Deliberate foul by Parrott?

[hegeland]

When Parrott played the black towards the red that was hanging in the pocket, that has to be seen as an attempt to a deliberate foul, don't you think? Lucky John he somehow managed to miss it, but the intention was clearly to knock the red down. John claims he's innocent, but to me that's bull**** as it was obvious he tried to pot the red.

What do you think about this incident?

[Q Ball]

Like most, never seen it happen before, I wonder how Steve would of taken it if it had cost him the match?

Q

[SteUK2006]

its not that much different to when players used to miss on purpose years ago before the foul/miss rule

[DawRef]

Deliberate Foul By Parrott?

I didn't see the incident, I only heard about it. However, I'm assuming that had John potted the red with the black, he would have been 36 points in front, with only one red on the table, leaving Steve wanting a snooker to win the frame.

The decision has to be made by the referee. That is what he is there for.

If he decides that John had played a deliberate foul, then he can only warn him that if he does it again he would lose that frame and any further breach would cost him the match (Section 4 rule 1 Ungentlemanly Conduct). I think it would be highly unlikely that the referee would have awarded the frame to Steve Davis purely on that one stroke.

[hegeland]

I didn't see the incident, I only heard about it. However, I'm assuming that had John potted the red with the black, he would have been 36 points in front, with only one red on the table, leaving Steve wanting a snooker to win the frame.

The decision has to be made by the referee. That is what he is there for.

If he decides that John had played a deliberate foul, then he can only warn him that if he does it again he would lose that frame and any further breach would cost him the match (Section 4 rule 1 Ungentlemanly Conduct). I think it would be highly unlikely that the referee would have awarded the frame to Steve Davis purely on that one stroke.

Thanks for your post. Actually there would have been at least two reds still on the table, as those two were covering all the other colours except the black. I also think there were at least one more red still on the table, but I'm not sure. Anyway, that wouldn't have made much difference, am I right?

But I think it was poor sportmanship from Parrott, in the end he was very lucky to have missed the red, otherwise this could very well have turned into a rather ugly story.

[dannyd0g]

When Parrott played the black towards the red that was hanging in the pocket, that has to be seen as an attempt to a deliberate foul, don't you think? Lucky John he somehow managed to miss it, but the intention was clearly to knock the red down. John claims he's innocent, but to me that's bull**** as it was obvious he tried to pot the red.

What do you think about this incident?

It certainly looked as if he was trying to deliberately foul. It would have made tactical sense in that situation. But we dont know for 100 % sure. Although it is unlikley, it is (in theory) possible that he was trying to plant the black onto the red to clear the red from the pocket. I guess Parrot could claim something like that, if he didnt want to say he was intending to foul.

It cant really be proved whether he was intending to do something like that, or whether he was intending a deliberate foul. The commantators said there was going to be a stuidio discussion about the incident. It would be interesting to know what they said if anyone saw it, as i manged to miss it.

I agree that it is fortunate he did not pot the red, as it might easily have soured things had he gained an advantage in the match by doing that.

[DawRef]

Deliberate Foul By Parrott

What I was trying to get at is that it is possible for a player to gain an advantage by playing a 'foul stroke', whether deliberately or not (Section 3, rule 3(g)).

Picture this:

A player is 31 points in front with 2 reds still on the table. All the colours are on cushions. The player, in trying to play safe, inadvertantly pots one of the reds and leaves the other on the edge of another pocket. He decides to bring the yellow off of the cushion. However, after striking the yellow, the cue-ball then hits the remaining red and knocks that in the pocket. Foul 4 and the player's opponent is now 28 points behind with only 27 on the table.

Unfortunately, the rules state that this is just 'rub of the green' and the red would not be brought back up onto the table , though it is possible for an unscrupulous player to do this in order to gain an advantage.

[Sarmu]

I know that deliberate foul is a valid tactic in pool, thou not too sure about in snooker, I had no time to work out the score, since the screen was brought back few seconds before the shot, but I dont' think that deliberate foul on the red would make Davis needing snooker since foul on black gives 7 point and one red is 8 point max, I think the Parrott just want to pot in the red so that he won't leave a eazy red for Davis next shot.

[Stormwatch]

Here is the shot and comments from both Parrot and Davis.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/new...tm?bw=nb&mp=rm

It's obvious that he tried to pod that red.....

[missneworleans]

Haven't seen this happening before. Yes, he was trying to pot that red of course. He thought that he had advantage, and better lose 7 points than give opponent a good break. He was really lucky that he didn't pot that red, and black gone from play.
Personally I think he needed to push black to red, trying to block it. It could be diffucult to control the speed of cue-ball, and if he hit too hard he could pot that red. But shooted really trying to pot that red. It would be ineteresting what professionals say about that, because computer really said, that ne need to pot that red!

[PaulTheSoave]

Davis said in the aftermatch interview he would have called on the ref to call it a deliberate foul!

When Parrott played the black towards the red that was hanging in the pocket, that has to be seen as an attempt to a deliberate foul, don't you think? Lucky John he somehow managed to miss it, but the intention was clearly to knock the red down. John claims he's innocent, but to me that's bull**** as it was obvious he tried to pot the red.

What do you think about this incident?

[missneworleans]

Davis said in the aftermatch interview he would have called on the ref to call it a deliberate foul!

LOL! I thought if Davis would be on Parrot's place, he would try to push black near to red and block it, and if hit it too hard, then he will pot it. But then nobody will call it deliberate foul!

[The Statman]

Having seen it from inside the arena (not a great view for this puropse) and unable to see it on the link above, it was obvious that suspicion was there.

However, I thought he was trying to clear the red from the pocket. If the red was so close to the pocket that it was not possible to clear it, then the plant was so easy I am surprised he did not manage it, if that was his intention.

He certainly looked annoyed that the red had stayed where it was, but of course he would have been whatever his intentions.

I also think the snooker Gods tend to be unforgiving about such things, so the fact that he managed to win such a tense decider minds me to feel that he was not doing anything ungentlemanly.

[elvaago]

I find it hard to believe that JP would deliberately foul as it's nothing short of cheating. He's always been a gentleman, owning up to fouls the ref didn't see.

So I'm giving him the benefit of the (in my mind not existing) doubt that he didn't try to foul on purpose.

[The Statman]

It may have been in his mind that, if it went wrong, he might have accidentally knocked the red in, but that is a different matter, especially since there were at least 4 reds on the table (albeit awkwardly placed) and there was not nearly 50 difference in the score.