Who was right - the referee or the commentators?

[Bruce]

In a UK Championship match a few days ago between Stephen Maguire and Mark Williams, Maguire was snookered. On his first escape attempt, he failed to hit an on ball and it was correctly call a foul and a miss. The balls were replaced. On his second escape attempt, he did hit an on ball but inadvertently fouled a nearby ball with his cue. The refereee (I think it was Peter Williamson) called a foul (but no miss).

The two TV commentators and Mark Williams seemed surprised that no miss had been called and therefore Williams could not ask for the balls to be replaced. I couldn't understand that argument; there had not been a miss, as an on ball had been hit successfully. The fact that the shot was a foul for a different reason was surely irrelevant.

Was the referee correct in not calling a miss on that second attempt?

[Billy]

Hey, you stole my question! Give it back now!

[dantuck_7]

Yep - I hadn't seen that frame - but by the sounds of it the ref was correct not awarding a miss.

A similar situation happened with Holt v O'Sullivan where Ronnie needed a snooker and Holt called a foul on himself for moving the blue with his cue way after he had played his shot. Really good sportsmanship.

[Cyril]

If its the shot I'm thinking of, it was certainly not Peter Williamson, who I rate very highly. It was Arian Williams who did not call a miss because I guess he didn't fancy replacing the balls!

Peter Williams was complimented by Dennis Taylor on the commentary, for NOT calling a miss, during the epic 77-minute frame between Selby and Fu. As it was, he left a free-ball anyway.

[craigslater]

The referee is wrong, if he hit the red and fouled the brown and a miss wasnt called because the ref said he hit the red then all players would fould to hit a red because they would save more points this way.....

[Semih_Sayginer]

ive posted an explanation on the other thread on here posted by Billy (just before this thread was posted) of when the brown was fouled.

Billys thread on the same topic is here http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=11546

[DawRef]

The referee was right in not calling a 'Foul and a Miss', because Maguire hit the ball on.
He hit another ball with his cue whilst playing the stroke (the cue-ball didn't), therefore it is just a foul. The commentators, as usual, were wrong.

[Semih_Sayginer]

The referee was right in not calling a 'Foul and a Miss', because Maguire hit the ball on.
He hit another ball with his cue whilst playing the stroke (the cue-ball didn't), therefore it is just a foul. The commentators, as usual, were wrong.

are you sure he "hit another ball with his cue whilst playing the stroke", and that "the cue-ball-didn't"?

im not 100% sure, though im not saying the above is wrong.

AFAIR the ref never seen the foul. maguire told him about it. never heard much discusssion about whether the cue hit the brown or the cue-ball.

anyone?

[The Statman]

A Miss can be called if the cue-ball fails to first hit a ball on.

As Maguire DID cause the cue-ball to first hit a ball on, it is not a Miss.

Basically, no Miss was called because he didn't miss!

Following that argument to its logical conclusion, you would call a Miss every time he touches a ball with his cue/clothing/body – even if he hits the ball he is going for (even if not snookered).

Why would you call a Miss when the player made such a good attempt to hit the ball on that he succeeded!

[elvaago]

Statman, your logic is solid.

If you did not miss, no miss can be called.

That says it all right there. :-)

[Semih_Sayginer]

anyone got a link to the shot in question to see whether it was cue or cueball that moved the brown? if so, please link

[Robert602]

anyone got a link to the shot in question to see whether it was cue or cueball that moved the brown? if so, please link

Here: http://www.thesnookerforum.com/rob/TSF/Maguirefoul.avi (17mb)

Easy to see the brown moving but it's still very hard to tell whether it was the cue or the cueball that contacted it. Regardless, the referee and commentators all understand it to be the cue that hit the brown, in which case the referee made the right call.

Willie:
"If a foul shot's been played and he wants the balls replaced he should have 'em"
John:
"Well I thought that if you played a foul shot that err, you know, whether he hits the, I mean it could have been that he couldn't have got to that angle if he hadn't have hit the brown or something. I don't see that as part of the rule. I don't think he wants to put the balls back."

They know better than that, surely?