@@Breakfromlife Here are some: - 2nd round match between Graeme Dott and Mark Selby at the 2009 World Championship, frame 16 (Dott prevented the cue ball from dropping into the pocket, which then provoked a foul from Selby, who thought it's ball in hand) - Graeme Dott and Ryan Day, 2022 British Open Last 16, frame 5 (when pink and black are the only balls left on the table, it is *not* a foul to snooker a player behind a free ball)
@@Breakfromlife I can't think of an example of this caught on video, but if a player disturbs the balls with the rest because the rest was defective, it is not a foul (section 3, rule 20(b)).
Great topic! It could have been worth mentioning that one thing that may confuse players is that you’re able to see a red full on even if it’s covered by other reds. I think that may be what Ronnie was confused about.
Yeah I probably should have mentioned that. It was what the referee thought he was confused about but he actually just thought he had to see both sides of a red in this instance
There is another little known rule with free ball. You can snooker behind a free ball only if the pink and black are the remaining colours. This happened in a frame between Ryan Day and Graeme Dott
The relevant rule says: (b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should: (i) fail to hit the nominated free ball first unless it was hit simultaneously with a ball on; or (ii) after a non-scoring stroke, be snookered on all Reds or the ball on by the nominated free ball, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.
The other odd free ball rule is that it won't be given if the reason you can't see an edge of a red is another red - you can't be snookered by another red. I've seen this come up in a match, but can't remember who was playing.
There is a principle which appears to be applied selectively in snooker. Imagine a touching ball situation (with a red) and the next ball on is also a red. The player is allowed to play away from the touching red without having to hit another red and is deemed to have "hit" a red. But imagine if the touching ball is a colour (say, blue) but the next ball on is a red. By applying the same principle, if the ball is deemed to have "hit" the touching ball first (in this case the blue), shouldn't this be a foul shot?
5:21 gotta love how vigorously Higgins argues NOT to take a foul out of confusion instead of smiling and being happy he got it. He was wrong but wrong in a very sportsmanlike way ❤
It was amazing to see a player with John's experience confused by that. Professionals DO know that you can't snooker behind a free ball - this comes up frequently - so it's only the fact that it was an unintentional snooker that made it possible to overlook. But once the ref called it, it should have been obvious.
@ agreed. I am just referring to the fact that many players would hear “foul” and jump out of their seats eager to get back to the table and not question it, but John was arguing against himself which shows integrity.
RE: 5:35 I agree with the ref, the ball only fell once King started to climb off the table, and I suspect it's the weight difference shifting the table slightly causing it to fall in. If it wasn't for the weight on the table I don't think it would have fallen at all, and if that is the case then it fell because of something other than the shot and needs to be replaced.
One of the most confusing moments I remember happened in the 2nd round match between Graeme Dott and Mark Selby at the 2009 World Championship. To quote Wikipedia: "The match between Mark Selby and Graeme Dott saw a controversial decision by referee Alan Chamberlain. Dott was going in-off, but stopped the cue ball with his fist before it dropped into the pocket, believing that the in-off was obvious. Chamberlain called a foul and awarded four points to Selby. Convinced that he now had the cue ball in hand, as would be the norm after an in-off, Selby picked up the ball to place it inside the "D". However, Chamberlain then called a foul on him and awarded four points back to Dott. Chamberlain's reasoning was that since the cue ball had never left the bed of the table, Selby should have played the shot from where the cue ball finished. Both players and even members of the audience disputed Chamberlain's decision, but it remained unchanged."
@@Mike-1000 The ref did follow the rules by the letter. What was disputed was whether he could have used his discretion to either warn Mark in time (making him aware that it was not ball in hand), or not give a foul (the rules absolutely allow the ref to do this). In the end, I think nobody but Dott was to blame, and it's unfortunate that Selby got punished.
@@Mike-1000 Note that Selby had not seen what happened. The last he had seen was white moving towards the pocket, and then the ref gave a foul. He didn't know (and couldn't have known) that Dott had touched the white.
@@renerpho The rules state quite clearly that the referee is not allowed to warn a player that they are about to commit a foul. What I feel caused a problem is that the referee seemed a little smug about the situation. Saying "I'm really sorry but I am not allowed to explain" may have changed the situation completely. What was not mentioned is that incident caused the rules to be changed. If somebody now stops a ball from going in a pocket, it is considered 'forced off the table'. If the cue ball is forced of the table, it is played from hand.
If Vafaei was not completely sure why didn't he ask the ref... This is one of those rare scenarious where the ref must answer to the player with a simple yes or no whether the cueball is properly placed.
Referees got to speak before shot like this. If in football game you place the ball out of the corner area when its cornerkick, referee always have to say it or accept that little "cheat"
Referees got to speak before shot like this. If in football game you place the ball out of the corner area when its cornerkick, referee always have to say it or accept that little "cheat"
In Billiards, players - who play from hand quite often- regularly ask the referee to check if in or out - might be sensible for snooker players to start doing same!
The Ronnie blue, does sound a bit strange. I feel they could use technology for these shots. Push shots make a different sound and the cue ball travels too far. Hard to determine that sometimes, so the refs usually give the player the benefit of the doubt, but some refs are more strict than others. Using sound and Hawkeye, like they do in cricket, would make this less subjective.
Push shots only make a different sound with the cueball travelling faster after contact if the object ball is hit full. If the object ball is hit thin it is still a foul as per the rules, but doesn't display the same characteristics as the type of shot you are thinking of.
Great video BFL! I always remember Dechawat Poomjaeng was the first time I ever saw the three-miss rule happen against Michael White. I hadn't even heard of the rule before then so was amazed when it happened!
I was wondering what your thoughts are on putting a more quality tip on a basic cue which I have? Would this help improve things slightly as I have just been using the tip that was on it a bce cue which was £100.
Excellent video. Nice departure from your normal fare, very interesting. Thank you for clearing up the ambiguity around half the red needing to be in the D.
Great video as always, you should’ve also included the Graham Dott vs Mark Selby match where Graham didn’t let the cue ball go in the pocket with his hand.
That situation as well as this frustrate me so much, the referee knows exactly what the players about to do but allows them to do it just so they can have there 5 mins of fame,
@c.maltese3939 yeah but nevertheless it always applies in snooker that the ref should not alarm players whether they are about to commit a foul or not.
I have no idea why a pro would put the cue ball so close to the yellow spot, knowing that there's usually a dip there, that makes the ball move slightly. The ref did well to spot it, I'm sure some refs ignore things like that, but if you make a mistake like that, it should be punished, so you learn not to do it again.
It was really cool to see you on Hendry's Tough Table Challenge! Great to see you doing well with your snooker and your channel. I hope you had a great time! Cheers Now bring Hendry on your channel!
I think the rules should clearly state that if there was no clear evidence the player committed a foul, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it's just impossible to call, even with a high speed camera set up at a good angle.
So there was a debate in our club about a free ball and nobody could agree to it i was snookered on the yellow after a foul so a free ball was called the yellow was close to the pocket i was behind the black so i was saying if i call the yellow as a free ball can i nominate the black and pot the yellow because in that shot the black as a nominated free ball to the value of a yellow, becomes a yellow? Thoughts?
The ball on does not stop being the ball on when you have a free ball, so you could have legally potted the yellow, as long as the cue ball hits the yellow (the ball on) or the black (the nominated ball) first. Edit: This is stated explicitly in rule 3.12(d).
The free ball rule gives you the option to nominate a free ball but it's not compulsory. You could just have chosen to play the yellow. If the yellow was over the pocket but you couldn't hit it directly, you could just nominate whichever ball was blocking the yellow and use that to play a plant to pot the yellow.
Yes. You can pot either (or both) but must hit the nominated ball first. You only score once though, so if you pot both, then you still score just 2 & the black is re-spotted. This is different to a red being the 'ball on' where you would score 1 for each.
great video - i like knowing the rule where you can snooker someone behind the nominated free ball even with only the pink and black left, tasty knowledge!
I actually think it is quite obvious that the cue ball is outside looking from the top angle. Reason: From the top view, the centre of the cue ball looks to be slightly higher than the corner of the "D". But for the benefit of doubt, let's say they are on the same level. However, the cue ball is not exactly on the baulk line. It is closer to the baulk cushion, which means it could only be outside of the "D".
More than 50% of the white was clearly outside the D, but because it's in the corner it's not a half and half split on the baulk line or even the slightly curved arch , it's more a pie section chart.
Interesting! I was wondering if you were going to include one of those situations where you're deemed to have a full ball contact on a red available as long as it's not obstructed by a colour, regardless of whether another red in front of it technically obscures full ball contact. Ronnie was in one of those situations, must have been Welsh Open 2023, and he didn't quite believe the ref when he was warned after his second miss because he thought he couldn't see a red full because it was obstructed by another red. He ended up smashing into the pack but accidentally hit the pink and so lost the frame. Ronnie often seems to be in these situations where he's unaware of the rules 🙃
When the players are of world-class calibre, an impossible snooker rarely happens. I think I've only seen it happen once, but I've seen plenty that should've probably not been called for a miss (like the ones where your only option is to jaw a pocket to hit the only ball on).
Love the other historical find for the cue ball outside the D - the original 'glove' NIgel Gilbert! As a good friend of his [he owns the club I used to play in when I lived in Bedford and we set up the handicap tournament there 30 years ago that is still going!] I've sent a good few sarcastic comments to him after that was found! LOL!
These are my favourite videos... The foul on the black ball / respot rule will never make sense... I can imagine foul scenarios where the foul should deserve the option of a respot, but if it's a pocketed white, why not just keep playing. It's the player's own mistake that leaves it there.
It was explained in the video. The first score of the black ends the frame. A re-spotted black is a tie breaker, considered separate from the frame itself.
And Chen Feilong is a renowned coach as well - no wonder he turned his head away in disgust when he realised he'd made the rookie mistake! I remember watching this match at the time, for some reason, and being perplexed at how a professional, like Kyren Wilson, had no idea about one of the simplest rules in the game...
The re-spotted black mis-understanding shows that many top pros do not know the rules thoroughly. The same is true of most sports. Commentators occasionally get them wrong too.
so that first shot from Hossein, i do agree that the ref wouldnt have called it unless he was sure and that he would be putting the white right on the endge and then we clearly see it roll further, but the thing making me doubt it slightly is the feeling that the most likely cause of a roll would be to roll onto the yellow spot, as the spots are the bits of the table most likely to get a dent from having a ball on them
What counts as out of the D? Is it most of the ball? I often place the cue ball in the centre of where the 2 lines converge (on either side of D), so looking overhead it might be mostly out. To me that's acceptable even if not official and i dont begrudge other players doing it (obviously)
Well a ball is a sphere so only a tiny part of it is ever in contact with the table, obviously the part that is in contact with the table needs to be inside the D
What about Ding vs Yuan in the Wuhan Open? At 16:00 mins Ding can see the black but opts to try to go up and hit the green. He misses four times. Is the rule about missing when you can see a ball different for coloured balls?
I didn't see it, but it sounds like the wrong call. Why is he not playing the black? Because he does not want to give his opponent an easy chance? That is Ding's problem. If he fails to hit a ball on when he could make centre full-ball contact with any of them, then he should be warned after the second failed attempt.
@ it’s worth a look because after 2 misses Yuan asks the ref if he will be warned and Ding intervenes and seems to say the rule doesn’t apply because he has called the green ball. Very odd.
Respectfully, I disagree with your point about the camera showing it incorrectly. Look at the same camera angle when the yellow is on the spot. It shows as further into the D than his white did. By definition, the yellow being on its spot, it’s exactly 50% in the D. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that any ball showing further out, even by a little bit, is out of the D.
Good subject matter. Some rules seem to put onus on the referee and their interpretation of the law, but for the rules to cover every possible scenario the rule book would have to be like the Encyclopedia Britannica. The rule of common sense seems to be the best way forward. Good post, thank you 👍
@TheRip72 Up to a point I would agree. When a player is snookered and he tries the best to get out of it, at times the referee will not call a missed ball. Not all referees will call it at all, or will call it at the same point in the game. There is some common sense the referees use, but it is not always seen that way.
Not sure if this has been put into your video but from memory there was a match between Kyren Wilson and Ding and it was highly likely that Kyren (yes him again) didn't know the "you can't use the free ball to obstruct the object ball" rule doesn't apply when there is just pink and black left which i think what caused him to play the shot differently (as to using the black ball as free ball (after Ding's foul) to obstruct the pink i.e. the object ball)
I would love to see you explain the "touching ball" rule, the people I play with insist that the cue ball should hit the touching ball again during the shot, otherwise it's a foul!
In a touching ball scenario, the balls are deemed to be touching at the start of the shot and therefore the cue ball must be played away from the object ball. The cue ball doesn't have to hit the object ball again during the shot - the people you play with are wrong!
A strange fowl was called in a major tournament a few years ago. Unfortunately I don’t remember the players names. Player ‘A’ made a good shot but the white ball was going in-off towards the green pocket. Player ‘A’ stopped the ball before it dropped in the pocket and placed it behind the ‘D’ for player ‘B’. - 4 points to Player ‘B’. Player ‘B’ placed the ball in the ‘D’ - this was called a fowl - he should have played the ball from where it sat.
Depending on when it was, the decision was correct if they pushed it back in, but if they picked it up, it should have been played from hand. After the Selby/Dott incident, the rules committee decided to change it (which I think was very sensible). I think it was changed in 2019. Now, if somebody stops a ball from going in, it is considered "forced off the table" & if this is the cue ball, it is 'in hand'.
for me, with the fine edge to not get called a push shot, I want to see the energy of the white being like 10 times the energy of the red. A very fine edge you can get 100x the energy. So Mark Kings where the white had like twice the energy if that, he hadn't played it as thin as possible, so it was a push.
Movement after letting go of the ball normally happens as the ball settles into the divot where the green normally lies, so the question is whether a white on the green spot is inside or outside the D and/or and whether the ball being on the spot means it's touching the line, since the rules of the game don't allow this.
Question about the 3 miss rule. Since when you're angled on a shot you're not classified as being snookered, what if you're angled on all reds and can't hit them twice? Will you be warned?
@@chon9.0 By angled, you mean a pocket snooker? In that scenario, it's up to the referee's discretion. They generally won't call a miss if you can't hit a red directly.
No. The term 'snookered' is not used in the miss rule. If you cannot directly make 'central full-ball contact' (which is a phrase used in the miss rule) with a ball on, then you should not be warned.
I simplify one of these rules down to “the final black is only worth seven points.” Once those points are scored, no matter the outcome, the frame is over. (But a respotted black might follow.)
As a former referees' examiner, I can assure you that referees are taught many unusual situations when learning the rules. We are not just given a badge & trusted to know them.
There was another ronnie one where it's something like the white is in the jaws and Ronnie played for a red twice and missed but on the third attempt, before he took it he fouled, I can't remember the foul which meant it was the other person's turn or something like that, it was really odd.
if this be the case there should be a line drawn within the D the radius measurement of the cue ball how many times have players placed the cue ball along the line between yellow and green spot not knowing including the referee if they are within the D or not lets hope the WPBSA get this info ??????????????????????????
in the case for wu's missed pink, as we are sure he didnt intend to use the pink for a snooker(absolutely no reson to as he hasnt won the frame yet), shouldnt discretion be given to the referee to not call a foul in that case?
Funny rule for Wilson black ball match, he was 7 points behind , Chen miss the black but put the white in means 7 points for Wilson plus he should pot the black where it finishes !!!!
free ball situation: your opponent pockets the white, so a foul, ball in hand to go in the D. There is no position where you can see both sides of any ball on, but you can see both sides if you move the white in the D to a different spot. Is this a free ball or not?
@@sharkey9 No, it isn't. An interesting scenario is if the object ball is sandwiched between 2 balls not on & they are around the baulk line in (or just outside) the D. If you place the cue ball right up close so it is almost touching, then you can miss it before you hit one of the balls not on. That is not a free ball, even though it would be is the white was further away. I am not sure if you can visualise that, but it is a weird one.
@@TheRip72 My train of thought was that there's not a single spot in the D where I could hit both sides, resulting in a free ball. So apparently the whole D is considered "one spot", therefore no free ball. Thanks for clarifying. But your scenario... man I can barely see, no way I can visualize that :P
@@sharkey9 The two edges of the object ball are the edges the CUE BALL can hit. Slightly different from the ones we imagine, but VERY different the closer the balls are together. Put the balls almost touching, and two edges the cue ball can see are only a couple of millimetres apart. I think TheRip72 is saying that if you can place the cue ball in the D, but almost touching the object ball, you can't claim a free ball, because the cue ball can see both edges of the object ball.
@@Telssa1 Oh I see. If the white is further away, those edges would be obstructed by another ball but up super close, all I can see is red. Gotcha and thanks mate.
I like these videos where you analyze and explain controversial situations. I'd like to see more of them!
@@UnimatrixOne I will if I could find more to explain
@@Breakfromlife Here are some:
- 2nd round match between Graeme Dott and Mark Selby at the 2009 World Championship, frame 16 (Dott prevented the cue ball from dropping into the pocket, which then provoked a foul from Selby, who thought it's ball in hand)
- Graeme Dott and Ryan Day, 2022 British Open Last 16, frame 5 (when pink and black are the only balls left on the table, it is *not* a foul to snooker a player behind a free ball)
@@Breakfromlife I can't think of an example of this caught on video, but if a player disturbs the balls with the rest because the rest was defective, it is not a foul (section 3, rule 20(b)).
Great topic! It could have been worth mentioning that one thing that may confuse players is that you’re able to see a red full on even if it’s covered by other reds. I think that may be what Ronnie was confused about.
Yeah I probably should have mentioned that. It was what the referee thought he was confused about but he actually just thought he had to see both sides of a red in this instance
I've seen Ronnie get that wrong before & query it with the referee.
Unfortunately some refs make bad calls and can annoy both players
There is another little known rule with free ball. You can snooker behind a free ball only if the pink and black are the remaining colours. This happened in a frame between Ryan Day and Graeme Dott
Section 3, Rule 12(b)(ii). Definitely a rarely seen rule!
The relevant rule says:
(b) It is a foul if the cue-ball should:
(i) fail to hit the nominated free ball first unless it was hit simultaneously with a ball on; or
(ii) after a non-scoring stroke, be snookered on all Reds or the ball on by the nominated free ball, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.
There was a match between Ding and Wilson a couple years ago where one of them forgot this rule I believe
Three scenarios when you can legally snooker behind the free ball.
The other odd free ball rule is that it won't be given if the reason you can't see an edge of a red is another red - you can't be snookered by another red. I've seen this come up in a match, but can't remember who was playing.
Possibly the best snooker vid ever. Some of these have obviously been covered before, but you’ve added so much value to each clip. Well played.
1st time watcher, thoroughly enjoyed it. Good work dude, explained very well
As a rugby ref, I love videos like this explaining quirky rules!
Jamie from Sligo, Ireland
There is a principle which appears to be applied selectively in snooker. Imagine a touching ball situation (with a red) and the next ball on is also a red. The player is allowed to play away from the touching red without having to hit another red and is deemed to have "hit" a red. But imagine if the touching ball is a colour (say, blue) but the next ball on is a red. By applying the same principle, if the ball is deemed to have "hit" the touching ball first (in this case the blue), shouldn't this be a foul shot?
5:21 gotta love how vigorously Higgins argues NOT to take a foul out of confusion instead of smiling and being happy he got it. He was wrong but wrong in a very sportsmanlike way ❤
It was amazing to see a player with John's experience confused by that. Professionals DO know that you can't snooker behind a free ball - this comes up frequently - so it's only the fact that it was an unintentional snooker that made it possible to overlook. But once the ref called it, it should have been obvious.
@ agreed. I am just referring to the fact that many players would hear “foul” and jump out of their seats eager to get back to the table and not question it, but John was arguing against himself which shows integrity.
RE: 5:35
I agree with the ref, the ball only fell once King started to climb off the table, and I suspect it's the weight difference shifting the table slightly causing it to fall in.
If it wasn't for the weight on the table I don't think it would have fallen at all, and if that is the case then it fell because of something other than the shot and needs to be replaced.
One of the most confusing moments I remember happened in the 2nd round match between Graeme Dott and Mark Selby at the 2009 World Championship. To quote Wikipedia:
"The match between Mark Selby and Graeme Dott saw a controversial decision by referee Alan Chamberlain. Dott was going in-off, but stopped the cue ball with his fist before it dropped into the pocket, believing that the in-off was obvious. Chamberlain called a foul and awarded four points to Selby. Convinced that he now had the cue ball in hand, as would be the norm after an in-off, Selby picked up the ball to place it inside the "D". However, Chamberlain then called a foul on him and awarded four points back to Dott. Chamberlain's reasoning was that since the cue ball had never left the bed of the table, Selby should have played the shot from where the cue ball finished. Both players and even members of the audience disputed Chamberlain's decision, but it remained unchanged."
I'm with the ref 100% on that to be honest.
@@Mike-1000 The ref did follow the rules by the letter. What was disputed was whether he could have used his discretion to either warn Mark in time (making him aware that it was not ball in hand), or not give a foul (the rules absolutely allow the ref to do this). In the end, I think nobody but Dott was to blame, and it's unfortunate that Selby got punished.
@@Mike-1000 Note that Selby had not seen what happened. The last he had seen was white moving towards the pocket, and then the ref gave a foul. He didn't know (and couldn't have known) that Dott had touched the white.
@@renerpho The ref played his part yes, discretion could have sent it the other way as well.
@@renerpho The rules state quite clearly that the referee is not allowed to warn a player that they are about to commit a foul.
What I feel caused a problem is that the referee seemed a little smug about the situation. Saying "I'm really sorry but I am not allowed to explain" may have changed the situation completely.
What was not mentioned is that incident caused the rules to be changed. If somebody now stops a ball from going in a pocket, it is considered 'forced off the table'. If the cue ball is forced of the table, it is played from hand.
If Vafaei was not completely sure why didn't he ask the ref... This is one of those rare scenarious where the ref must answer to the player with a simple yes or no whether the cueball is properly placed.
It was absolutely unnecessary to place the ball so far to the right anyway. Really unnecessary mistake, but, he probably knows that himself.
Referees got to speak before shot like this. If in football game you place the ball out of the corner area when its cornerkick, referee always have to say it or accept that little "cheat"
Referees got to speak before shot like this. If in football game you place the ball out of the corner area when its cornerkick, referee always have to say it or accept that little "cheat"
@@akuankka1722 Other sport, other rules.
@akuankka1722 Why are you comparing snooker and football..
Didn't know all of these, thanks for the video!
Hello from Tallinn, Estonia. Thanks for the videos!
I really like the deep dive into some obscure rules paired with relevant footage. Thanks for the video!
In Billiards, players - who play from hand quite often- regularly ask the referee to check if in or out - might be sensible for snooker players to start doing same!
No one talking about that shot at 1:58🤯 big fan my bro I'm from whangarei new zealand can you find it🤔
Great video! One addition to the freeball situation. You can make a snooker with your freeball when there are only pink and black remaining
The Ronnie blue, does sound a bit strange. I feel they could use technology for these shots. Push shots make a different sound and the cue ball travels too far. Hard to determine that sometimes, so the refs usually give the player the benefit of the doubt, but some refs are more strict than others. Using sound and Hawkeye, like they do in cricket, would make this less subjective.
Push shots only make a different sound with the cueball travelling faster after contact if the object ball is hit full. If the object ball is hit thin it is still a foul as per the rules, but doesn't display the same characteristics as the type of shot you are thinking of.
Learned a few things I didn't even think would occur or matter. Thanks for taking time.
I like the explanations of the fouls it gives more insight to the game, especially the 'free ball'. I appreciate your videos.
Great video BFL! I always remember Dechawat Poomjaeng was the first time I ever saw the three-miss rule happen against Michael White. I hadn't even heard of the rule before then so was amazed when it happened!
As a Scotsman I remember a guy called Uri Geller, could be that he’s a Jimmy fan and moved that cue ball for him.
He was much better at spoons
I was wondering what your thoughts are on putting a more quality tip on a basic cue which I have? Would this help improve things slightly as I have just been using the tip that was on it a bce cue which was £100.
@@barryfulton1550 it might do. It doesn’t matter really what tip it is it’s just that the tips cues come with are usually not great
@Breakfromlife sorry just seen your reply thanks yeah I changed the tip for a better quality and have noticed a bit of difference.
Wow! Great footage and very interesting cases. More please 🙏🏻
hello from Vernon, BC, Canada! I am new to snooker and I'm learning a lot about it from your channel. This video was fascinating!
Excellent video. Nice departure from your normal fare, very interesting. Thank you for clearing up the ambiguity around half the red needing to be in the D.
Great video as always, you should’ve also included the Graham Dott vs Mark Selby match where Graham didn’t let the cue ball go in the pocket with his hand.
I was waiting for that as well x)
@@suvarnachauhan951 yeah I forgot about that
That situation as well as this frustrate me so much, the referee knows exactly what the players about to do but allows them to do it just so they can have there 5 mins of fame,
Still remember the referee all smug going "the cue ball never left the bed of the table"
@c.maltese3939 yeah but nevertheless it always applies in snooker that the ref should not alarm players whether they are about to commit a foul or not.
I love details. This was an extremely interesting episode for me. Thank you!
Good vid but you should try recreating some of these eg how many attempts would it take you to put the white fractionally outside the D.
@@terryboland3816 yeah, I wonder if I could drop it outside the D with 10 out of 10 accuracy
I have no idea why a pro would put the cue ball so close to the yellow spot, knowing that there's usually a dip there, that makes the ball move slightly. The ref did well to spot it, I'm sure some refs ignore things like that, but if you make a mistake like that, it should be punished, so you learn not to do it again.
@@Breakfromlife Put the practice in and anything is possible.
Good one! As an American pool player who's a big fan of snooker i learned a lot.
It was really cool to see you on Hendry's Tough Table Challenge! Great to see you doing well with your snooker and your channel. I hope you had a great time! Cheers
Now bring Hendry on your channel!
This is a very good and interesting video. And even though these professional players are brilliant they don’t always seem to know the rules. 👍👍
I think better to say "must be able to hit both sides" rather than "see both sides"
Actualy, player has to be able to hit both extreme edges od the target ball.
@@alenali7231 yeah, that's what "hit both sides" means.
Snooker players know what "see both sides" means. It's snooker jargon.
Dinner just hits different while watching your videos. Gustav from Brasov, Romania
That shot on the blue wasn’t even close to being push shot, that’s the worse decision I’ve seen so far I think
Hello, this is Hadi. From Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir.
I think the rules should clearly state that if there was no clear evidence the player committed a foul, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes it's just impossible to call, even with a high speed camera set up at a good angle.
So there was a debate in our club about a free ball and nobody could agree to it i was snookered on the yellow after a foul so a free ball was called the yellow was close to the pocket i was behind the black so i was saying if i call the yellow as a free ball can i nominate the black and pot the yellow because in that shot the black as a nominated free ball to the value of a yellow, becomes a yellow? Thoughts?
The ball on does not stop being the ball on when you have a free ball, so you could have legally potted the yellow, as long as the cue ball hits the yellow (the ball on) or the black (the nominated ball) first.
Edit: This is stated explicitly in rule 3.12(d).
The free ball rule gives you the option to nominate a free ball but it's not compulsory. You could just have chosen to play the yellow.
If the yellow was over the pocket but you couldn't hit it directly, you could just nominate whichever ball was blocking the yellow and use that to play a plant to pot the yellow.
@FlameFlickers yeah so that was my argument I could've nominated the black which was blocking the yellow and play a plant to pot the yellow
Yes. You can pot either (or both) but must hit the nominated ball first. You only score once though, so if you pot both, then you still score just 2 & the black is re-spotted.
This is different to a red being the 'ball on' where you would score 1 for each.
great video - i like knowing the rule where you can snooker someone behind the nominated free ball even with only the pink and black left, tasty knowledge!
Yep. Confirmed that I know absolutely nothing about this game and am now am even more lost. Great stuff, though 👏 👌 I enjoyed the info.
I actually think it is quite obvious that the cue ball is outside looking from the top angle.
Reason: From the top view, the centre of the cue ball looks to be slightly higher than the corner of the "D". But for the benefit of doubt, let's say they are on the same level. However, the cue ball is not exactly on the baulk line. It is closer to the baulk cushion, which means it could only be outside of the "D".
He didn't say it wasn't obvious, he said he thinks the camera isn't directly overhead, making it appear more obvious than it really was.
I loved this one. Very helpful.
More than 50% of the white was clearly outside the D, but because it's in the corner it's not a half and half split on the baulk line or even the slightly curved arch , it's more a pie section chart.
Like this content.
Thanks for explaining
Interesting! I was wondering if you were going to include one of those situations where you're deemed to have a full ball contact on a red available as long as it's not obstructed by a colour, regardless of whether another red in front of it technically obscures full ball contact.
Ronnie was in one of those situations, must have been Welsh Open 2023, and he didn't quite believe the ref when he was warned after his second miss because he thought he couldn't see a red full because it was obstructed by another red. He ended up smashing into the pack but accidentally hit the pink and so lost the frame. Ronnie often seems to be in these situations where he's unaware of the rules 🙃
Isn't there a rule where if the snooker is really hard and a player gets close, a miss can not be called but just a foul
yes, that is part of the miss rule
When the players are of world-class calibre, an impossible snooker rarely happens. I think I've only seen it happen once, but I've seen plenty that should've probably not been called for a miss (like the ones where your only option is to jaw a pocket to hit the only ball on).
Love the other historical find for the cue ball outside the D - the original 'glove' NIgel Gilbert! As a good friend of his [he owns the club I used to play in when I lived in Bedford and we set up the handicap tournament there 30 years ago that is still going!] I've sent a good few sarcastic comments to him after that was found! LOL!
These are my favourite videos... The foul on the black ball / respot rule will never make sense... I can imagine foul scenarios where the foul should deserve the option of a respot, but if it's a pocketed white, why not just keep playing. It's the player's own mistake that leaves it there.
It was explained in the video. The first score of the black ends the frame. A re-spotted black is a tie breaker, considered separate from the frame itself.
@@TheRip72 I understand the rule... I just don't think it should be so.
And Chen Feilong is a renowned coach as well - no wonder he turned his head away in disgust when he realised he'd made the rookie mistake! I remember watching this match at the time, for some reason, and being perplexed at how a professional, like Kyren Wilson, had no idea about one of the simplest rules in the game...
The re-spotted black mis-understanding shows that many top pros do not know the rules thoroughly. The same is true of most sports. Commentators occasionally get them wrong too.
i always enjoy watching your videos thank you
Love it. If you have any more insights like this that would be great
Great video! And hello from Vilnius, Lithuania.
Great informative video, from Durban, South Africa
A really interesting topic. Great explanations as well
so that first shot from Hossein, i do agree that the ref wouldnt have called it unless he was sure and that he would be putting the white right on the endge and then we clearly see it roll further, but the thing making me doubt it slightly is the feeling that the most likely cause of a roll would be to roll onto the yellow spot, as the spots are the bits of the table most likely to get a dent from having a ball on them
The cue ball was 100% not resting on the yellow spot when he took the shot. It was further over than that.
Did you see where the ref was? He was in the perfect place to judge it. His position was not an accident.
What counts as out of the D? Is it most of the ball? I often place the cue ball in the centre of where the 2 lines converge (on either side of D), so looking overhead it might be mostly out. To me that's acceptable even if not official and i dont begrudge other players doing it (obviously)
Well a ball is a sphere so only a tiny part of it is ever in contact with the table, obviously the part that is in contact with the table needs to be inside the D
What about Ding vs Yuan in the Wuhan Open? At 16:00 mins Ding can see the black but opts to try to go up and hit the green. He misses four times. Is the rule about missing when you can see a ball different for coloured balls?
I didn't see it, but it sounds like the wrong call. Why is he not playing the black? Because he does not want to give his opponent an easy chance? That is Ding's problem. If he fails to hit a ball on when he could make centre full-ball contact with any of them, then he should be warned after the second failed attempt.
@ it’s worth a look because after 2 misses Yuan asks the ref if he will be warned and Ding intervenes and seems to say the rule doesn’t apply because he has called the green ball. Very odd.
Nice video! Very informative.
Greetings from Ahvaz, Iran 🌿
Respectfully, I disagree with your point about the camera showing it incorrectly.
Look at the same camera angle when the yellow is on the spot. It shows as further into the D than his white did.
By definition, the yellow being on its spot, it’s exactly 50% in the D.
Therefore, we can confidently conclude that any ball showing further out, even by a little bit, is out of the D.
Hello from Jūrmala, Latvia!
Good subject matter. Some rules seem to put onus on the referee and their interpretation of the law, but for the rules to cover every possible scenario the rule book would have to be like the Encyclopedia Britannica. The rule of common sense seems to be the best way forward. Good post, thank you 👍
The rule book is long & complicated to cover all possible known & anticipated situations. Relying on common sense creates arguments.
@TheRip72 Up to a point I would agree. When a player is snookered and he tries the best to get out of it, at times the referee will not call a missed ball. Not all referees will call it at all, or will call it at the same point in the game. There is some common sense the referees use, but it is not always seen that way.
Not sure if this has been put into your video but from memory there was a match between Kyren Wilson and Ding and it was highly likely that Kyren (yes him again) didn't know the "you can't use the free ball to obstruct the object ball" rule doesn't apply when there is just pink and black left
which i think what caused him to play the shot differently (as to using the black ball as free ball (after Ding's foul) to obstruct the pink i.e. the object ball)
Brilliant video. Learnt a lot from this
I would love to see you explain the "touching ball" rule, the people I play with insist that the cue ball should hit the touching ball again during the shot, otherwise it's a foul!
In a touching ball scenario, the balls are deemed to be touching at the start of the shot and therefore the cue ball must be played away from the object ball. The cue ball doesn't have to hit the object ball again during the shot - the people you play with are wrong!
A strange fowl was called in a major tournament a few years ago. Unfortunately I don’t remember the players names. Player ‘A’ made a good shot but the white ball was going in-off towards the green pocket. Player ‘A’ stopped the ball before it dropped in the pocket and placed it behind the ‘D’ for player ‘B’. - 4 points to Player ‘B’. Player ‘B’ placed the ball in the ‘D’ - this was called a fowl - he should have played the ball from where it sat.
Snooker playing fowls would make for a great video 🪿🦃🦆😂😂😂
Depending on when it was, the decision was correct if they pushed it back in, but if they picked it up, it should have been played from hand. After the Selby/Dott incident, the rules committee decided to change it (which I think was very sensible). I think it was changed in 2019.
Now, if somebody stops a ball from going in, it is considered "forced off the table" & if this is the cue ball, it is 'in hand'.
for me, with the fine edge to not get called a push shot, I want to see the energy of the white being like 10 times the energy of the red. A very fine edge you can get 100x the energy. So Mark Kings where the white had like twice the energy if that, he hadn't played it as thin as possible, so it was a push.
Movement after letting go of the ball normally happens as the ball settles into the divot where the green normally lies, so the question is whether a white on the green spot is inside or outside the D and/or and whether the ball being on the spot means it's touching the line, since the rules of the game don't allow this.
Question about the 3 miss rule. Since when you're angled on a shot you're not classified as being snookered, what if you're angled on all reds and can't hit them twice? Will you be warned?
No. The miss rule only applies when you can hit a red directly. It doesn't apply where a player is snookered on all reds.
@ but when you're angled you're not snookered so in the games logic you can see the reds?
@@chon9.0 By angled, you mean a pocket snooker? In that scenario, it's up to the referee's discretion. They generally won't call a miss if you can't hit a red directly.
No. The term 'snookered' is not used in the miss rule. If you cannot directly make 'central full-ball contact' (which is a phrase used in the miss rule) with a ball on, then you should not be warned.
I simplify one of these rules down to “the final black is only worth seven points.”
Once those points are scored, no matter the outcome, the frame is over.
(But a respotted black might follow.)
Think of the re-spot as not being a part of the frame, but an extra tie-break.
Amazing stuff this, from Chiang Mai, Thailand
Vafaei incident was something else but not the first time it occured. Even a respotted black situation ended because of a similar foul decades ago.
Required viewing for every snooker ref!
As a former referees' examiner, I can assure you that referees are taught many unusual situations when learning the rules. We are not just given a badge & trusted to know them.
Really enjoyed this video.
surprised the Gilbert & Mcleod freeball incident didn't get included
@@baronvonvakeman6947 thought about it but just seemed to be an argument or several
@@Breakfromlife lol yeah, there is that
Really enjoyed this one :)
I actually liked this content as it was refreshing
Cool video. I knew all those rules.
You could have added Welsh Open 2023 O'Sullivan vs Muir frame 6. Very controversial call by the referee which pissed off Ronnie hard
Great video.
Very interesting thank you
Brilliant video
Hello from Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
great video, thanks
It was a great game, and a great win for Jimmy. He played some good shots. It was definitely the correct call by the ref
Look at where the ref was standing. He was in the perfect place to see & his positioning was no accident.
There was another ronnie one where it's something like the white is in the jaws and Ronnie played for a red twice and missed but on the third attempt, before he took it he fouled, I can't remember the foul which meant it was the other person's turn or something like that, it was really odd.
Hello from Simferopol. It is in Crimea, south of Ukraine
excellent vid
Not one of these instances apply when I play as I never hit any ball I’m aiming for!
Really interesting !
Fair play to the ref for calling rage ‘D’ foul. 1:32
With regards to balls falling in pockets, in the game of bowls they allow a wait time of 30 seconds.
The rules do not state a time, but many referees consider 3 seconds to be reasonable.
if this be the case there should be a line drawn within the D the radius measurement of the cue ball how many times have players placed the cue ball along the line between yellow and green spot not knowing including the referee if they are within the D or not lets hope the WPBSA get this info ??????????????????????????
in the case for wu's missed pink, as we are sure he didnt intend to use the pink for a snooker(absolutely no reson to as he hasnt won the frame yet), shouldnt discretion be given to the referee to not call a foul in that case?
Funny rule for Wilson black ball match, he was 7 points behind , Chen miss the black but put the white in means 7 points for Wilson plus he should pot the black where it finishes !!!!
Tabb called a foul on Ronnie for breaking off with the white outside the D in power ball snooker once. Only time I’d ever seen it called.
Brill. Loved this one
free ball situation: your opponent pockets the white, so a foul, ball in hand to go in the D. There is no position where you can see both sides of any ball on, but you can see both sides if you move the white in the D to a different spot. Is this a free ball or not?
That's a free ball.
@@sharkey9 No, it isn't.
An interesting scenario is if the object ball is sandwiched between 2 balls not on & they are around the baulk line in (or just outside) the D. If you place the cue ball right up close so it is almost touching, then you can miss it before you hit one of the balls not on. That is not a free ball, even though it would be is the white was further away. I am not sure if you can visualise that, but it is a weird one.
@@TheRip72 My train of thought was that there's not a single spot in the D where I could hit both sides, resulting in a free ball.
So apparently the whole D is considered "one spot", therefore no free ball. Thanks for clarifying.
But your scenario... man I can barely see, no way I can visualize that :P
@@sharkey9 The two edges of the object ball are the edges the CUE BALL can hit. Slightly different from the ones we imagine, but VERY different the closer the balls are together. Put the balls almost touching, and two edges the cue ball can see are only a couple of millimetres apart. I think TheRip72 is saying that if you can place the cue ball in the D, but almost touching the object ball, you can't claim a free ball, because the cue ball can see both edges of the object ball.
@@Telssa1 Oh I see. If the white is further away, those edges would be obstructed by another ball but up super close, all I can see is red.
Gotcha and thanks mate.
I love persnickety snooker rules.
Thing is even inside or outside the D at that degree, the potting angle has literally no difference. So why put it on the outside of the D?
just hello from Fes Morocco