O'Sullivan didn't know the three-miss rule!

[Bruce]

In tonight's Masters final, I was astonished that Ronnie O'Sullivan has evidently been playing professional snooker for about 15 years without understanding the three-miss rule! The referee had to explain to him that you only have to be able to make a full-ball contact on an on ball. Ronnie apparently thought you had to be able to hit both edges of an on ball (as in the free-ball rule). As the referee said, the rule has always been the same! How bizarre is that?!

Anyway, he played superb snooker tonight. I hope Ding Junhui will take away positive memories of the tournament (including his 147), and will realise that nobody could have lived with Ronnie in that form. Ding still has to qualify for Sheffield, so he needs to focus on that now and view the Masters final as a learning experience.

[hegeland]

I think he was a bit distressed by the whole situation.

[The Statman]

Although John Virgo said that was what he was querying, I don't think it was.

I think that he thought that, as he couldn't hit any single red full-ball, that the three Misses situation did not arise. I think Jan explained to him that it was classed as being full-ball available if only another red was in the way.

And that is what the situation was - there was no single red that he could see full-ball, but a couple of the reds, it was only another red that stopped him.

[KnightRider]

Statman I think your right but I also think ronnie may have got mixed up the freeball rule thinking he had to be able to see both sides. I dont know why I thought that at the time, maybe it was something ronnie said.

[Sarmu]

I thought you can't ask the rules during the game, at least the referee not suppose the tell the player the rules during a match

[The Statman]

I thought you can't ask the rules during the game, at least the referee not suppose the tell the player the rules during a match

No, indeed, but if it is a definite live situation like that it is slightly different.

By which I mean, Jan warned him (correctly), and Ronnie questioned Jan's decision (which he is entitled to do). It would be silly if Jan could not confirm that he was happy with his decision. Certainly he would have to establish that Ronnie wasn't questioning the facts of the scenario - i.e. that a red was available.

[100-uper]

Players are notorious for not knowing the rules of the game and professionals often seem to be the worst offenders. Going back a bit, it was not only allowed for the referee to advise on the rules, but compulsory!

At a meeting of the Billiard Association held on September 17th, 1901, the following Resolution was unanimously carried: "In any competition held under the auspices of the Association, a player shall, in all cases, be entitled to call on the Referee to read the Rule bearing on his decision.”

Very sensible in my opinion. That would sort out a few referees in the local leagues!