Snooker Loophole?

[R1Geezer]

Any suggestions for closing the snooker "Loophole" that came up in the Higgins/O'Sulivan semi? I suggest making any foul a miss after having already played at least one miss. Would that sort it?

[Sqad]

No, in the situation whereby a foul is called on a free ball, then the player has the choice of playing from the fouled position or have the shot called a miss and replaced.

In the Higgins Sullivan match, Higgins should have had the choice of playing the ball or having it replaced.

[carrust]

Snooker like darts is bent!! As the game is in a fast downwards spiral, I found it as no surprise when the player from China won yesterday...It's the only country where snooker is becoming more popular!

[Sqad]

kunni, it wasn't Ding it was O.Sullivan

[Sqad]

kunni.......no problem ;-)

[R1Geezer]

No sqad this was nothing to do with a free ball.

O'sullivan potted a red and was on a colour, the only colour he could hit direct was the black but that was an almost impossible safety so he chose to hit the yellow on the baulk cushion off 2 cushions, he had 6 goes at it it, all called a miss. On the seventh he got down to have another go but fouled the black so now it's a foul but not a miss, and Higgins has the choice of playing it himself or making O'sullivan play. O'sullivan is thus out of the pickle because if he's put back in he can play a red, easy safety and is off the hook as Higgins had little choice but to take on the shot himself. Thus a foul gave O'sullivan an advantage, no one is saying it was diliberate but now this loop hole has been exposed there is nothing stopping a player diliberately fouling in this situation in the future.

[New Judge]

Bit late in on this one, Geezer, but it is interesting.

I did not see it live but only heard about it when, during an interval in the final, Steve Davis interviewed referee Jan Verhaas and the issue was explained.

The first thing I did not understand was why the frame had not already been awarded to Higgins after Ronnie had made three misses (under the “three miss” rule). This rule states that the frame will be forfeited when three successive misses are played “...when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or that could have been on, such that central, full-ball, contact was available”. As far as I could see the black was in such a position that it could have been struck centrally. However, the red nearest the cue ball may just have been preventing this and perhaps this was pointed out during the live commentary.

Putting that aside, I do not think a rule change is necessary. It is clear that Higgins was disadvantaged by Ronnie’s foul. However, unlike footballers, I do not think professional snooker players generally seek to gain an advantage by exploiting the rules to the limit. I don’t think for one minute that Ronnie committed the foul intentionally to get out of a scrape (indeed he seemed as bemused as everybody else by the ruling) so we are unlikely to see a recurrence of this incident.

Further, as Jan Verhaas pointed out, the referee has the discretion under Section 5 of the rules “to make a decision in the interests of fair play for any situation not covered adequately by Rule”. Jan himself said that with hindsight he perhaps could have made a ruling under that section and I imagine that is what any referee may do in the unlikely event of a recurrence.

[R1Geezer]

Hi Judge, the 3 miss rule was abolished a couple of years ago, there is now no limit on consecutive misses.

Yes O'sullivan could have hit the black directly but he was very likley to leave an easy red after as he could not pot it and could not get it safe. In choosing the yellow having refusd a legitimate ball on, he must hit it or it will be declared a miss.

Yes I agree that Jan could have used his descretion but he said at the time he went with the letter of the law.

I don't think it's a huge issue but generally any game should seek to make the laws such that negative action cannot be beneficial. Parrot said afterwards that he's never seen it before and probably won't ever see it again so it's a minor thing but if they are going to change it they should be careful not to make it worse. I think my suggestion above is a safe change in that respect but I was wondering if I'd overlooked a potential shortcomming.