During the match in this year's UK Championship between Mark Williams and Stephen Maguire, an incident occurred in which both commentators and Williams queried a decision made by the ref'.
Maguire was snookered behind the brown ball and had failed to hit a red after two or three attempts. On each occassion the ref called 'foul and a miss' and Williams had the balls replaced. Eventually, Maguire played a 'hit and hope' and made contact with a red, but as he was walking away from the table he turned to the ref and declared a foul on himself, explaining that he'd fouled the brown (it couldn't be detected how he'd fouled the brown exactly - hand, cue or cueball). The ref then announced this, saying 'Foul. Four, Mark Williams'. Mark Williams came to the table and asked the ref if another 'miss' should have been called. The ref could be heard saying that no miss could be given because Maguire had made contact with the ball on (in this case a red).
The commentators, however, were saying that the ref was wrong because a foul had been commited during Maguires attempted escape, and this, therefore should have constituted a 'foul and a miss'.
So who's correct?
Maguire was snookered behind the brown ball and had failed to hit a red after two or three attempts. On each occassion the ref called 'foul and a miss' and Williams had the balls replaced. Eventually, Maguire played a 'hit and hope' and made contact with a red, but as he was walking away from the table he turned to the ref and declared a foul on himself, explaining that he'd fouled the brown (it couldn't be detected how he'd fouled the brown exactly - hand, cue or cueball). The ref then announced this, saying 'Foul. Four, Mark Williams'. Mark Williams came to the table and asked the ref if another 'miss' should have been called. The ref could be heard saying that no miss could be given because Maguire had made contact with the ball on (in this case a red).
The commentators, however, were saying that the ref was wrong because a foul had been commited during Maguires attempted escape, and this, therefore should have constituted a 'foul and a miss'.
So who's correct?
Comment