Pete Williamson Snooker Referee - corrupt or just incompetent?

[screw-back]

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.

I think you have a secret crush on mr williamson and are throwing up a smoke-screen. Go on, admit it XXX

[best1966]

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.

I don't want you to forward my comments to WS.

[Souwester]

I really think the OP is making a mountain out of a molehill over this.

WS won't be interested in seeing a load of comments from people who never even witnessed the frame first hand. They will have access to the footage which has been linked on this thread, and will be able to speak to the three people involved in the match *IF* they consider that any review is necessary.

[Dubliner]

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.

I take Mr Williamson is off your Christmas card list then?

[PaddyLowson]

But it is showing considerable discretion under the circumstances.

*sighs* Pete cannot win here can he? Referees get criticised (I know I have been) for not showing any discretion and those who are watching make things out to be 'automatic miss' calls.

and yet the immediate moment when he does show some - he gets slated by people on here for not doing the job properly.

[PaddyLowson]

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?

There's also plain old common sense.

[screw-back]

But it is showing considerable discretion under the circumstances.

*sighs* Pete cannot win here can he? Referees get criticised (I know I have been) for not showing any discretion and those who are watching make things out to be 'automatic miss' calls.

and yet the immediate moment when he does show some - he gets slated by people on here for not doing the job properly.

Point well made. The errors the pro refs make are rare but they are mostly blown out of all proportion at the first opportunity by some. As for replacing the balls, just remember that on this occasion, there was no video repay available to the ref. The rules do also say that the ref will consult both players when re-positioning them. Finally, refs are human, and they do make the occasional mistake so cut mr williamson some slack please!

[ADR147]

the person behind this thread is clearly not a well man.

[jrc750]

Just noticed it says "banned" under JP1's name now !
Is that because of his views ???

[ADR147]

Just noticed it says "banned" under JP1's name now !
Is that because of his views ???

not his views his comments - you can't just insult people - a little birdie tells me world snooker have been in touch with TSF asking for the gentleman's contact details so they can send him a court summons.

[jrc750]

not his views his comments - you can't just insult people - a little birdie tells me world snooker have been in touch with TSF asking for the gentleman's contact details so they can send him a court summons.

Nice, and like you say, just because you think something is wrong you can't just go around saying what he did.
Maybe Mr Parris should start legal proceedings against the many people who doubt his cues

[Souwester]

Given the libellous comments in the opening post, I can't believe Ferret (or the other Admins) allowed the thread to remain visible. They were given a heads up after the OP.

[Dubliner]

not his views his comments - you can't just insult people - a little birdie tells me world snooker have been in touch with TSF asking for the gentleman's contact details so they can send him a court summons.

Good call.

[JeeSe]

I have not seen the clip... but you day the red is 'Impossible' to hit. I thought in that situation a player has to play directly at the object ball and at a pace that could reach (if the snookering ball was not present) even directly through the snookering ball...

[Souwester]

I have not seen the clip... but you day the red is 'Impossible' to hit. I thought in that situation a player has to play directly at the object ball and at a pace that could reach (if the snookering ball was not present) even directly through the snookering ball...

If a ball on truly is impossible to hit, then you can play at it either directly *or* indirectly, provided there is sufficient pace to have hit the ball on if the obstructing balls hadn't been there.