It is a shame it doesn't start from the beginning of the sequence.

However, the first Miss shown, I would suggest, is fair enough because the cue-ball hit the black further down the table from where it started. Since any catching of the jaw would bring the cue-ball towards the top cushion, I think it is fair to expect him to get the cue-ball to rebound towards top side. Perhaps if he had at least managed to make contact with the top cushion a Miss wouldn't have been called. Only Pete Williamson knows that.

Luca Brecel can actually consider himself lucky not to have had a further 7-point foul awarded for using the dead red to check the gap. I expect Williamson only failed to call it because it was being done in the context of replacing the balls rather than simply to check whether a ball would pass in the normal run of a frame.

The second Miss (of those shown on the clip) could certainly be seen as harsh, but that is not tantamount to incompetence.

The third Miss (of those shown), in which Brecel hits the blue, I think, is fair enough since you would expect him to avoid the blue - I would certainly call it a harsher call on the next occasion when he negotiated the blue but hit the green. The repositioning of the blue was poor.

(The free ball call that you were querying - was that the one during this sequence? All of these were blatantly free balls; on one occasion there was daylight between the black and red but certainly not enough for the cue-ball to hit the thinnest edge of the red.)

In the end, without having seen the first Miss, it is difficult to comment fully but on the sequence that is shown on the clip, the only arguable part is, I think, one of the calls of Miss. It is impossible to know Pete Williamson's thoughts as to what failed attempt, if any, he would have allowed to pass without a Miss being called. As I mentioned upthread, one of the non-Miss decisions I most vividly remember was one of his.

Secondly, it was certainly a poor preformance in respect of spotting the blue. However, as was acknowledged, it was certainly a tense situation for the players and for the referee and it was an extremely tricky situation.

But, one poor action and a decision of not unanimous agreement is hardly evidence, let alone proof, of either corruption or incompetence. I really thought, from the opening post, that I was going to see a situation that defied belief. What I saw, though, was an arguable degree of harshness - maybe even questionable (that's arguable in itself!) - and not much more, really.

[Rane]

Why is it that use of cameras hasn´t been taken into use in situations like this. It would have been quite easy to get a picture from the top of the table showing exactly how the balls were placed from the start.

[PaddyLowson]

Statman there's a fuller video here.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/C2ZtQ7ePKow/ - Sonny posted this video on to Snooker Island; watch from around 103 minutes.

Now I was there at the EIS and from the position I was stood; on the gantry of the badminton Hall and from my vantage point I would certainly say that from the initial position that the cueball would have passed the black and therefore the one cushion escape was on. That means that any more complex escapes would have naturally had to be called a miss - some shot to actually escape the snooker though - for me that's going to be 2012's shot of the championships. Regard to calling the miss I felt Peter was justified in calling the miss. Regarding the free balls. As Statman has said the lay of the land made it pretty much 'automatic' that free ball would be called. The replacement of the balls in subsequent attempts however did puzzle me; as if such an escape was not on then why would Luca attempt it?

People may criticise Michael's behaviour until the cows come home but he was entitled to place Luca back into the snooker. I don't know whether I agree with what he said about if he had played the right shot he wouldn't have had it replaced however.

Not fouling Luca the seven points for bringing the red out; though technically incorrect was an excellent piece of refereeing discretion taking into account Luca's language barrier and that he was clearly trying to show that the red should have been nearer the cushion.

[PaddyLowson]

Why is it that use of cameras hasn´t been taken into use in situations like this. It would have been quite easy to get a picture from the top of the table showing exactly how the balls were placed from the start.

I see that logic however there are no markers at the qualifiers and the referees control the score board remotes.

[The Statman]

Statman there's a fuller video here.

Ah thanks Paddy - that's useful.

So yes, the first two attempts, not shown on the earlier clip, were indeed poorer - in fact the first went entirely the wrong side of the black without even hitting it.

In which case, I even more side with Pete Williamson.

And also, a little ironically, the fairness of the situation evend itself out in another way - not the distance of the three balls from the top cushion, but their distance from the side cushion. I'm pretty sure that the path which Brecel found successfully in the end, was not available from the outset. Between the first and the last attempt, the three balls have been moved further to the left as we look. (This is not a criticism of Williamson; at the time they were the only three balls involved so their relationship with each other and the route thitherto attempted were of the utmost importance.)

Have a look at this picture. The main picture is the situation as Brecel got down to play his final, successful attempt. The inset is the original position ahead of his first attempt. I think it is clear that the eventual successful shot was not available because the pink would have been in the way. Even if the pink wasn't entirely blocking the path, it might have been close enough that Brecel would not have seen the route in the first instance.

Brecel.jpg

So in fact, any advantage has pretty much evened itself out. It may be that the black had initially been a little further from the cushion on the opening stroke than it was subsequently replaced. But I still think it was probably the easiest route - easier than any of the attempts he later made, including the successful one!

[screw-back]

Not fouling Luca the seven points for bringing the red out; though technically incorrect was an excellent piece of refereeing discretion taking into account Luca's language barrier and that he was clearly trying to show that the red should have been nearer the cushion.

Section 3 Snooker Rules state that it is a 7 point foul if (and this is just 2 of them):

(d) seven points if the striker:
(i) uses a ball off the table for any purpose;
(ii) uses any object to measure gaps or distance;

What part of this rule is not clear?

[screw-back]

Also, Alan McManus, who is widely respected and known as "Angles McManus" has tweeted "re Holty's miss situation! I seen it live, I and every other player on tour would've done the same thing! End of story!!"

JP1, I hope ref williamson seeks you out and a writ is placed in your hand. OK, he is greatly over-weight but corrupt? Hope you have a good lawyer. Totally unfounded and ill-informed.

[DandyA]

Ah thanks Paddy - that's useful.

So yes, the first two attempts, not shown on the earlier clip, were indeed poorer - in fact the first went entirely the wrong side of the black without even hitting it.

In which case, I even more side with Pete Williamson.

And also, a little ironically, the fairness of the situation evend itself out in another way - not the distance of the three balls from the top cushion, but their distance from the side cushion. I'm pretty sure that the path which Brecel found successfully in the end, was not available from the outset. Between the first and the last attempt, the three balls have been moved further to the left as we look. (This is not a criticism of Williamson; at the time they were the only three balls involved so their relationship with each other and the route thitherto attempted were of the utmost importance.)

Have a look at this picture. The main picture is the situation as Brecel got down to play his final, successful attempt. The inset is the original position ahead of his first attempt. I think it is clear that the eventual successful shot was not available because the pink would have been in the way. Even if the pink wasn't entirely blocking the path, it might have been close enough that Brecel would not have seen the route in the first instance.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9946[/ATTACH]

So in fact, any advantage has pretty much evened itself out. It may be that the black had initially been a little further from the cushion on the opening stroke than it was subsequently replaced. But I still think it was probably the easiest route - easier than any of the attempts he later made, including the successful one!

excellent analysis Statman - I've highlighted a section in bold to point out that the green was also replaced, after a failed escape, closer to the centre pocket than it originally was - in it's original position, I think it also blocked the eventual successful escape ...

to be honest, I watched it live and didn't see anything wrong except perhaps, Michael seeming to take charge of replacing the balls - we couldn't hear what he was actually saying to the ref but I'd have thought it more gentlemanly to let Luca and Pete Williamson sort it out between themselves to the best of their ability and in the spirit of fair play ...

I think everyone is so animated about it cos it was such an enthralling match, I certainly was on the edge of my seat ...

[DandyA]

Section 3 Snooker Rules state that it is a 7 point foul if (and this is just 2 of them):

(d) seven points if the striker:
(i) uses a ball off the table for any purpose;
(ii) uses any object to measure gaps or distance;

What part of this rule is not clear?

I think you're being too pedantic screw-back - I'm not sure that Luca was the striker at that moment (although the rules may prove me wrong) but in any event, isn't the last rule that the referee can make any judgements he deems appropriate to ensure fair play - which is what Pete Williamson did - he told Luca he "couldn't do that" and Luca put the ball back in the pocket ...

that seemed fine to me and a good judgement call ...

[JP1]

Watch it again;... the length of the table escape Luca eventually played was only on after Pete Williamson failed yet again to even get close to replacing the green?? After totally stuffing up replacing the blue on the previous shot. The shot was not on initially, anyway the rules committee will stew over this one for a while, and as this is the gala event of the year they will be determined not to have a repeat. As I said earlier to have such a decision at such a critical juncture in the game rest solely on the referees shoulders is not acceptable, you want to win or lose the game fair and square not be beaten by the referee. I for one do not want to see Pete Williamson refereeing an important match ever again, and have expressed that to Barry Hearn and the WS board, I was just one of many who complained about it.

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?

[best1966]

Statman there's a fuller video here.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/C2ZtQ7ePKow/ - Sonny posted this video on to Snooker Island; watch from around 103 minutes.

Now I was there at the EIS and from the position I was stood; on the gantry of the badminton Hall and from my vantage point I would certainly say that from the initial position that the cueball would have passed the black and therefore the one cushion escape was on.

How on earth can you tell if the cueball would fit through the gap from where you was stood? I've been at the qualifiers all week and there is no way you could tell from the spectators area!!!!!!!

[best1966]

Statman there's a fuller video here.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/C2ZtQ7ePKow/ - Sonny posted this video on to Snooker Island; watch from around 103 minutes.



Not fouling Luca the seven points for bringing the red out; though technically incorrect was an excellent piece of refereeing discretion taking into account Luca's language barrier and that he was clearly trying to show that the red should have been nearer the cushion.

How can that be excellent refereeing? The rulebook clearly states that it is a 7 point penalty to use a ball or object to measure gaps or distances. Doesn't say anything about taking the players understanding of English into account.

[best1966]

[QUOTE=JP1;635209] As I said earlier to have such a decision at such a critical juncture in the game rest solely on the referees shoulders is not acceptable,[QUOTE]

How can you say that? The referees are there to make decisions, whether they are easy or difficult!!

[JP1]

Nothing at all wrong with Lucas command of the English language, whatever the rules, Pete Williamson made such a dogs breakfast of that frame that he really had no idea what to do, to add a 7 point penalty to a situation which arose due to his incompetence would really have been the pinnacle of inept refereeing.

When you are the referee and a snooker has been laid, you would at least HAVE A DAMN LOOK AT THE BALLS POSITION before the shot is played, so you have a fair idea where the balls were and not have the opponent to the player snookered dictate to you where to put them?

This is not an isolated incident so far as Williamson is concerned he displays his ignorance at every match he is involved in, awarding Ricky Walden a free ball which at 7 -1 down I am sure would have been of assistance to Ricky no doubt, however he had enough ethics and sportsmanship to point out to incompetent Williamson that this was not a free ball and ignored Williamson's ruling, this confirms my earlier comment that he awarded a free ball to Holt that was NEVER a free ball thus allowing him to win the frame without having to play for snookers.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Williamson were to referee a match between Trump and O Sullivan?

By the way thanks to all that have contributed to this thread, the entire thread will be forwarded to the WS Ethics committee to assist in their investigation of Williamson's rulings.

How can that be excellent refereeing? The rulebook clearly states that it is a 7 point penalty to use a ball or object to measure gaps or distances. Doesn't say anything about taking the players understanding of English into account.

[paddybhoy30]

Some forum members may not want their views forwarded. You better get their permission.