Ssb - williams blasts williams

[The Statman]

Well i think we could go trying to guess whether it was red or pink till the cows come home . The real truth is that nobody can tell from the tv pictures available with any degree of confidence . I think a new rule needs made up to be up stating that any shot played where the outcome is too close to call for whatever reason , should be a foul .I can see William's point of view he was virtually holding the trophy with that snooker behind the brown and the reds open like that , mentally it was impossible for him to win after that robbing with the ref virtually tossing a coin for red or pink . The Snooker chiefs have got to make sure that this cannot happen again

So what if next time it's the other guy who is 9-7 up and goes on to lose and is convinced that it [i]wasn't[/] a foul?

Any referee will tell you that the benefit of the doubt goes to the striker. To change this to the non-striker actually will solve nothing, it's got to be one way or the other and next time if it's the reverse scenario, people would be arguing to change it back!

[wildJONESEYE]

So what if next time it's the other guy who is 9-7 up and goes on to lose and is convinced that it [i]wasn't[/] a foul?

Any referee will tell you that the benefit of the doubt goes to the striker. To change this to the non-striker actually will solve nothing, it's got to be one way or the other and next time if it's the reverse scenario, people would be arguing to change it back!

yes going round in circles lol

[Rane]

So what if next time it's the other guy who is 9-7 up and goes on to lose and is convinced that it [i]wasn't[/] a foul?

Any referee will tell you that the benefit of the doubt goes to the striker. To change this to the non-striker actually will solve nothing, it's got to be one way or the other and next time if it's the reverse scenario, people would be arguing to change it back!

Yes, I can´t really see any solutions to this kind of situation, except maybe avoid calling a miss in that situation, but that wouldn´t have helped Mark Williams anyway. But I think we just have to accept these situations, just like flukes and bad contacts.

[DWOT]

Looking at the footage it seems pretty clear to me it hits the pink first....... IF it hit the red first it's the finest cut shot in history...

[jrc750]

Looking at the footage it seems pretty clear to me it hits the pink first....... IF it hit the red first it's the finest cut shot in history...

Get your eyes tested

[wildJONESEYE]

Looking at the footage it seems pretty clear to me it hits the pink first....... IF it hit the red first it's the finest cut shot in history...

how do you explain passing the red with follow through and hitting the pink but then go in reverse hit the red then continue to follow through ????

[Mr Snooker]

does anybody know where on youtube is this incident with the British comontators thoughts please and also what Mark Williams, Mark Selby and referee Eirian Williams were saying at the time to each other would be much aprecciated if you could

bit hard to say which colour was first in my opion

red first.

watch video below (5:58)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISOq3...&feature=share

[sprogbasket]

I personally think it just hit red first - because, as the ref quite clearly expalined at the itme, of the direction the red took immediately after the shot . This would not have been possble if it had struck the pink first /or even at the same time as the red.

I don't think we need any new rules ...but perhaps when a player is in a tricky snooker and is going for the "hit and hope" at warp factor 9 then they should have the courtesy to inform the ref prior to taking the shot so that they know it needs extra careful observations-as most times the pros play the roll up slow shot.

This is no more than an extention of the courtesy the players give the ref regarding the relative position and sigtings Prior to taking a shot which may result in "foul and a miss " and balls being replaced.

As for Mark Williams blaming the refs decision on losing the title - I believe it was said in heat of moment and out of frustration.

If he honestly believes this after a period of reflection I would be dissappointed in him - he had chances subsequent to that incident to win and it should be the miss on the green that haunts him. He needs to look at his own mental attitude - he let things get to him - his petulant attempt at the snooker escape later on demonstrated this.


I do feel for him he has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory several times - to John Higgins, Stuart Bingham ( that match turned on an outrageous piece of good fortune for Bingham after which Bingham played superlatively ) and now this last final all in the last 12 months.

He must be hurting - he just needs to remember he is a fantastic player, a joy to watch and will win several more titles, including I believe at least one more World title - but only if he maintains his self belief and chills.

One thing I would't want is for him to detract from his own professionalism - leave that to Ronnie .

[wildJONESEYE]

biggest problem here as i can see is camplacency everyone expects every decition to be clear cut.

the only referee discretion rule is the miss rule but even that is interpratated roboticly by following guidance........you miss ball balls are replaced back, difficulty of the shot isnt even taken in to consideration so in truth when a ref has to make a decition it comes as a shock to players.

do we want referees or glorified ball boys ??

if the answer is refs let the refs have complete control over interprating the rules as he sees it not following guidence or letter of the law.

[bricktip]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems that the focus is on whether or not the white was 'seen' to hit the red or pink first. It's obvious from listening alone that it was red first, and i noticed that the first time i watched and listened to the footage.

Is the referee allowed to change his mind like he did?

[DWOT]

how do you explain passing the red with follow through and hitting the pink but then go in reverse hit the red then continue to follow through ????

ey?????

It hits the pink first, the impact of that pushes the white in the direction of the red...... any phsysacists on here to explain it to him in technical terms???



What is evident to me though is that it's anoter case of Williams losing focus, just as he did in the World final against Higgins.... The red he had along the cushion is a sitter for somebody of his class....

[nrage]

ey?????

It hits the pink first, the impact of that pushes the white in the direction of the red...... any phsysacists on here to explain it to him in technical terms???

The path of the white, for what you describe, would be different to the path observed. As would the path of the red (as the point of contact would be different).

If you look at the stills here:
http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...484#post596484

and then the video for the final path of the red you'll see it's a cut of less than 90 degrees.

Had the white come back and hit the red, as you suggest, the 'cut' would likely have been more than 90 degrees, as the white would effectively be hitting the back/behind the red (from the POV of the initial path of the white).

[Souwester]

Playing a shot at that speed more often than not will take the referee by surprise, and I agree with the earlier poster that it would be courteous for the player to warn the referee of his intentions. Although I don't play much snooker these days I've always said to my opponent something like "you might want to watch this one closely" if it's likely to be a close call.

Determining whether there is simultaneous contact or which ball was struck first can be difficult at reasonable pace, but virtually impossible at the pace played in the case being discussed. As Statman said, benefit of the doubt is normally with the striker. At least Eirian Williams had the benefit of technology to review his decision.

For my money though, the referee made the right decision in the end. Having looked at the clips a few times it does seem to me that the red was struck very finely and moved fractionally before the pink started moving.

[damienlch]

Looks red first to me... but I thought the referee's initial decision was to award Mark Williams a foul and a miss... so why would he dispute to it if he thought Selby hit the pink first? am I missing something here?

[BaconLad]

No question about it, PINK first... I've watched the replay in super slow motion, and closely observed the still images...