Pete Williamson Snooker Referee - corrupt or just incompetent?

[DeanH]

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.

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.

Yep, I noticed the Banned yesterday, I am sure it is for the pure rudeness and insults to a single person in his first posting, which then he continues. It would be interesting to see if his defintion of what is and what is not libellous stands up in court
Souwester - seconded, can a Moderator come on and explain the situation, if they are allowed?, on what has been and what is happening? cheers all
edit: Also, does anyone know if EASB is looking into the situation? and does anyone know Mr Williamson personally and if he knows that he has had such support?

[scottishplayer]

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

Absolute and utter bunkum!!

[jrc750]

Absolute and utter bunkum!!

Elaborate please

[cally]

Elaborate please

Basically he's saying this bud...

[LittleMissAlexa]

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.

if he didnt have to make the snooker harder to hit its still a miss its a miss if you dont take the easiest route to ball on

[nrage]

if he didnt have to make the snooker harder to hit its still a miss its a miss if you dont take the easiest route to ball on

I don't understand what you're trying to say here? Are you saying Luca didn't take the easiest route? Because IIRC he took the shortest 2 cushion escape route possible. Granted it might not have been possible to do what he was trying to do, but that's a matter of judgement, it was certainly the easiest route, assuming it was possible. The final escape route he took was far harder off more cushions and traveling the length of the table twice (IIRC).

[T.C.]

Absolute and utter bunkum!!

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.

Yes, i also have been told this from people high up in the game

[LittleMissAlexa]

most snookers have a 1 cushion escape which no pone ever uses (up n down/down and up) this is due to the need of the extended rest and cueing over the ball hence in most cases that would be regarded as the easiest escape by the referee

[LittleMissAlexa]

also to call Williamson a cheat is outrageous you can call him unfit which might be fair or unfair but to call someone a cheat is outrageous