John Parrott PURPOSED FOUL vs Steve Davis!!! :-O

[MrJuno6]

I can't see what all the confusion is about. If Parrot had of potted the Black, surly the ref should just call a miss and put the balls back, and keep doing so until he plays a legal shot?

[whispersandechoes]

The quality is so shit I can't even tell where the fucking ball is, never mind what colour.

[smtoke]

@whispersandechoes open your eyes!!!!!

[wrcoles]

@whispersandechoes I thought Parrott and Whirlwind were comentating on a grass court match at Wimbledon...

[zidanetribal999]

fuck up quality

[didorins]

240p.... We meet again.

[njerzynek]

in pool you can play intentional fouls, it happens all the time

[tfn105]

Am I missing something? Couldn't Parrott have played a soft black so that both cueball and black ended up tight to the top cushion and the black is the snookering ball on the red over the pocket? I realise it's not a gimme, but I wouldn't say he had "no shot on"

[Queueedo]

there was defenitely a possibility to do a shot WITHOUT a foul John Parrott! ;-).

Jimmy White says very clearly how to do it right

[CREGGANMAN1]

@dfgh123gh This incident is on YouTube as "1992 World Championship Summary Part 1." Parrott was actually snookered on the brown,not a red, as stated in my previous comment.

[saintcasper91]

He should have knocked it in, it looked to be the best safety shot available!

[vassilis01]

No, why should it be the responsibility of one player? They are both asked if correct as part of the game-it is the responsibility of the fouled against player to check if (in his opinion!) it has been correctly replaced.

[CREGGANMAN1]

Am I the only person who remembers Parrott cheating against Knowles in the 1992 World championship? Ganley called a miss against Parrott who was snookered and failed to hit the red. Knowles asked him to play again. Ganley replaced the white at least 30 cm from where it originally sat. Parrott then came back to the table and directly potted the red on which he was originally snookered!

[CREGGANMAN1]

@CREGGANMAN1 Correction to my previous post. I believe Parrott may actually have been snookered on the brown.

[CREGGANMAN1]

@vr120The referee replaces the ball and then asks the players if they agree that the ball has been replaced correctly. The players trust the professionalism of the referee and each other. Therefore, Knowles would have had no reason assume the ball had been replaced incorrectly, knowing that if it was, Parrott would (should!) inform the referee and the ball would be moved to the correct position.Parrot came to the table and directly potted a ball he had clearly been snookered on.That's cheating!

[pistolpeeroy]

@CREGGANMAN1 AWWWW

[CREGGANMAN1]

@pistolpeeroy Ok.Let's try again.Your name is not spelt A.W.W.W.W. The correct spelling is W.A.N.K.E.R. Very easy to remember. Just continuously repeat "I am a wanker" and I'm sure your IQ will reach double figures before you're thirty.

[pistolpeeroy]

@CREGGANMAN1 HA WHAT A FOOL TO JUDGE A MAN BY HIS YOUTUBE ACCOUNT...

[loopstheloop]

@CREGGANMAN1 Strange one... is there a clip? Surely both players would have had to have agreed with the referee's placing of the cue-ball?

[CREGGANMAN1]

@loopstheloop I've sent you the clip, hope you agree.Bear in mind that the players trust each others professionalism and the referee's ability to replace a ball correctly, therefore the player who committed the foul would have no reason to question the spot where the cue ball has been replaced, although he does have the right to do so. Trust and professionalism should hold true at all times and Parrott's professionalism was sadly lacking on this occasion.

[manudude02]

@CREGGANMAN1 I wouldn't mind seeing that clip either.