Red Pink Inquiry

Too idle to look at the rulebook, anyone know what supposed to be called if the ref had judged it 50-50 ?
 
The action of the cue ball seems consistent with having struck the red first. It is also consistent with having struck the pink first. Section 3, Rule 6 (Hitting Two Balls Simultaneously) is not worded very well. I think that

If the referee cannot determine which object ball was struck first by the cue-ball, the order will be judged to the player's disadvantage.​

would be better for several reasons.
 
Why would it be judged to the player's disadvantage? I think he skinned the red first, but in most sports a tie goes to the runner (player).
 
Underclocked said:
Why would it be judged to the player's disadvantage? I think he skinned the red first, but in most sports a tie goes to the runner (player).
Click to expand...
Because the current rule decides against the player on simultaneous hits. I do not propose to change the substance of the rule, just the way it's phrased.

I think the video is inconclusive.
 
Underclocked said:
Why would it be judged to the player's disadvantage? I think he skinned the red first, but in most sports a tie goes to the runner (player).
Click to expand...

In baseball the tie is usually given to the runner but contrary to popular belief it's not a rule, there actually is no rule for it.
 
pink then red

pink then red. if the red was hit at all first the outcome would have been much different. no way red first.
 
barking said:
pink then red. if the red was hit at all first the outcome would have been much different. no way red first.
Click to expand...
Well, suppose the cue-ball had first just barely touched red so that the red moved a tenth of a millimeter, and then the cue-ball had contacted pink nearly full-ball but on the side towards red and then the cue-ball had cannoned into the red again. Would that not produce a result that looked identical to the pink-first hypothesis?
 
The phrase: "Making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. No way can anyone tell from that video which was hit first. Eventually the ref made his call, right or wrong thats the end of it.

Such debates remind me of the call for goal line cameras in footy, an equally stupid debate. Technology will be the death of the game.
 
Wity said:
... No way can anyone tell from that video which was hit first. Eventually the ref made his call, right or wrong that's the end of it. ...
Click to expand...
The call was clearly a difficult one to make, and the sort of call that might go either way even with the best referee. For Williams to act the way he did does not bring honor to him. If karma works, in 30 years he will be refereeing a match at the Crucible and the same shot will come up.
 
Question answered. I was actually unaware that a split contact was considered a foul under existing rules. Then again, I have never in my life played snooker using ANY proper set of rules (they were always house rules).

And I agree the video is inconclusive but stick by my opinion with emphasis on the word think. The ball movements are not inconsistent with that opinion. A high speed video would be needed with frame by frame viewing to see what really happened.

Mark Williams can obviously see like an eagle, but as to the behavior afterward - totally agree with you Bob.
 

Attachments

  • decider.jpg
    decider.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 162
Last edited:
If the six were contacted first, the red would move more toward the lower left corner pocket.
 

Attachments

  • decider2.jpg
    decider2.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 162
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top