A 'miss' is usually called in one of the following instances: - The player has avoided an easier escape attempt - The player hasn't hit the cue ball hard enough to reach the object ball - The player has made a poor escape attempt None of these apply to Selby in his final attempt. He wasn't deliberately picking a difficult escape to avoid leaving a pot on (which is why the miss rule is in place), he was making a genuine effort to escape the snooker.
The people complaining about the ref not calling a miss clearly don't understand the miss rule or the intent behind it. You don't have to hit the target ball to not get a miss, but you have to make a good enough attempt. The intent is to stop deliberate fouls (by not even attempting to the target ball) and to prevent players from taking a more difficult path to the target that will leave them in a better position rather than an easier path that will leave them in a worse position. It's at the refs discretion to call a miss or not, and neither the players nor the commentators disagreed with him, but obviously the internet "experts" all think they know better than the top professional ref, top professional players and professional commentators.........
Why don’t they make it so if you’re snookered you keep shooting until you hit it and if not you just keep losing points. That way even if you’re really far behind you still have a chance of winning by snookering him.
Key point about this is that the third attempt went past the reds. The first two were called misses because they were not hit hard enough to reach the reds. Definitely the right call on all three attempts.
A lot of people in this comment section don't appear to understand the point of a referee. He is supposed to be neutral and only make decisions based on the rules. A miss is only called, when a certain shot was not a genuine attempt. But playing five cushions is unimaginably hard, even two cushions is hard enough already (go try it!). It was still a foul though, remember. Saying something like "at that score line he should have called a miss" shows that you do not make that decision neutrally and based on the rules but instead in favor of one the players.
Exactly. This is an extremely difficult - if not nearly impossible - snooker. I don't even see him escaping with just two or even three cushions, given the angles available to him. The referee acknowledged that and when he saw Selby having a really good attempt at it, decided to just keep it at a foul. It would have been unlikely that Selby would have come closer to a red then that and with the rest of the colours situated where they were before having about 20 attempts (at which you might as well just forfeit the frame directly).
@@DaygameAustralia Yep... I genuinely believe in those instances, based on sportsmanship, the player who gets snookered and cannot find an escape route should concede the frame... like resigning in a round of chess, you don't have to, but you should do it anyway out of respect.
Generally if you get the white ball past the reds and close enough they don't call miss - as long as there wasn't an easier path to hit the reds and there wasn't here.
Not really, i have watched many matches and as the commentators were saying almost never seen a ref not call a miss even on good attempts on tough snookers
Not necessarily jimmy. The red that Ricky hit to get there wasn't in the same place afterwards. Also if you hit a cuision at a shallow angle at pace it skids and you don't get a perfect bounce. So it's possible for a path to work in one direction (where it is going slowiy for the last shallow angle) and not the other (where the shallow angle is first and at pace).
There's plenty of 'tough snookers' where it's actually easy enough to get the cue ball to hit the object ball (for a top professional anyway!)- they're called 'tough' because it's 'tough' to get the cue ball in a safe position and not leave a pot on. This is just tough to hit full stop.
@redo348 Couldn't have put it better, @jimmyfly is totally wrong, the path back the same way is not possible. The ref made a good decision, Selby made a very fair attempt, anyone who thinks he deliberately missed the reds to gain an advantage (the purpose of the miss rule) is ridiculous.
I see what is meant by not calling a miss, but taking into account the skill of Selby - and possibly more importantly the fact that there were several red balls on the table - I would have liked to see Selby have nine or ten attempts before the ref relented at least. Then imagine how a cool a moment if Selby actually got out of it
Because the referee did not call a miss, just a normal foul for not hitting the object ball. A miss is only called if the referee thinks that the player who is trying to get out of a snooker did not make the best possible attempt to play the object ball. In his first two attempts, Selby did not even come near the pack of red balls, so it is an easy miss call. But that last attempt actually had a really good chance of hitting, especially considering the nearly impossible angle Selby had to work with. This, along with the referee's judgement that the player made his best possible attempt at this extremely difficult shot, was enough to not call a miss here and spare Selby the pain of having to repeat the same shot over and over until it is no longer worth continuing and just forfeiting the frame. The "problem" with the miss rule is that it is enforced almost entirely at the discretion of the referee, so the referee's flair and judgement are important factors in the decision. There are some referees who have a stick up their bottom and would just automatically call a miss in this situation, even though the shot is almost unhittable and even if the white missed a red by a millimetre. But Paul Collier, the referee here, made the right decision here. No need to continue Selby's suffering. Applaud Walden's excellent snooker shot, respect Selby for his great effort to try to get out of an impossible position and then, get on with the game.
My Mates used to call me "Darth" when we played Snooker as i kept swishing the cue around after missing shots.. Jesus I took up Snooker as I lost it too many times playing Golf aswell, lost so many clubs...
Waldon deserved to get more points from such a well played shot...but I think the ref made a good call because I don't think Mark was going to get much closer than he did..
The captions are what's in the script. It's their pronunciation that made it hard to understand. Like when he said "new kidneys" and it almost sounded like "get a snooker behind".
The Ref did call the last shot just a Foul, not a Foul and a Miss. If the ref calls Foul and Miss the opponent can have the balls put back and make you play the Shot again (Selbys first two attempts). If its just a Foul the opponent can decide to play from the position the Cue Ball landed or let you continue playing from there. Wheter or not an attempt is a Miss is interpreted by the Ref only. The Rule exists to prevent deliberate/tactical Fouls. See this Video to understand the controversy with the Miss Rule: ua-cam.com/video/AGMXh9otUBU/v-deo.html
On the one hand I think it's fair to not give a 'miss'. On the other hand if he can get this close, why not try again? The 3rd attempt was significantly better than the 1st and 2nd.
I do not understand the miss rule. Obviously Selby was trying his level best to hit the red at every turn, so why was miss called on the first two shots?
The first two shots he's trying to hit with just enough pace to reach the reds but not so hard as to scatter them into an unsafe position. Thus, he's not making a "best attempt" to hit the reds. The third shot passed the reds, so clearly he was hitting with plenty of pace; he just happened to be off line a bit. That's just a foul, not a miss, because it was clearly an honest attempt to hit the reds with no easier shot available. Good job by the ref.
I’m not saying the referee has done anything, but I think it’s ridiculous that there isn’t the possibility of a frame-winning snooker in the game. If you can land a genuinely impossible-to-escape snooker, you should win the frame.
Whilst it was the correct decision based on the rules, I do think they need to change the rules to reward great snookers like that. Snooker is not just about potting balls, it’s about safety play. A great snooker should be worth eg. 50 points from misses if the other player can’t escape. For snookering oneself, continue the rule as is today though.
It takes one great snooker for a Ref to not call a mis. I agree with the call,,but I wonder what would have happened had he let it go for another few shots? Selby was getting closer with each attempt. I seen Ronnie O complaining about this ,when he was snookered pretty badly,,,and he eventually hit the ball. Although Ronnie seemed to be doing more whining than trying.lol .The Ref would not give him a break,,,it wasnt that long ago,,,and it may have something to do with this call. Ronnie O got super close a few times and was complaining about it being called a mis.
I remember that one and if I remember correctly the ref wasn't calling a miss because Ronnie had an easier path to get to the reds which is part of the rule if the ref is to call a foul instead of a miss. You must use the easiest line.
In snooker, the opponent has the option of playing where you left the cue ball or resetting the shot and forcing you to play it again. The two times where they don't get the second option is when you're so far behind you'd need penalty points to catch them and this case, where the ref decides you made the best possible effort to hit the object ball and you didn't get any advantage from where the cue ball ended (your miss can't be due to shooting for a "safety" shot or to put your opponent into a snooker themselves).
Actually I hate "miss" rule, it is stupid and does not make sense, besides it gets pretty awkward moments when referees are trying to recreate position when someone smashes forbidden balls. I think the rules must be like in the endgame without "miss" option, the opponent has an option to take the position or give it back. Once I've seen Ronnie was in the same ridiculous situation and he simply conceded the match, protesting the rule as I guess. I had a pretty bad experience, leading the game in 50 points, opponent had no chance to pull the game out, but he accidentally made the unbreakable snooker, and I lost the game. I felt so deceived, because he did't won by skill, but by stupid rule!!!
Should've called a miss really, at least give it another go or two. Walden deserved to get more points from that snooker specially with the score being in Selby's favour.
So you think Selby DELIBERATELY missed that red?? Given the difficulty of the snooker it is obvious that this was a genuine attempt to hit the red. Or maybe you just don't understand the miss rule.
So much lack of understanding. That's not how it works. Ricky gets right within the balls, that has to be enough for you if you lay a good snooker. That has been the case before the miss rule, and that is not the reason this rule exists. The fact that the reds are so bad and he can't win from this is his fault as well, he could have opened them up. Foul points from the miss rule are there to punish your opponent for hedging, not to give you an extra reward for a good snooker when clearing up is too difficult. For the same reason even the most difficult red in the world still counts as one. It's about the position you get from it. And if Selby hit the reds, Ricky wouldn't be in a better position. You have to win this game yourself, that's the idea, always has been.
Anders Bjarnle the miss rule isn't meant to be called every time a player missed the object ball. It's meant to be called when the player hasn't tried hard enough to hit it. It was implemented to prevent purposeful fouling and overly defensive play. In this case Selby clearly tried his best to hit the ball, so a miss was not called. The reason a lot of people are confused is because a lot of refs these days like to abuse the rule and call a miss no matter what, which is incorrect.
I don't get how this is good reffing they shouldn't take the difficulty of the snooker into consideration and just say ahh bless he nearly hit it lets let him off. When someone plays a shot like that he deserves to win the frame.
The alternative is for an "impossible" snooker to just be an automatic frame win. Especially if it happens early, you might have to sit and watch 30 failed attempts to get out of it before it reaches snookers-required and the opponent can't make him try again.
I don't get why everyone is so annoyed at the ref. If anyone should be annoyed it was the player who did the snooker and yet he didn't dispute the refs call so if he isn't annoyed enough to speak up about it (and it would benefit him the most to do so) why is everyone else going on like they themselves lost out on something. I plat badminton and when we have an extra player that person is ref (when not on court obviously) and we have a rule that the refs call is final, whether we agree or disagree.
I don't like that the ref can let a player off with an obvious miss, calling it a hit. The snookered player should have to keep playing the shot until he hits a red or conceeds the frame
I don't think you understand the point of the miss rule. The ref called a foul on Mark Selby, but thought his attempt was good enough that he didn't need to call a miss.
J L Sky Media he didnt call it a hit. It is the referees discretion as to the difficulty of the shot and to how close the white gets to the object ball or balls if he deems that the shot was so difficult and that it was a valid attempt to hit the object ball then he can use his common sense to not call it a miss.
My problem with this is that it only took three attempts for the miss to be abandoned. According to this, Ricky Walden played one of the best snookers the game has ever witnessed, yet he only made 12 points out of it. Many "easier" snookers in other matches (including ones Paul Collier has refereed) have made buckets of points for the person who laid it. Ricky is essentially being penalised for playing an amazing shot.
This is a stupid rule to NOT call that a miss and let Selby play the shot again and again until he hits any of the reds or simply concedes the frame. Totally unfair to Walden.
There was literally no other way to get to the reds. He didn't try to play a difficult shot to not leave a ball on, he didn't miss on purpose to put Walden in a tough spot. It was a foul but not a miss. There is absolutely no reason to "give Walden more points" just because he laid a terrific snooker. As mentioned higher up in the comments, that's like arguing that potting an incredibly hard red would be worth more than 1 point "to make it fair". The call was spot on.
Yes, I'm sure you know better than John Virgo, the ref, and some other bloke, Davis someone, sounds a bit like a multiple world champion. I'd back the opinion of some UA-camr that nobody's ever heard of against any of them, let alone all of them. Thank you for putting us all right. Now we know.
The miss rule is very controversial indeed (and a fairly recent one, starting in 1990's). The idea of it (or the spirit, if you like) is to prevent the player who is forced to escape a difficult snooker from playing for position, making a deliberate foul. The situation in the video is a perfect example of that: Mark has a considerable points advantage over Ricky. If the "miss rule" wasn't there, he could just ignore the reds and hit the cue ball in such a way that he left the reds available (so Ricky gets no free ball), but impossible to pot. It's highly probable that the next shot by Ricky would not put Mark in as big of a trouble, so losing 4 points might be worth it. The referee (Paul) had to make a judgement: did Mark make his best attempt to hit one of the reds WITHOUT trying to put Ricky into trouble (which would negate Ricky's snooker). He could not ignore the fact, that as great a snooker Ricky played, there was an element of luck there. Paul made a great call!
only 3 attempts is too few. should have been at least 5-7 attempts especially given the points difference and the point in the frame at which it happened.
ewan andrew The points difference and when it happens have nothing whatsoever to do with the Miss rule. If they did they would be included in the description and purpose of the rule. They are not.
Theres 4 reds there you had to call a miss.If there was 1 red you could call that a foul and not give a miss but there was 4 reds.Ricky Walden went onto lose the frame and match.Not a fair decision I doubt in 2018 that would not have been called a miss.
you should be allowed to keep having it replaced ? the game is called snooker ? if you are able to lay a good enough snooker that cant opponent cant escape .? rack up penalty points till snookers required or opponent concedes ?? their should be such a thing as a game winning snooker ??
Really bad call-ref clearly like Selby!!! Its the same ref when Ronnie play Selby long ago and had difficult snooker and ronnie tried everything and couldn’t make it,but ref did not give f.ck...
Ronnie hadn't tried the relatively simple 2 cushion escape on that. The only problem with going that way is you're almost certain to leave the red on for the opponent. However, wanting to get the red safe doesn't come into the equation with the miss rule.
When the snooker is pretty much impossible to get out of and the referee decides that the try was good enough and the player can't do any better, he has the right to call it just a foul and not a miss although he's missed the reds.
It’s a judgment call by the referee. Miss was introduced to prevent players from playing ultra defensive shots from a snookered position and gain advantage (especially when he is leading). But in Selby’s case, he’s not even able to contact the reds after 4-5 cushions, and desperately just wants to touch the reds. So with the 3rd shot, he was pretty much close to hitting them, and Paul Collier, being the experienced one, knew that that was the closest anyone could reach from that position. So no miss was called. I hope that clears up your question.
I thought though that is was irrelevant regarding how close the snookered player comes to getting out of it or whether the referee thinks it was a good enough effort or not, and only mattered regarding whether the opponent has benefited from the escape attempt, after having laid the snooker to begin with. In my view the final attempt should have been called as a miss too, however harsh that might seem because Ricky Walden hasn't really gained any advantage by Mark Selby's escape attempt.
The term "miss" has a technical use. It is quite complicated but generally it translates to meaning "missing a shot in a way that leaves the player in a potentially better situation than hitting". The broad purpose is to prevent players deliberately doing exactly that. For instance, if Selby had just hit the cue ball really lightly so it didn't even get out of baulk, he would have been better off than a shot that was a serious attempt to hit a a red. This ultimately leads to deliberate misses, and the "miss rule" - ie declaring as miss - is designed to prevent deliberate misses being a beneficial tactic. The miss rule effectively means that any missed shot that may have been deliberate, or taken a route unlikely to succeed (ie to fail in a safe way), the other player not only gets the foul points but they can request a replay. Some aspects of the way a miss is defined in detail are a bit controversial. In this case the ref decided that it was a serious attempt to hit a red but probably also that the final outcome was not significantly advantageous to Selby compared to if red had been struck.
A 'miss' is usually called in one of the following instances:
- The player has avoided an easier escape attempt
- The player hasn't hit the cue ball hard enough to reach the object ball
- The player has made a poor escape attempt
None of these apply to Selby in his final attempt. He wasn't deliberately picking a difficult escape to avoid leaving a pot on (which is why the miss rule is in place), he was making a genuine effort to escape the snooker.
Thanks for explaining
1:15 if the black had been slightly closer to the cushion that may have been almost impossible to escape from.
The people complaining about the ref not calling a miss clearly don't understand the miss rule or the intent behind it. You don't have to hit the target ball to not get a miss, but you have to make a good enough attempt. The intent is to stop deliberate fouls (by not even attempting to the target ball) and to prevent players from taking a more difficult path to the target that will leave them in a better position rather than an easier path that will leave them in a worse position.
It's at the refs discretion to call a miss or not, and neither the players nor the commentators disagreed with him, but obviously the internet "experts" all think they know better than the top professional ref, top professional players and professional commentators.........
carpy1970 I was never able to get my head round the miss rule until I read this comment. Thanks for explaining in on simple terms!
Why don’t they make it so if you’re snookered you keep shooting until you hit it and if not you just keep losing points. That way even if you’re really far behind you still have a chance of winning by snookering him.
excellent call from the referee , exactly how the miss rule should be implemented.
Look at 1:15 with the subtitles on! :D
The whole thing, in fact!
@@honorarymancunian7433 Fucking creepy...
Key point about this is that the third attempt went past the reds. The first two were called misses because they were not hit hard enough to reach the reds. Definitely the right call on all three attempts.
I don't understand any 1 thing about snooker, but here I am watching this recommended by youtube
Same here I'm sat on some island village here in the middle of Indonesia watching this
A lot of people in this comment section don't appear to understand the point of a referee. He is supposed to be neutral and only make decisions based on the rules. A miss is only called, when a certain shot was not a genuine attempt. But playing five cushions is unimaginably hard, even two cushions is hard enough already (go try it!). It was still a foul though, remember. Saying something like "at that score line he should have called a miss" shows that you do not make that decision neutrally and based on the rules but instead in favor of one the players.
Exactly. This is an extremely difficult - if not nearly impossible - snooker. I don't even see him escaping with just two or even three cushions, given the angles available to him. The referee acknowledged that and when he saw Selby having a really good attempt at it, decided to just keep it at a foul. It would have been unlikely that Selby would have come closer to a red then that and with the rest of the colours situated where they were before having about 20 attempts (at which you might as well just forfeit the frame directly).
Good call from the ref
Why, if he was snookered then he deserves to loose
@@DaygameAustralia Yep... I genuinely believe in those instances, based on sportsmanship, the player who gets snookered and cannot find an escape route should concede the frame... like resigning in a round of chess, you don't have to, but you should do it anyway out of respect.
Fair call from the ref but Ricky Walden deserved every point for that snooker.
2:48 Max Payne??
Generally if you get the white ball past the reds and close enough they don't call miss - as long as there wasn't an easier path to hit the reds and there wasn't here.
They always call a miss if it's possible to hit.
Not really, i have watched many matches and as the commentators were saying almost never seen a ref not call a miss even on good attempts on tough snookers
Not necessarily jimmy. The red that Ricky hit to get there wasn't in the same place afterwards.
Also if you hit a cuision at a shallow angle at pace it skids and you don't get a perfect bounce. So it's possible for a path to work in one direction (where it is going slowiy for the last shallow angle) and not the other (where the shallow angle is first and at pace).
There's plenty of 'tough snookers' where it's actually easy enough to get the cue ball to hit the object ball (for a top professional anyway!)- they're called 'tough' because it's 'tough' to get the cue ball in a safe position and not leave a pot on. This is just tough to hit full stop.
@redo348 Couldn't have put it better, @jimmyfly is totally wrong, the path back the same way is not possible.
The ref made a good decision, Selby made a very fair attempt, anyone who thinks he deliberately missed the reds to gain an advantage (the purpose of the miss rule) is ridiculous.
When did this happen?
I see what is meant by not calling a miss, but taking into account the skill of Selby - and possibly more importantly the fact that there were several red balls on the table - I would have liked to see Selby have nine or ten attempts before the ref relented at least. Then imagine how a cool a moment if Selby actually got out of it
I'm sure if the roles were reversed Selby would've complained about it if I was Walden I would've stayed there until Selby conceded
"Conceived" or 'Conceded'? ...Waiting for Selby to conceive could be.... well, a bit awkward.
ur not sure about anything you dont know. Im sure ur stupids. see? go back to football hooligan.
Ricky gave shelby his own medicine.
Thought I knew snooker well but I don’t understand why that last shot wasn’t put back?
Because the referee did not call a miss, just a normal foul for not hitting the object ball. A miss is only called if the referee thinks that the player who is trying to get out of a snooker did not make the best possible attempt to play the object ball.
In his first two attempts, Selby did not even come near the pack of red balls, so it is an easy miss call. But that last attempt actually had a really good chance of hitting, especially considering the nearly impossible angle Selby had to work with. This, along with the referee's judgement that the player made his best possible attempt at this extremely difficult shot, was enough to not call a miss here and spare Selby the pain of having to repeat the same shot over and over until it is no longer worth continuing and just forfeiting the frame.
The "problem" with the miss rule is that it is enforced almost entirely at the discretion of the referee, so the referee's flair and judgement are important factors in the decision. There are some referees who have a stick up their bottom and would just automatically call a miss in this situation, even though the shot is almost unhittable and even if the white missed a red by a millimetre. But Paul Collier, the referee here, made the right decision here. No need to continue Selby's suffering. Applaud Walden's excellent snooker shot, respect Selby for his great effort to try to get out of an impossible position and then, get on with the game.
My Mates used to call me "Darth" when we played Snooker as i kept swishing the cue around after missing shots.. Jesus I took up Snooker as I lost it too many times playing Golf aswell, lost so many clubs...
look at 2:30
lol i did twice
What happened?
didnt u see that cat under the tabel???
Watch and learn!
Waldon deserved to get more points from such a well played shot...but I think the ref made a good call because I don't think Mark was going to get much closer than he did..
I think the miss rule is so misunderstood because it's so overused by the referees
4:51
Ricky wall and fall :D
(turn the captions on)
The captions are a little bit out compared to what's actually being said.
The captions are what's in the script. It's their pronunciation that made it hard to understand. Like when he said "new kidneys" and it almost sounded like "get a snooker behind".
Nice game
im pretty new to snooker. what was the refs call? like what exactly happened?
The Ref did call the last shot just a Foul, not a Foul and a Miss.
If the ref calls Foul and Miss the opponent can have the balls put back and make you play the Shot again (Selbys first two attempts).
If its just a Foul the opponent can decide to play from the position the Cue Ball landed or let you continue playing from there.
Wheter or not an attempt is a Miss is interpreted by the Ref only. The Rule exists to prevent deliberate/tactical Fouls.
See this Video to understand the controversy with the Miss Rule: ua-cam.com/video/AGMXh9otUBU/v-deo.html
Top Class
Snooker is so much more watchable with Willie and John in the commentary box....
What was later?Who won?
Selby 9-5 (I believe)
On the one hand I think it's fair to not give a 'miss'. On the other hand if he can get this close, why not try again?
The 3rd attempt was significantly better than the 1st and 2nd.
Is there any snooker android or video game that uses the rule of placing the ball in the original spot after every foul and/or miss shot or is it me?
Who won the frame?
I did
Selby he also won the match.
What is this game...
The miss rule crazy
When? Where?
Jonathan Walther This is the 2013 UK Championship semi final Selby won 9-5
Demon smile at 1:25
Selby would've hit that red if he had to have another shot at it but the ref spoiled the fun!
Honeatly with that level of snooker juat give him the fuckin win
Looks like a legal shot to me
I do not understand the miss rule. Obviously Selby was trying his level best to hit the red at every turn, so why was miss called on the first two shots?
The first two shots he's trying to hit with just enough pace to reach the reds but not so hard as to scatter them into an unsafe position. Thus, he's not making a "best attempt" to hit the reds. The third shot passed the reds, so clearly he was hitting with plenty of pace; he just happened to be off line a bit. That's just a foul, not a miss, because it was clearly an honest attempt to hit the reds with no easier shot available. Good job by the ref.
I’m not saying the referee has done anything, but I think it’s ridiculous that there isn’t the possibility of a frame-winning snooker in the game. If you can land a genuinely impossible-to-escape snooker, you should win the frame.
Many impossible to break snookers are flukes. And this snooker is not among them by the way.
Yes it's dumb rule that a snooker that is too good effectively gets penalized by giving the opponent an easy out.
Whilst it was the correct decision based on the rules, I do think they need to change the rules to reward great snookers like that. Snooker is not just about potting balls, it’s about safety play. A great snooker should be worth eg. 50 points from misses if the other player can’t escape. For snookering oneself, continue the rule as is today though.
Got sent this video and asked to explain by a confused american 😄
It takes one great snooker for a Ref to not call a mis. I agree with the call,,but I wonder what would have happened had he let it go for another few shots? Selby was getting closer with each attempt.
I seen Ronnie O complaining about this ,when he was snookered pretty badly,,,and he eventually hit the ball. Although Ronnie seemed to be doing more whining than trying.lol .The Ref would not give him a break,,,it wasnt that long ago,,,and it may have something to do with this call. Ronnie O got super close a few times and was complaining about it being called a mis.
I remember that one and if I remember correctly the ref wasn't calling a miss because Ronnie had an easier path to get to the reds which is part of the rule if the ref is to call a foul instead of a miss. You must use the easiest line.
Yep that sounds about right, but it was still a very hard snooker to get out of from any direction.
Top class from Paul collier, although I could not imagine Selby had to keep hitting the same shot over and over lmao...
I don't understand that rule. I always thought that if you don't touch a red ball, the opponent can place the white ball where he wants.
In snooker, the opponent has the option of playing where you left the cue ball or resetting the shot and forcing you to play it again. The two times where they don't get the second option is when you're so far behind you'd need penalty points to catch them and this case, where the ref decides you made the best possible effort to hit the object ball and you didn't get any advantage from where the cue ball ended (your miss can't be due to shooting for a "safety" shot or to put your opponent into a snooker themselves).
Genius
Actually I hate "miss" rule, it is stupid and does not make sense, besides it gets pretty awkward moments when referees are trying to recreate position when someone smashes forbidden balls. I think the rules must be like in the endgame without "miss" option, the opponent has an option to take the position or give it back. Once I've seen Ronnie was in the same ridiculous situation and he simply conceded the match, protesting the rule as I guess. I had a pretty bad experience, leading the game in 50 points, opponent had no chance to pull the game out, but he accidentally made the unbreakable snooker, and I lost the game. I felt so deceived, because he did't won by skill, but by stupid rule!!!
good service
Should've called a miss really, at least give it another go or two. Walden deserved to get more points from that snooker specially with the score being in Selby's favour.
So you think Selby DELIBERATELY missed that red?? Given the difficulty of the snooker it is obvious that this was a genuine attempt to hit the red. Or maybe you just don't understand the miss rule.
u should give walden some credit for that snooker, and with the score as it is its a bit unfair for him, walden that is.
That's like saying if you pot a difficult red you deserve more than 1 point...
So much lack of understanding. That's not how it works. Ricky gets right within the balls, that has to be enough for you if you lay a good snooker. That has been the case before the miss rule, and that is not the reason this rule exists. The fact that the reds are so bad and he can't win from this is his fault as well, he could have opened them up. Foul points from the miss rule are there to punish your opponent for hedging, not to give you an extra reward for a good snooker when clearing up is too difficult. For the same reason even the most difficult red in the world still counts as one. It's about the position you get from it. And if Selby hit the reds, Ricky wouldn't be in a better position. You have to win this game yourself, that's the idea, always has been.
Mark Selby has a taste of his own medicine and fails lol slowby
Nice
Ref had a bet on selby
Corrupt as f
Why is it considered bad manners to call out a miss if it is a miss, even though it is really close?
Anders Bjarnle the miss rule isn't meant to be called every time a player missed the object ball. It's meant to be called when the player hasn't tried hard enough to hit it. It was implemented to prevent purposeful fouling and overly defensive play. In this case Selby clearly tried his best to hit the ball, so a miss was not called. The reason a lot of people are confused is because a lot of refs these days like to abuse the rule and call a miss no matter what, which is incorrect.
Oh right, because if a miss is called the balls can be replaced if desired... That's why a miss can change the whole frame, thanks for the answer!
I don't get how this is good reffing they shouldn't take the difficulty of the snooker into consideration and just say ahh bless he nearly hit it lets let him off. When someone plays a shot like that he deserves to win the frame.
The Miss Rule exists to prevent deliberate fouls.
It is very good reffing. This is how the miss rule works.
The alternative is for an "impossible" snooker to just be an automatic frame win. Especially if it happens early, you might have to sit and watch 30 failed attempts to get out of it before it reaches snookers-required and the opponent can't make him try again.
Terrible refereeing . In professional snooker the rule is a MISS not as in the rest of the sport a Deliberate Miss .
if you think one shot, if good enough, should auto-win the frame, you don't really understand this game
nice
Selby smile when he's gets snooker more happy to snooker then play attacking never pay to watch him
I'm sure with enough masse and side you could get out of that snooker.
I don't get why everyone is so annoyed at the ref. If anyone should be annoyed it was the player who did the snooker and yet he didn't dispute the refs call so if he isn't annoyed enough to speak up about it (and it would benefit him the most to do so) why is everyone else going on like they themselves lost out on something. I plat badminton and when we have an extra player that person is ref (when not on court obviously) and we have a rule that the refs call is final, whether we agree or disagree.
+Rahil Abbas - Haven't you basically just contradicted yourself in your post here?
Supersnooker ...:D
I don't like that the ref can let a player off with an obvious miss, calling it a hit. The snookered player should have to keep playing the shot until he hits a red or conceeds the frame
I don't think you understand the point of the miss rule. The ref called a foul on Mark Selby, but thought his attempt was good enough that he didn't need to call a miss.
J L Sky Media he didnt call it a hit. It is the referees discretion as to the difficulty of the shot and to how close the white gets to the object ball or balls if he deems that the shot was so difficult and that it was a valid attempt to hit the object ball then he can use his common sense to not call it a miss.
That's only because you don't understand the game and the rules.
My problem with this is that it only took three attempts for the miss to be abandoned. According to this, Ricky Walden played one of the best snookers the game has ever witnessed, yet he only made 12 points out of it. Many "easier" snookers in other matches (including ones Paul Collier has refereed) have made buckets of points for the person who laid it. Ricky is essentially being penalised for playing an amazing shot.
The flaw is not in the referee's decision, but in the miss rule itself.
2 more tries and he would have hit it. so, why not call the 3rd miss?
Bum bum bum bum
He could definitely hit the reds, not impossible
This is a stupid rule to NOT call that a miss and let Selby play the shot again and again until he hits any of the reds or simply concedes the frame. Totally unfair to Walden.
The Miss-Rule exists to prevent "deliberate" fouls.
Selby did clearly prove that he wasn't looking for the easy way out of this situation.
There was literally no other way to get to the reds. He didn't try to play a difficult shot to not leave a ball on, he didn't miss on purpose to put Walden in a tough spot. It was a foul but not a miss. There is absolutely no reason to "give Walden more points" just because he laid a terrific snooker. As mentioned higher up in the comments, that's like arguing that potting an incredibly hard red would be worth more than 1 point "to make it fair". The call was spot on.
Yes, I'm sure you know better than John Virgo, the ref, and some other bloke, Davis someone, sounds a bit like a multiple world champion. I'd back the opinion of some UA-camr that nobody's ever heard of against any of them, let alone all of them. Thank you for putting us all right. Now we know.
The miss rule is very controversial indeed (and a fairly recent one, starting in 1990's). The idea of it (or the spirit, if you like) is to prevent the player who is forced to escape a difficult snooker from playing for position, making a deliberate foul. The situation in the video is a perfect example of that: Mark has a considerable points advantage over Ricky. If the "miss rule" wasn't there, he could just ignore the reds and hit the cue ball in such a way that he left the reds available (so Ricky gets no free ball), but impossible to pot. It's highly probable that the next shot by Ricky would not put Mark in as big of a trouble, so losing 4 points might be worth it.
The referee (Paul) had to make a judgement: did Mark make his best attempt to hit one of the reds WITHOUT trying to put Ricky into trouble (which would negate Ricky's snooker). He could not ignore the fact, that as great a snooker Ricky played, there was an element of luck there. Paul made a great call!
If Selby would just ignore the reds, every attempt would cost him four points, or not? So this strategy make no sense for me.
Walden was annoyed with ref clearly. I have seen this ref favour selby in other matches.
Oops!
Wow
only 3 attempts is too few. should have been at least 5-7 attempts especially given the points difference and the point in the frame at which it happened.
ewan andrew The points difference and when it happens have nothing whatsoever to do with the Miss rule. If they did they would be included in the description and purpose of the rule. They are not.
Theres 4 reds there you had to call a miss.If there was 1 red you could call that a foul and not give a miss but there was 4 reds.Ricky Walden went onto lose the frame and match.Not a fair decision I doubt in 2018 that would not have been called a miss.
you should be allowed to keep having it replaced ? the game is called snooker ? if you are able to lay a good enough snooker that cant opponent cant escape .? rack up penalty points till snookers required or opponent concedes ?? their should be such a thing as a game winning snooker ??
I remember the same referee who kept calling Miss for Ronnie, lol.. where was his vision then?
check here : ua-cam.com/video/dOtI98HLMfo/v-deo.html
"almost impossible snooker"
Sorry but that WAS an impossible snooker.
you need efren reyes!!!!!
This is an almost 4 times bigger table than pool... Even legend Efren Reyes can do no better than selby here
Ref favoring Slowby, disgusting.
Really bad call-ref clearly like Selby!!!
Its the same ref when Ronnie play Selby long ago and had difficult snooker and ronnie tried everything and couldn’t make it,but ref did not give f.ck...
Ronnie hadn't tried the relatively simple 2 cushion escape on that. The only problem with going that way is you're almost certain to leave the red on for the opponent. However, wanting to get the red safe doesn't come into the equation with the miss rule.
REf is a selby fan obvious.....
How can he not call a miss when it was obviously one?
When the snooker is pretty much impossible to get out of and the referee decides that the try was good enough and the player can't do any better, he has the right to call it just a foul and not a miss although he's missed the reds.
It’s a judgment call by the referee. Miss was introduced to prevent players from playing ultra defensive shots from a snookered position and gain advantage (especially when he is leading). But in Selby’s case, he’s not even able to contact the reds after 4-5 cushions, and desperately just wants to touch the reds. So with the 3rd shot, he was pretty much close to hitting them, and Paul Collier, being the experienced one, knew that that was the closest anyone could reach from that position. So no miss was called. I hope that clears up your question.
I thought though that is was irrelevant regarding how close the snookered player comes to getting out of it or whether the referee thinks it was a good enough effort or not, and only mattered regarding whether the opponent has benefited from the escape attempt, after having laid the snooker to begin with.
In my view the final attempt should have been called as a miss too, however harsh that might seem because Ricky Walden hasn't really gained any advantage by Mark Selby's escape attempt.
The term "miss" has a technical use. It is quite complicated but generally it translates to meaning "missing a shot in a way that leaves the player in a potentially better situation than hitting".
The broad purpose is to prevent players deliberately doing exactly that. For instance, if Selby had just hit the cue ball really lightly so it didn't even get out of baulk, he would have been better off than a shot that was a serious attempt to hit a a red. This ultimately leads to deliberate misses, and the "miss rule" - ie declaring as miss - is designed to prevent deliberate misses being a beneficial tactic.
The miss rule effectively means that any missed shot that may have been deliberate, or taken a route unlikely to succeed (ie to fail in a safe way), the other player not only gets the foul points but they can request a replay.
Some aspects of the way a miss is defined in detail are a bit controversial. In this case the ref decided that it was a serious attempt to hit a red but probably also that the final outcome was not significantly advantageous to Selby compared to if red had been struck.
I've seen simliar difficult snookers before only missed by a tiny fraction & the miss rule was always called. Selby got off lightly!
Stupid referee for not calling a miss on the last attempt