UK Snooker Championship 2009 - Miss rule controversy: interview Jan Verhaas

[TheVESKO081]

who won this game in the end?

[samenzwering]

I was quite excited, maybe even moved by this moment. Because it seemed somehow that snooker became a mystery, even to the players and refs. The game was one step ahead of the people who invented it.

[00woolley]

Jan is the Colligi of the snooker table:D

[zanist123]

@AntiFanBoy1 i had a feeling u would have an opinion on this u homosexual

[IaninAngeles]

So therefore the PLAYER will always have the ADVANTAGE from aFOUL so thier CANT be a LOOPHOLE.

[trinomialtree]

stfu u homo

[robbie77300]

@laninAngeles. Of course its a loophole. Did you know a miss would not be called in that situation? After all he attempted to take the shot, fouled, but managed not to have a miss against him. If there`s no loophole then why the confusion amongst professional players and REF. If a player has very difficult snooker, 10 attemps, 10 misses, all he has to do is foul and even if put back in,, he can have much easier shot. If opponet decides to take shot himself, it unlikely to get him the same adv.

[IaninAngeles]

Its not a LOOPHOLE because the Player JOHN can put RONNIE back in so its his advantage.

And concerning the MISS rule its conceivable that RONNIE might touch the BLACK as he is BRIDGING over it.

John was given 7 points extra had the choice to put RONNIE back in on a red.

A player cannot deliberatly FOUL a BALL otherwise its called a MISS thats what the MISS rule is their for.

What could RONNIE do or JAN strange things happen all the time in snooker in offs flukes.

[robbie77300]

No its a loophole alright. Just because john had a choice and therefor an advantage does not mean its not a loophole. Ronnie got out of THE MISS RULE by fouling the black. He got out of it by now not having to hit a colour IF PUT BACK IN. JOHN said to the ref to put balls back. maybe he should seek your advice on the rules

[IaninAngeles]

If the same thing Happened to JOHN I would say the same thing.

If your saying in a situation like this a player should always have to hit a colour then its a SLIGHT LOOPHOLE but RONNIE was BRIDGING over the BLACK so you have to take that into consideration.

Even then if RONNIE has to play a COLOUR then they have to change the RULES.

But what if RONNIE hit the BROWN the first time he went for it and POTTED it he would be called for a foul even for hitting the BROWN.

[robbie77300]

You have a serious problem understanding what a loophole is by the look of it

[IaninAngeles]

I can understand your view but you have to take into consideration also RONNIE was BRIDGING right over the BLACK.

JOHN got 7 for that do you say no forget them 7 points and just carry on with this.

them 7 points were precious at that time.

[robbie77300]

your entirely missing the point, the 7 points is nothing to do with it, this has further implications as its a weakness in the rules. It just hapened to be the black he touched. Could of been green, brown. and if ronnie had to keep going at the colour he may have gave away far more then 7. The fact is its a weakness in the rules shown by an unusual sitiation. Your just looking at that actual event. But people saying its a loophole are looking at the wider implications.

[robbie77300]

And ronnie did benefot from the foul on the black. Because even though you say john had the advantage being able to decide to put ronnie in or play himself, no matter what happened ronnie was in a better position than he was before the foul, So john higgins lost some of his advantage. Still had avantage as you keep saying, but a far weaker one because of a rule weakness

[MrTopjimmy67]

@IaninAngeles That O Sullivan is a sly one ;

[robbie77300]

Well if the PLAYER always has the ADVANTAGE from a FOUL, why then is the MISS rule needed. After all, if your statement is correct that the PLAYER always has advantage even when RONNIE avoided the miss by fouling the black, if that is true then the miss rule is not needed at all.

[IaninAngeles]

A player always has the advantage after the FOUL because he can choose to put the OPPONENT in or not.

I am only talking about this INCIDENT wether they should change the LAW I DON'T know but on this incident RONNIE was BRIDGING over the BLACK ball on numerous occassions.ITS more than CONCEIVABLE he might touch the BLACK after several goes at that SHOT.

I am just TALKING about this SHOT not about changing the LAWS of the MISS RULE in this CASE.

[robbie77300]

well ok a player always has advantage, well what if he is tight on the cushion, very difficult shot, but can take it or put opponent in, he could take it and miss, frame over, or could let opponent play and risk him potting it, therefor he doest really know if had advantage until after the shot. Its not always black and white as to whether a player has advantage after a foul, he does after a miss though. Thats why miss was brought in, to ensure the fouled player had advantage

[robbie77300]

Also you now say your only talking about this shot, but you did say in first posts to someone that there is no loophole, therefor you surely are answering somone else`s correct opinion that there is a flaw in the rule shown in that shot, so if your saying there was no loophole then you are talking about the rules, not just a single shot. The entire subject of this particular shot is about the flaw in the rule that led to it,

[jairey]

ronnie probably did it on purpose

[athull08]

Yes it's a strange rule, but Jan got it absolutely right. I think the rule should be changed, but people who are criticising Jan for it don't know what they're talking about. He is, in my opinion, the best referee in the game. He does not make the rules, he just enforces them.

[cutterschoicenotmine]

jan verhaas and steve davis are going to whoop ass.

[IaninAngeles]

Its obviuoisly not a MISS because RONNIE touched the BLACK so he GAVE JOHN the SHOT.

IT was GOOD sportsmanship from RONNIE.

its no LOOPHOLE

JOHN HIGGINS even after the MATCH said that that incident didnt BOTHER him but it obviouslty did.

but JAN was right to not call it a MISS as he states in INTERVIEW also he was BRIDGING over the BLACK so its quite conceivable he might TOUCH IT.

dont really see hows thier is a LOOPHOLE.

[SASBSPARA]

@IaninAngeles A loophole in a law often contravenes the intent of the law without technically breaking it. Therfore it is a loophole.

[IaninAngeles]

THE FACT that JOHN had the CHOICE of PUTTING RONNIE in again be it on a RED means thier is no LOOPHOLE .

John is in FAVOURABLE position anyway because he can choose to put RONNIE in again or take the SHOT himself so therefor if the shot is hard he casn make RONNIE take it or if its easy Take the SHOT himself.

So therefort what they are saying is nonsesne because the opposing player always has the advsantge because he can choose wether to play the shot or let RONNIE take it.

[SASBSPARA]

Yer but also the ref could use his discression... Buh it is a loophole... because if john told him to take the shot then Ronnie would be on a RED not the colour which means it went around the orginal shot cuz if he hadnt hit the black he would still be on a colour so John had a choice but no matter what he was at a disadvantage....

[IaninAngeles]

JOHN was at an advantage because he put RONNIE back in or not.

like I said be it on a RED>

the refs discretion was used.

Even though JOHN was at a disadvantage he was still at an advantage because he had the CHOICE to make RONNIE play the shot on the REDS.

its impoosible to call it a loophole when the player always has the BENEFIT of choosing wether he plays the shot or not.

[SASBSPARA]

Yer but even though he had a choice of a shot both would put him at a disadvantage because if it wasnt for that ronnie would still be tryin to get out of the snooker but then hit the black by mistake or what ever and then he was out of it no more snooker needed... disadvantage... The ref coudlnt call a miss cuz it wasnt a miss it was a foul.. hence the loophole it should be changed so that he was A either still on a colour or B it can all be replaced...

[IaninAngeles]

Thats impossible to call also RONNIE was the DIADVANTAGE because JOHN had the CHOICE of putting RONNIE back in.

RONNIE could have hit the yellow neither shot was easy but JOHN was at the advantage because he had the choice who to play the SHOT and also made an extra 7 points RONNIE could have hit the yellow and given none away.

I think it was good sportsmanship RONNIE gave 7 away.

Ofcourse JOHN was at a slight disadvantage if you think RONNIE was going to keep on missing but you dont know that.

[rixxmunich]

good video, thank you, snooker is best thing ever.

if i could i would play 24 hours every day.

eric from germany

[bigconor]

what was intresting about all this was people forgot if jan called a foul and not a miss he had no right to move the white just before john took his shot.he was very confused himself and technicaly he fuked up by then moving the white

[OneFourSevenDream]

@bigconor: I guess jan was correct to move the white because it was touching the red while ronnie needed to get out of the snooker (of course it wasn't declared touching ball because red wasn't the ball on). so when higgins came to the table the white must have rolled off by a little rub of the green or a slight movement by ronnie putting his hand on the cloth or something like that (i remember Jan saying to John 'well it should be [touching])

[bambibin]

@OneFourSevenDream i agree with conor jan cannot move the white if there is no miss in play.if the white is not in the right position from where he had placed it he cant move it as theres a foul in play and the ref cannt move balls

[OneFourSevenDream]

Indeed jan couldn't move the ball if it was just a foul case, but by a strange run of destiny there happened something more: the white was touching the red while ronnie tried to get out of the snooker, not declared touching ball because colour was on. When john comes at the table, ball on is red, so touching ball declared, but it wasn't touching anymore, probably because the white rolled off a bit when ronnie put his hands on the cloth. So Jan should replace the white to be touching again.

[bambibin]

@OneFourSevenDream a ref cannot move a ball if he has been moved by another player unless theres abeen a miss,thats the only time a ref can touch them unless hes cleaning them.if a balls moved a shot had to be played from where it is

[OneFourSevenDream]

Not correct.Being a ref myself I refer to chp15 in the rules:"Ball Moved by Other than Striker:If a ball,stationary or moving,is disturbed other than by the striker,it shall be re-positioned by the referee to the place he judges the ball was,or would have finished,without penalty."So Jan doesn't move the black which ronnie fouled,obviously,because it was a foul,but the white which had rolled off,by stretching the cloth,not by touching it, should be put back on its place so it was touching again.

[hidporter]

From what I understand here, Ronnie made a four while preparing the shot, a "color miss" was not caused, just a touching foul, it came to the "Red" turn. Higgins can play or pass, but Ronnie can hide the cue ball, so he need to take the shot himself.

Steve and Jan suggested the player has to play at the same status (Ronnie's color in this case) when being passed. My question is "What if he touches the red near the cue ball to make the black potable?" -> Higgins has to play himself anyway!

[bigconor]

it doesnt matter that was 2 shots previous and a foul was in play not a miss. it doesnt where it should of been, jan had no right to touch the ball

[armaniac661]

thanks for showing this video, it was interesting for me to see what actually happend. I had my guesses, but it's always nice to hear it from a pro :)

10x, OneFourSevenDream

[karosszeria]

Excellent video, great explanation. Thanks a lot for the share.

[strangereister]

sicky situation