'Those' two 'foul and a miss' controversies.

[Billy]

I'm presuming we all saw the embarrassment today when Walden and Carter had to go and fetch Yan Veraas to confirm the ruling on 'foul and miss' when snookers are required.

Now if I'm not mistaken the exact same thing happened to Jimmy White earlier in the week, but when that instance was discussed here, someone confirmed that, in fact, the referee had been correct in his decision, and that Jimmy and the commentators had been wrong. The difference, it seems, and why the referee had been correct in calling a miss, was because Jimmy was not snookered.

Walden wasn't snookered, either, when this referee called a foul and a miss (Ricky's miss meant he required a snooker), but the end decision in this case was that the referee had been wrong.

This has confused me very much. As far as I recall, both cases were identical; but in one instance the referee was correct in calling a foul and a miss, but in the other he was incorrect??

[Odrl]

The difference, it seems, and why the referee had been correct in calling a miss, was because Jimmy was not snookered.

Well, not quite...

The important difference was that Morris had already missed once before. He didn't need snookers before or after the original shot, and he could see reds full ball, so that started the sequence of misses where the third one would see the frame awarded against him. The second foul meant he now needed snookers, so normally a miss would not be called, but here the sequence of misses had already started, and the rule states that a miss should be called regardless of the score in that situation.

In Selby's and Walden's situation it was their first foul that brought them past snookers required, so there was no sequence of misses in effect, therefore their shots shouldn't have been a miss either.

I'm not really great at getting the wording exactly right, so hopefully someone can explain this better. :smile:

[SnkrRef]

Well, not quite...

The important difference was that Morris had already missed once before. He didn't need snookers before or after the original shot, and he could see reds full ball, so that started the sequence of misses where the third one would see the frame awarded against him. The second foul meant he now needed snookers, so normally a miss would not be called, but here the sequence of misses had already started, and the rule states that a miss should be called regardless of the score in that situation.

In Selby's and Walden's situation it was their first foul that brought them past snookers required, so there was no sequence of misses in effect, therefore their shots shouldn't have been a miss either.

I'm not really great at getting the wording exactly right, so hopefully someone can explain this better. :smile:

I haven't seen the White incident, and only seen what has been posted on the other thread with regard to the Walden/Carter match.

In the latter, as you say, there were enough points on the table for either player to have won prior to the foul by Walden. Once those penalty points were put on the scoreboard, he needed snookers, so a Miss cannot be called, end of. (The only time would be if the referee thought he had deliberately not tried to hot the ball on).

In the White match, I imagine the following rule applied. If a miss is properly called such that either player could have won both before and after the shot, then if the player had central full ball contact available to him, then a second and third miss can be called (and hence the frame can be lost on the third miss). This is the only time that a miss can be called when it results in the player needing snookers (apart from a deliberate miss).

[thelongbomber]

More on the Ali/Ricky issue here: http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...ad.php?t=49499