Thanks for that. I never really knew the full story. John Higgins still gets abuse about this incident. Every snooker video about him right to this day, someone is calling him a fat cheat(or worse😉). I've got over it & admired how well he's played in recent years (2 world finals, 30 ranking titles).
Remember the time Ronnie hit a 140 and refused to pot the black Jan told him knock it in for the fans. He should have said KNOCK IT IN OR I WILL KNOCK YOU OUT
Like this if you love snooker, everytime you watch it it throws up something different like in this case, never 2 frames the same it's a fascinating game to watch, I particularly love the frames that go down to the colours and with the excellent safety play and snookers and their brilliant ways of escaping from them, snooker doesnt get the recognition it deserves these days
How does this give you a deeper understanding of the game? The rule was made to prevent something (intentionally snookering your opponent) that is pretty superficial. The game is called SNOOKER.
@@tc1817 His point is correct though. We rarely see this particular kind of incident because the player with the free ball always does something useful with it, ie pots it or uses it to play a snooker behind another ball. As for 'the game is called snooker', yes it is, but the act of snookering comes from the name of the game, not the other way round.
@@tc1817 It wasn't called anything, because it didn't exist. How it came to be called snooker is freely available information, and it has nothing to do with the act of snookering. That came after the game was named.
Referee is right here. The rules state, under penalties: "causing the cue-ball to be snookered behind a free ball" (sect 3, 10 (a) (viii)) 2 (17) says "[t]he cue-ball is said to be snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If one or more balls on can be struck at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered. " (emphasis on both edges).
Jan Verhaas, a Dutchman speaking his second language to some Chinese folk speaking their second language to sort things out for John Higgins, a Scotsman.
@@Th3Pur3G4M3R It was a free ball. You Can't snooker your opponent behind nominated free ball. For example: You take a shot, make foul and free ball with cue ball ending in bulk area. I nominate yellow and hide White behind yellow: that is now foul by me.
@@noegojimmy mute point. he (john wasn't snookered) so no foul end of discussion...sorry also he didn't role up behind the pink in baulk line lol. also you aren't qualified to say "that is a foul by me"
@@andrewverrett568 I think to qualify as a real fan of any sport, you have to know who you are supposed to hate. So I am not a real snooker fan but when it comes to football, I am more than qualified.
@@andrewverrett568 No problem. I made my original comment in general terms about the sporting ethics of snooker compared with other sports. My knowledge of Higgins is minimal. Cheers!
@@Definitely_Someone Well, you're clearly the expert here, obviously in possession of all the facts. Apparently more facts than the two investigative bodies that cleared him of all charges of match-fixing.
Oh wow that's an interesting rule! Good to know - thank you for the video! It's also funny that Higgins never experienced this situation in his whole long career.
Yep I thought this all along same...I was correct all along when Boss Ref explained it at the end I was doubt myself until the Boss Ref haha Unless you play snooker you wouldn't understand this Foul haha
Thankfully Verhaas was on hand? The ref made the correct call in the first place. Wondering why Higgins could be ignorant of the rule, yet question the ref and only find reassurance in Verhaas.
I knew about not being able to snooker your opponent behind the free ball. I had no idea that you were considered to be snookered if you could not hit the whole ball. I bet this doesn't happen very often, full marks to the referee, he didn't even hesitate.
Many players get too comfortable with the loose definition of a snooker; that being, they can't see the object ball from the white at all. Nice video to illustrate this.
He isn't actually "total" snookered is John after missing the Pink, so it shouldn't really by a foul in the first place! can i hot both sides of the ball rule (free ball rule), only comes into play AFTER a FOUL has been committed! John wasn't "snookered" imo so no foul should have been called at all period.
@@utdkidswifeITO There's no "total" snooker in the rules of snooker (unlike pool). John is snookered by the pink, according to the official definition of "snookered" (section 2.17 of the rules), because it prevents him from hitting both extreme edges of any ball on (ie the red). Rule 3.10.viii says this is a foul, and the second free ball follows from that.
problem is the definition of "snookered". the common understanding is when you can't hit the object ball at all but obviously the technical definition is different.
The point is not whether you can snooker behind the free ball (obviously you can't), the point is whether it counts as a snooker if you're able to hit the ball on centre-ball. Snooker rules are inconsistent here. For a free-ball, you need to be able to hit both sides of the ball on, but for the three-miss rule, you only need to be able to hit centre-ball. I think that's where the confusion stems from.
I think most players know that 'just rolling up" behind the nominated free ball to lay a snooker is a foul, it's just that because it wasn't deliberate, it confused things somewhat. The knowledge of this rule is generally focused on the intention rather than the outcome. If you're inclined to focus on the outcome rather than the intention, probably being more logically-minded rather than emotionally-minded, you might have got it straight away.
Jan is the reason why Ronnie has 15 maximums and not 14. 'Cmon Ronnie, knock it in for your fans' - and since Ronnie thinks Jans is 'Dutch, laid back, cool guy' ... why the hell not.
Perfect call and very fast as well. Rule is as old as the game itself, at least for me. It is to stop the player given a free ball from rolling up behind the free ball they nominate. If you cannot hit both edges right and left then you are snookered in effect, so it was a good call. Neat video, thanks for uploading.
Almost a perfect call. Would have possibly saved some confusion at the marker’s desk if he had remembered to say “John Higgins, 4” rather than just “foul... free ball”
If he had never had that situation happen to him during his entire career, one could forgive him for not being completely clear on that one particular rule.
@@DjVortex-w I've had it happen 1 or 2 times when I was young playing. We all knew you couldn't snooker behind the free ball you're going for. Higgins should have known this
Malf1532 Your correct it doesn't happen all the time, cause all players know this rule, think John was having a off day, reading thr most of the comments am still downfounded why John questioned this, it's a rule he must know ffs
@Squant no pal. Doesn’t matter if the shot went wrong. If u nominate any ball in a free ball situation and it accidentally or unintentionally ends up blocking the on ball. Then it’s a foul. While watching the game I called it a foul same time as the ref did
Really surprised at this. Common and basic rule that you cannot be snookered behind a free ball. Also snookers count as not being able to see both sides of the ball so I don't get what Higgins confusion was.
2:52 The captions say the penalty should be 4 pts, or higher if the ball in question is of a higher value. Higgins got only 4 pts here. Shouldn't he have gotten 6, as the snookering ball is the pink?
Someone in the comment section allready explained that. The pink ball temporarily became a red ball for John's oponent so Higgins just got 4 points for a red ball. (Sorry if anything is spelled wrong, I'm no native speaker)
I knew this rule as a constant snooker gamer. The referee was absolute right about the decision, surprising that John didn’t know, thought it was just the communication that was confusing to him.
I was always brought up that if you can hit some part of the object ball you are NOT "snookered".....world rule pool there is a term of "total" but from my understanding that only after a foul can you get a "free ball", if you cant hit both sides of the object ball. Please someone define the word "Snookered" ......the operative word here...
The Official Rules mention "both extreme edges (of the ball on)" only once: in the definition of Snookered, which also indicates "wholly or partially obstructed." On a Free Ball, they only state "when snookered after a foul", that's all, literally. Players, commentators and fans have distorted the official definition.
One thing that is often forgotten by players of ANY sport, including snooker and (my sport) soccer is that, usually, a referee will officiate many more matches much more often than even the most ambitious players, amateur or professional. It is perfectly plausible that John Higgins has never encountered the snookered-by-the-unpotted-free-ball situation, but odds are that the referee has seen it several times this year, maybe even yesterday. Referees won't tell players how to play, and players shouldn't tell referees how to ref.
You're generally right, but there's an exception to your last sentence. Snooker being a gentleman sport, a player should point out if they fouled, even if the ref didn't notice it.
I thought that they had gotten this wrong because they were mixing up the freeball rule with 'a snooker ', only after checking the definition of 'a snooker ' did I agree. It seems that every player and commentator does not know what 'a snooker ' is. It's exactly the same as a freeball, you are snookered if you cannot hit both sides. So saying player 1 needs a snooker is wrong ( in it's normal usage.) We think 'snookered' means neither side can be hit but in the rules it means both extremes. So you could see 99% of the ball and still be officially 'snookered' See rule 17 WPSBA 17. Snookered The cue-ball is snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If one or more balls on can be hit at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.
there is one exception : if u have only pink and black on table and u r snookered on pink or u have a bad position of the pink (but a part hidden by black),at this time u can play free Ball with the black and make a snook behind black
It wasn’t a snooker on the red ball. John Higgins was correct. Snookered: The cue ball is snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to any part of every ball on is obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If there is any one ball that is not so obstructed, the cue ball is not snookered. If in-hand within the Half Circle, the cue ball is snookered only if obstructed from all positions on or within the Half Circle. If the cue ball is obstructed by more than one ball, the one nearest to the cue ball is the effective snookering ball.
No u r wrong... When a foul is committed the next shot for the player he needs to have the object ball in full view which means he's able to hit the object ball on both the sides of the ball. In case he doesn't have both or has just the one side of the ball then it is considered as a Free Ball.... Next when playing the 1st ball under a Free ball shot he Cannot snooker the cue ball behind the 1st object ball he's playing... If in case the opponet gets snookered behind the 1st object ball played under a free ball then it's a foul.. So now the other player gets the foul points plus now he also gets to play free ball again... Simple I don't understand how come higgins like world class player was unaware of this simple rule...🤔
@@dhilzz99 but was it a foul in the first place because he wasnt snookered after playing the pink, he could see the red , although not all of it , he could hit it direct therfore not snookered. just a thought but i,m not sure. i,ve never seen somone call a snooker when you can hit the red so why call a snooker here
@@deliverybloke Yes.. It's a foul by yize... Higgins didn't have a full ball view of the red ball.. so it's a foul & freeball.... U need to have both the sides of the object ball to touch which wasn't available here...
@@deliverybloke Snookered means wholly or PARTIALLY obstructed. Higgins could not see one side, then he was snookered. Regardless of whether a free ball was called or not, the cue-ball was snookered. MARTIN A1 has written above a correct definition of snookered, but has not interpreted it correctly. It says: when "any part" is obstructed. Commentators refer to "snookered" as an equivalent of "wholly blocked," as most of us usually do, but it's officially incorrect.
@@nobodyspecial6436 -- If a high level electrician seemed confused by Ohms law I'd be confused as to what the confusion was because it would be very odd to find a professional electrician who doesn't know it. It became clear at the end that he did know the rule, he just didn't recognize that he was technically snookered because he couldn't get to both sides of the red and the ref wasn't explaining it well. That actually surprised me a bit too, but apparently he thought if he could hit it full on it was good.
Thomas Mobley i was referring to the comments not the players... Though Higgins did seem a little befuddled but i think it was more of not understanding what the ref was saying not about not knowing the rules...I’m certain John is well versed in the rules
I have to say, I would question the ref too. 1. Why a miss? The definition is when "the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball" but Higgins only just missed the red; he was obviously trying to hit it. 2. I also can't see why it's a free ball when the other player could see both sides of the red and 3. Why was Wu Yize's shot a foul? There's nothing illegal about missing a shot on the free ball. Very confused...
Hywel Thomas 1: a miss because Higgins was trying to hit the very edge of the red so as to avoid leaving it on. He wasn’t aiming to definitely hit it - he’d rather miss than catch it thick and leave the red on. Players often have a few ‘misses’ trying to catch it thin and avoid leaving it. 2: the far right side of the red was covered by the blue, leaving him snookered (even though he could hit most of the red) 3: you cannot snooker behind the nominated free ball (pink) which he accidentally did when the pink bounced back from the jaws
This is about a controversial video in 2010, which caused many people to believe that John Higgins was involved in match-fixing. It was a trap made by a journalist who edited the video. It makes Higgins seem relaxed and even suggests ways to cover the money. Sorry, it's not related to this video, but people still post comments in that regard and I think most of them only watched the apocryphal video but never investigate the case.
There is one instance where you can snooker behind a free ball but it’s only allowed when only the pink and black remain on the table..... other than that it’s a foul to the value of the nominated ball
Nobody Special Righto I've done my research and I apologise, you're correct! 👍I play snooker a lot too, run my own Instagram if you're interested. Snookermillimetres147 it's called 👍
Oʀʀɪɴ Bᴇsᴛᴇʀ no apology necessary..... and as interesting as your instagram page seems i do not subscribe to any of those social media sites... but if i ever do I will surely look you up
It's a strange rule but it's there to prevent gamesmanship and this was one of these scenarios in which it was implied however in different circumstances. The referee made the right call. It's understandable why both players are confused, because Wu had no intention to snooker, he attempted the pot, it's cruel, but that's how the rules are interpreted.
So the penalty in this case is always 4. Right? Brcause free ball is 1 (as a red) therefore always a penalty of four. The subtitle said whichever os higher bit I think cam't be higher than 4 in situation of freeball.
To clarify. It's not when you nominate the blue as the free ball, but when the blue is the ball on. For example, the only balls remaining on the table are blue, pink and black; if you nominate the pink as the free ball, then it's 5 points for the pot/foul because the free ball (pink) is regarded as the ball on (blue).
when you think about it its pretty clear there has to be a rule against using the free ball to snooker your opponent, its would be too easy.. Ofc Wu here didn't do it on purpose but its still the same foul...
Hes making sure that the ref hasnt made a mistake through his behalf or is seeking reassurance that this is the correct rule. It's good to all talk and make sure everyones on the right page before contuning. It's to make sure that the game feel and is fair to all and that no wrong moves are ever done.
TheFreshSpam the ref said play John and it's a free ball, John Higgins is my favourite player but he shouldn't have questioned the ref. The ref is in charge and do as the ref said
John is also protecting himself. If he ends up winning by 1 frame and the rule says the red only needs to be playable rather than both sides need to be playable, hes going to get flack even though hes done nothing wrong. Refs are human too, they make mistakes.
Maui that is wrong. Players can definitely have a question to ensure accuracy, is the reason I love snooker more than other games. Just like when players foul and they call it without the referee seeing it. More often than not players know better than the referees.
Cesar Muroya are you sure? Isn’t there a requirement the object ball must hit at least one cushion? This is not my area of expertise, just curious and admire watching expert pool/snooker play. Thanks
Firstly I completely understand this particular situation, but as I was thinking about the free ball and it being a foul to snooker behind it, a question occurred to me. Would the following situation be a foul. The colours are on their spots with one red sitting in a straight line between the pink and blue. the cue ball is sitting in a straight line between the black and the center of the back cushion. A player comes to the table having been awarded a free ball, nominates the black and taps up to it. I ask because. if it isn't apparent to anyone yet, the black is not the only snookering ball here, the pink is as well. I would assume that the shot is legal because the black would not be seen as the snookering ball the pink would, but I wonder if this has ever happened and what the outcome was.
When it's blocked by more than one ball, the ball nearest to the cue-ball is regarded as the snookering ball. In your example, it's the black, not the pink.
I only play a few frames a year and even I was aware of that rule. You can't snooker behind a nominated free ball. Otherwise the other player can just lay up behind a nominated free ball and get an easy snooker.
Language barrier between Higgins and the ref was certainly less than ideal. Not unusual for a player not to know every rule especially an obscure one like this.
This is what I love about Snooker, (most of the time) players are always fair and always admit mistakes or try to correct an issue if they aren’t sure. I know there has been times when players try to be sneaky with it but most of the time everyone is fair and honest.
Strange turn of phrase, "the referee failed to explain it correctly to John". Surely it was unreasonable to expect the referee to know that a player of Higgins' standing would be ignorant of such a straightforward rule?
Most ppl who have commented don't even understand the issue here. Its not about the freeball, the fouled one or the Higgins one. The issue is what constitutes a "snooker", thats what Higgins seemed to question. He thinks its not a snooker if he can hit the red.
O.k. Higgins misses the red, hits a black, School kid gets 7, School kid then goes for the pink shot as a free ball into middle pocket. Misses and ends up snookering Higgins. So why the confusion? Higgins just clearly pissed that he's been snookered again.
Can understand why confused, I never knew this rule, I thought the free ball has to hit a cushion atleast anyway. But good call for referee to even remember this rule.
The pink effectively became a red for Wu Yize after John Higgins fouled the black but although he tried to pot the pink as a red, he missed it and so the pink reverts back to being the pink again and they carry on as before with Higgins on a red for his next shot. The issue here though is if the pink became a red for Wu Yize and when missing the pink he left Higgins snookered, that's a foul because you can't really be snookered on a red behind another "red" which the pink temporarily became with the first free ball. So then once the pink reverted back to actually being the pink again, Higgins was snookered and he couldn't see both sides of the remaining red and so was given a free ball.
Here’s what people are missing Wu Yize had a free ball, tried to hit the pink in and missed and snookered John on the same ball (pink). If John would have been snookered on any other ball it would have been good this is the confusing part. I personally don’t understand the rule Let’s say some one tried to hit ball at the bottom of the table and missed, que ball ends up in the bulk snookered on all reds you get a free ball if you cant make anything and you can roll up behind a color. So I don’t understand it’s like Wu is being penalized for trying to make the pink and missing
The rule is indeed there to prevent rolling up behind a free ball, but the way it is worded made this a foul too. This makes the situation in the video unfortunate, but the decision was correct. An exception is when only pink & black are left. You can then nominate black as a free ball & snooker behind it. The rules of snooker are available for download from wpbsa's web site. Rules of Snooker section 3 rule 10 (b) it is a foul if the cue-ball should (ii) be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball thus nominated, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.
that in itself would be a mistake - the nominated ball was pink so the ref should have said "John Higgins, six"... the scorer only added a four point foul because of this...
Snooker is still considered as a sport of gentlemen - at least in the most cases. So Higgins was asking why because he didn't want to get some "undeserved" points.
Unlikely. It should be a well known rule that you cannot snooker with a free ball. Also, it is well known that to be snookered it means that you cannot hit both extreme edges with the cue ball. A simple reading of the rules makes that obvious.
Can anybody explain this?? After second free ball , Does Jhon had the option to nominate any other ball for free ball except Pink ?? If yes why ?and if no why ?.. And why foul score was given 4 points?
Yes. He can choose any ball as the free ball, or choose to play the red as it is his shot, the previous one doesn’t matter. It is only 4 points for the foul as the pink was acting as a red ball, so it counts as a foul on a red
Fuck's sake. The ref knows his onions, so let him get on with it. He was completely correct throughout and never wavered in his assurance. Let the ref do his job.
not to be pedantic but "penalty is value of the ball or four, whichever is higher" doesn't cover what happens if the value is 4, could be interpreted as no penalty at all 🤔
Information about Higgins controversial meeting in the description.
Thanks for that. I never really knew the full story. John Higgins still gets abuse about this incident. Every snooker video about him right to this day, someone is calling him a fat cheat(or worse😉). I've got over it & admired how well he's played in recent years (2 world finals, 30 ranking titles).
In fact, he played the last 3 world finals ;)
@@CesarMuroya Ha, forgot 2019🤣
@@MikeyJ2306 Exactly, calling him fat is uncalled for.
@@Harry-jz1dn i agree considering they don't have to be athletic to play the sport similar to darts.
Jan Verhaas is just a pure class
Very happy to have him on the tour thou 👍🏼
Yes he is .. A great man
Remember the time Ronnie hit a 140 and refused to pot the black
Jan told him knock it in for the fans. He should have said KNOCK IT IN OR I WILL KNOCK YOU OUT
Like this if you love snooker, everytime you watch it it throws up something different like in this case, never 2 frames the same it's a fascinating game to watch, I particularly love the frames that go down to the colours and with the excellent safety play and snookers and their brilliant ways of escaping from them, snooker doesnt get the recognition it deserves these days
@@cougarant Wonderful comment :)
Snooker must be one of the few sports where referees are actually liked and respected.
I love these free ball technicalities, getting into the rules that rarely surface really provides a deeper understanding of the game
How does this give you a deeper understanding of the game? The rule was made to prevent something (intentionally snookering your opponent) that is pretty superficial. The game is called SNOOKER.
@@tc1817 His point is correct though. We rarely see this particular kind of incident because the player with the free ball always does something useful with it, ie pots it or uses it to play a snooker behind another ball. As for 'the game is called snooker', yes it is, but the act of snookering comes from the name of the game, not the other way round.
@@johnbull1568 umm...what was the game called before it was called "snooker"?
@@tc1817 It wasn't called anything, because it didn't exist. How it came to be called snooker is freely available information, and it has nothing to do with the act of snookering. That came after the game was named.
@@johnbull1568 so the guys just said "Let's go play that game where we alternate potting red balls and coloured ones." Right.
Referee is right here. The rules state, under penalties:
"causing the cue-ball to be snookered behind a free ball" (sect 3, 10 (a) (viii))
2 (17) says "[t]he cue-ball is said to be snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to
every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If one or
more balls on can be struck at both extreme edges free of obstruction by any
ball not on, the cue-ball is not snookered.
" (emphasis on both edges).
Wu Yize looked apprehensive about the delay in this frame as he knew it would make him late for primary school.
Brilliant mate made me chortle that one
LMFAOOOOOO
3:47 turn on captions
Moon Man lmao
:O
LOL!
She answered nigga
That was too funnnny omgnesssss
Jan Verhaas, a Dutchman speaking his second language to some Chinese folk speaking their second language to sort things out for John Higgins, a Scotsman.
Puzzling isn’t it? 😂😂
If only English was Scotsman's first language...
@@XaviRonaldo0 hahahahahaha
A beautiful example of multiculturalism.
Jan is the best. It will be a sad day when he retires.
I know the rule, cause commentators mentioned it many times.
Good job Chinese referee for making an instant call.
WAS YOU GUILTY OF TRYING TO MATCH CHEAT IM NOT SHORE
@@billsamuls7620 I am not sure I understand your reply; actually : I am positive.
@@Th3Pur3G4M3R It was a free ball. You Can't snooker your opponent behind nominated free ball.
For example: You take a shot, make foul and free ball with cue ball ending in bulk area.
I nominate yellow and hide White behind yellow: that is now foul by me.
@@noegojimmy mute point. he (john wasn't snookered) so no foul end of discussion...sorry also he didn't role up behind the pink in baulk line lol. also you aren't qualified to say "that is a foul by me"
@@utdkidswifeITO The technicality is that the whole ball needs to be seen, the left side was covered by the nominated ball so it was a foul.
The captions, oh the captions 😂😂😂😂 absolutely brilliant
Indeed haha😂
2:30 "gotta be stupid by your nominated people on New year's"
Fantastic sportsmanship from Higgins; he was as much concerned with possibly taking an unfair advantage as with the rules. Only in snooker!
He had a bet on it so he had to think other ways to lose the frame.
@@andrewverrett568 I think to qualify as a real fan of any sport, you have to know who you are supposed to hate. So I am not a real snooker fan but when it comes to football, I am more than qualified.
@@andrewverrett568 No problem. I made my original comment in general terms about the sporting ethics of snooker compared with other sports. My knowledge of Higgins is minimal. Cheers!
What sportsmanship, he was caught trying to take money from bets by losing matches..
@@Definitely_Someone Well, you're clearly the expert here, obviously in possession of all the facts. Apparently more facts than the two investigative bodies that cleared him of all charges of match-fixing.
Oh wow that's an interesting rule! Good to know - thank you for the video! It's also funny that Higgins never experienced this situation in his whole long career.
Chinese ref was spot on he knew all along
Yep I thought this all along same...I was correct all along when Boss Ref explained it at the end I was doubt myself until the Boss Ref haha Unless you play snooker you wouldn't understand this Foul haha
Thankfully Verhaas was on hand? The ref made the correct call in the first place. Wondering why Higgins could be ignorant of the rule, yet question the ref and only find reassurance in Verhaas.
I knew about not being able to snooker your opponent behind the free ball. I had no idea that you were considered to be snookered if you could not hit the whole ball. I bet this doesn't happen very often, full marks to the referee, he didn't even hesitate.
Look up the definition of a snooker, in snooker :)
josephwolfe. it's not a matter of being able to hit full ball, you have to see both sides of the ball.
Many players get too comfortable with the loose definition of a snooker; that being, they can't see the object ball from the white at all. Nice video to illustrate this.
He isn't actually "total" snookered is John after missing the Pink, so it shouldn't really by a foul in the first place! can i hot both sides of the ball rule (free ball rule), only comes into play AFTER a FOUL has been committed! John wasn't "snookered" imo so no foul should have been called at all period.
@@utdkidswifeITO There's no "total" snooker in the rules of snooker (unlike pool). John is snookered by the pink, according to the official definition of "snookered" (section 2.17 of the rules), because it prevents him from hitting both extreme edges of any ball on (ie the red). Rule 3.10.viii says this is a foul, and the second free ball follows from that.
problem is the definition of "snookered". the common understanding is when you can't hit the object ball at all but obviously the technical definition is different.
Never seen this happen before, but it makes sense obviously that it’s a foul because otherwise players could use a freeball just to lay a snooker
The point is not whether you can snooker behind the free ball (obviously you can't), the point is whether it counts as a snooker if you're able to hit the ball on centre-ball.
Snooker rules are inconsistent here. For a free-ball, you need to be able to hit both sides of the ball on, but for the three-miss rule, you only need to be able to hit centre-ball. I think that's where the confusion stems from.
I freed my balls to lay a hooker last night.
@@kardRatzinger full-ball hit only counts for three-miss rule, that's the only case actually.
You can't lay a snooker behind a free ball but you can behind a colour. How is that logical?
thought it would have to intentional?? - perhaps not
Thanks for this video. I enjoy videos about rules infractions for their informational value.
Doesn't help that the ref doesn't speak English and Higgins doesn't speak Chinese!😁
I think most players know that 'just rolling up" behind the nominated free ball to lay a snooker is a foul, it's just that because it wasn't deliberate, it confused things somewhat. The knowledge of this rule is generally focused on the intention rather than the outcome. If you're inclined to focus on the outcome rather than the intention, probably being more logically-minded rather than emotionally-minded, you might have got it straight away.
The auto-generated English captions are simply hilarious :-)
My goodness me. Been into Snooker for a year now and im STILL discovering rules I have never heard of before.
lol i’ve watched it all my life had no idea this was a thing
You cant lay a snooker behind your nominated free ball, this was done accidentally here but John never realised... Hope you are enjoying the snooker 😎
I love your snooker incident series!😁
I'm more concerned about why Manny Pacquiao is so hard up that he has to referee snooker matches.
Lmao
Even more concerned they let Les Dawson loose on a snooker table.
That comment made my day thank you haha
😂😂👍🏼
Jan is the reason why Ronnie has 15 maximums and not 14. 'Cmon Ronnie, knock it in for your fans' - and since Ronnie thinks Jans is 'Dutch, laid back, cool guy' ... why the hell not.
Goes to show what you have to know when you want to become a snooker ref. Respect for those guys and gals...
They know fuck all
Great upload. Thanks
Must watch with subtitles on...Brilliant they are..
Perfect call and very fast as well. Rule is as old as the game itself, at least for me. It is to stop the player given a free ball from rolling up behind the free ball they nominate. If you cannot hit both edges right and left then you are snookered in effect, so it was a good call. Neat video, thanks for uploading.
You're welcome.
Almost a perfect call. Would have possibly saved some confusion at the marker’s desk if he had remembered to say “John Higgins, 4” rather than just “foul... free ball”
I been watching snooker for 40 years and never heard of that, learn somthing new even after so long
Its insane to me that Higgins knows less about the rules than I do
Odd development which will probably never raise its head again. Well spotted by the ref
it's a common thing to bring up ,,,you cannot snooker behind the nominated free ball even in this case where is was not intended.
'Pink a bowl'...absolutely, old boy..🧐
How can they have a referee that does not even speak English? It should be mandatory that the referee in snooker is fluent in English.
Easy mistake for a general rookie of snooker to make. Not like he’s one of the best players in the history of the game with 8 WC finals or anything.
If he had never had that situation happen to him during his entire career, one could forgive him for not being completely clear on that one particular rule.
@@DjVortex-w I've had it happen 1 or 2 times when I was young playing. We all knew you couldn't snooker behind the free ball you're going for. Higgins should have known this
John Higgins face when he calls FAO 😂😂John doesn't know who he's talking to LMAO 😜😜😜 GOOD MAN JOHN 😁😁😁
To be fair, this is a situation that doesn't happen very often and even more rarely in a professional match.
Malf1532 Your correct it doesn't happen all the time, cause all players know this rule, think John was having a off day, reading thr most of the comments am still downfounded why John questioned this, it's a rule he must know ffs
@Squant no pal. Doesn’t matter if the shot went wrong. If u nominate any ball in a free ball situation and it accidentally or unintentionally ends up blocking the on ball. Then it’s a foul. While watching the game I called it a foul same time as the ref did
Really surprised at this. Common and basic rule that you cannot be snookered behind a free ball. Also snookers count as not being able to see both sides of the ball so I don't get what Higgins confusion was.
Clearly there was snookering going on, the real question is why did UA-cam recommend this?
Because this is interesting. :)
Because algorithm knew that you will watch it
I have the same :D, indeed interesting :D
2:52 The captions say the penalty should be 4 pts, or higher if the ball in question is of a higher value. Higgins got only 4 pts here. Shouldn't he have gotten 6, as the snookering ball is the pink?
Someone in the comment section allready explained that. The pink ball temporarily became a red ball for John's oponent so Higgins just got 4 points for a red ball. (Sorry if anything is spelled wrong, I'm no native speaker)
2:55 So what is the penalty here? 4 or 6? Why did John only get 4?
Pink was a free ball. For the purposes of that shot the pink counted as a red ball so naturally it is a normal 4 point foul.
@@aggsar4411 Thanks.
I knew this rule as a constant snooker gamer. The referee was absolute right about the decision, surprising that John didn’t know, thought it was just the communication that was confusing to him.
I was always brought up that if you can hit some part of the object ball you are NOT "snookered".....world rule pool there is a term of "total" but from my understanding that only after a foul can you get a "free ball", if you cant hit both sides of the object ball. Please someone define the word "Snookered" ......the operative word here...
The Official Rules mention "both extreme edges (of the ball on)" only once: in the definition of Snookered, which also indicates "wholly or partially obstructed."
On a Free Ball, they only state "when snookered after a foul", that's all, literally.
Players, commentators and fans have distorted the official definition.
One thing that is often forgotten by players of ANY sport, including snooker and (my sport) soccer is that, usually, a referee will officiate many more matches much more often than even the most ambitious players, amateur or professional.
It is perfectly plausible that John Higgins has never encountered the snookered-by-the-unpotted-free-ball situation, but odds are that the referee has seen it several times this year, maybe even yesterday.
Referees won't tell players how to play, and players shouldn't tell referees how to ref.
I think he thought it had to be a snooker (i.e. unable to hit the ball on at all). The rules actually say if you can't hit both edges, it's a foul.
You're generally right, but there's an exception to your last sentence. Snooker being a gentleman sport, a player should point out if they fouled, even if the ref didn't notice it.
I thought that they had gotten this wrong because they were mixing up the freeball rule with 'a snooker ', only after checking the definition of 'a snooker ' did I agree. It seems that every player and commentator does not know what 'a snooker ' is.
It's exactly the same as a freeball, you are snookered if you cannot hit both sides. So saying player 1 needs a snooker is wrong ( in it's normal usage.) We think 'snookered' means neither side can be hit but in the rules it means both extremes. So you could see 99% of the ball and still be officially 'snookered'
See rule 17 WPSBA
17. Snookered
The cue-ball is snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line
to every ball on is wholly or partially obstructed by a ball or
balls not on. If one or more balls on can be hit at both extreme
edges free of obstruction by any ball not on, the cue-ball is not
snookered.
there is one exception : if u have only pink and black on table and u r snookered on pink or u have a bad position of the pink (but a part hidden by black),at this time u can play free Ball with the black and make a snook behind black
Yes...
surprised john didn't realise this but i think the problem was the language barrier. straight forward really but probably seldom happens.
It wasn’t a snooker on the red ball. John Higgins was correct.
Snookered: The cue ball is snookered when a direct stroke in a straight line to any part of every ball on is obstructed by a ball or balls not on. If there is any one ball that is not so obstructed, the cue ball is not snookered. If in-hand within the Half Circle, the cue ball is snookered only if obstructed from all positions on or within the Half Circle. If the cue ball is obstructed by more than one ball, the one nearest to the cue ball is the effective snookering ball.
i agree
No u r wrong... When a foul is committed the next shot for the player he needs to have the object ball in full view which means he's able to hit the object ball on both the sides of the ball. In case he doesn't have both or has just the one side of the ball then it is considered as a Free Ball.... Next when playing the 1st ball under a Free ball shot he Cannot snooker the cue ball behind the 1st object ball he's playing... If in case the opponet gets snookered behind the 1st object ball played under a free ball then it's a foul.. So now the other player gets the foul points plus now he also gets to play free ball again... Simple
I don't understand how come higgins like world class player was unaware of this simple rule...🤔
@@dhilzz99 but was it a foul in the first place because he wasnt snookered after playing the pink, he could see the red , although not all of it , he could hit it direct therfore not snookered.
just a thought but i,m not sure. i,ve never seen somone call a snooker when you can hit the red so why call a snooker here
@@deliverybloke Yes.. It's a foul by yize... Higgins didn't have a full ball view of the red ball.. so it's a foul & freeball.... U need to have both the sides of the object ball to touch which wasn't available here...
@@deliverybloke Snookered means wholly or PARTIALLY obstructed. Higgins could not see one side, then he was snookered. Regardless of whether a free ball was called or not, the cue-ball was snookered.
MARTIN A1 has written above a correct definition of snookered, but has not interpreted it correctly. It says: when "any part" is obstructed. Commentators refer to "snookered" as an equivalent of "wholly blocked," as most of us usually do, but it's officially incorrect.
I was a bit confused as to why anyone was confused, seemed obvious to me.
me tio
too
No kidding!!!! Obviously they either don’t play the game or are unclear on the rules
@@nobodyspecial6436 -- If a high level electrician seemed confused by Ohms law I'd be confused as to what the confusion was because it would be very odd to find a professional electrician who doesn't know it. It became clear at the end that he did know the rule, he just didn't recognize that he was technically snookered because he couldn't get to both sides of the red and the ref wasn't explaining it well. That actually surprised me a bit too, but apparently he thought if he could hit it full on it was good.
Thomas Mobley i was referring to the comments not the players... Though Higgins did seem a little befuddled but i think it was more of not understanding what the ref was saying not about not knowing the rules...I’m certain John is well versed in the rules
I have to say, I would question the ref too. 1. Why a miss? The definition is when "the referee considers that the striker has not made a good enough attempt to hit a ball" but Higgins only just missed the red; he was obviously trying to hit it. 2. I also can't see why it's a free ball when the other player could see both sides of the red and 3. Why was Wu Yize's shot a foul? There's nothing illegal about missing a shot on the free ball. Very confused...
Hywel Thomas 1: a miss because Higgins was trying to hit the very edge of the red so as to avoid leaving it on. He wasn’t aiming to definitely hit it - he’d rather miss than catch it thick and leave the red on. Players often have a few ‘misses’ trying to catch it thin and avoid leaving it.
2: the far right side of the red was covered by the blue, leaving him snookered (even though he could hit most of the red)
3: you cannot snooker behind the nominated free ball (pink) which he accidentally did when the pink bounced back from the jaws
What is Cesar Muroya talking about in his description? It doesn't fit what we see in the video.
This is about a controversial video in 2010, which caused many people to believe that John Higgins was involved in match-fixing. It was a trap made by a journalist who edited the video. It makes Higgins seem relaxed and even suggests ways to cover the money. Sorry, it's not related to this video, but people still post comments in that regard and I think most of them only watched the apocryphal video but never investigate the case.
There is one instance where you can snooker behind a free ball but it’s only allowed when only the pink and black remain on the table..... other than that it’s a foul to the value of the nominated ball
Are you sure about that...? Mmm I'm
skeptical.
Oʀʀɪɴ Bᴇsᴛᴇʀ I’ve been playing the game for 40 plus years.... not very well admittedly but very well versed in the rules so i am confident
Nobody Special Righto I've done my research and I apologise, you're correct! 👍I play snooker a lot too, run my own Instagram if you're interested. Snookermillimetres147 it's called 👍
Oʀʀɪɴ Bᴇsᴛᴇʀ no apology necessary..... and as interesting as your instagram page seems i do not subscribe to any of those social media sites... but if i ever do I will surely look you up
Nobody Special 👍
It's a strange rule but it's there to prevent gamesmanship and this was one of these scenarios in which it was implied however in different circumstances. The referee made the right call. It's understandable why both players are confused, because Wu had no intention to snooker, he attempted the pot, it's cruel, but that's how the rules are interpreted.
So the penalty in this case is always 4. Right? Brcause free ball is 1 (as a red) therefore always a penalty of four. The subtitle said whichever os higher bit I think cam't be higher than 4 in situation of freeball.
If the blue is the ball on, the penalty would be 5.
@@CesarMuroya ow, so when you call blue as freeball, if you put it you get 1 point. But if you snooker it, which is foul, your opponent get 5?
The nominated free ball acts as the ball on. So, it's 5 points for the pot or foul.
@@CesarMuroya I got it finaly. Thanks
To clarify. It's not when you nominate the blue as the free ball, but when the blue is the ball on. For example, the only balls remaining on the table are blue, pink and black; if you nominate the pink as the free ball, then it's 5 points for the pot/foul because the free ball (pink) is regarded as the ball on (blue).
when you think about it its pretty clear there has to be a rule against using the free ball to snooker your opponent, its would be too easy.. Ofc Wu here didn't do it on purpose but its still the same foul...
it's, it
By that logic, there should be a rule against snookering opponents when you're on a colour and they'll be on a red.
Referee clearly knows his stuff. If the players are not sure of the rule themselves, they should not question the ref.
Hes making sure that the ref hasnt made a mistake through his behalf or is seeking reassurance that this is the correct rule. It's good to all talk and make sure everyones on the right page before contuning. It's to make sure that the game feel and is fair to all and that no wrong moves are ever done.
TheFreshSpam the ref said play John and it's a free ball, John Higgins is my favourite player but he shouldn't have questioned the ref. The ref is in charge and do as the ref said
Questioning the ref is how rules and guidelines are made in the first place...
John is also protecting himself. If he ends up winning by 1 frame and the rule says the red only needs to be playable rather than both sides need to be playable, hes going to get flack even though hes done nothing wrong. Refs are human too, they make mistakes.
Maui that is wrong. Players can definitely have a question to ensure accuracy, is the reason I love snooker more than other games. Just like when players foul and they call it without the referee seeing it.
More often than not players know better than the referees.
It's also the first time I saw that happening even (snooker behind nominated free ball)
You should play more often ;)
Actually, at 6:10 the ref states the pink bounced off two cushions and it only stuck one cushion. I take it one or two cushions it does not matter?
No, it doesn't matter at all. The number of cushions or rebounds does not intervene in any of the rules.
Cesar Muroya are you sure? Isn’t there a requirement the object ball must hit at least one cushion? This is not my area of expertise, just curious and admire watching expert pool/snooker play. Thanks
@@dgretlein Yes, I'm sure. Unlike pool, hitting a cushion is not required, except in snooker shootout.
Higgins had a bet on Wu Yize potting the free ball and panicked.....
Good thumbnail!
Why is he arguing so much against something that was in his favour? Was this one of the frames he was trying to lose?
Firstly I completely understand this particular situation, but as I was thinking about the free ball and it being a foul to snooker behind it, a question occurred to me. Would the following situation be a foul.
The colours are on their spots with one red sitting in a straight line between the pink and blue. the cue ball is sitting in a straight line between the black and the center of the back cushion. A player comes to the table having been awarded a free ball, nominates the black and taps up to it. I ask because. if it isn't apparent to anyone yet, the black is not the only snookering ball here, the pink is as well. I would assume that the shot is legal because the black would not be seen as the snookering ball the pink would, but I wonder if this has ever happened and what the outcome was.
When it's blocked by more than one ball, the ball nearest to the cue-ball is regarded as the snookering ball. In your example, it's the black, not the pink.
@@CesarMuroya Yes, I guess when you put it that way it has to be a foul then.
It is surprising to me that a ball you can see full ball may still considered snookered. But I looked up the rules and that is what it says….
this is so weird because I don't play snooker or anything and I know this rule,John Higgins have been playing his whole life ...
After all that Higgins still needs confirmation it's a free ball at 4:33 !
I only play a few frames a year and even I was aware of that rule. You can't snooker behind a nominated free ball. Otherwise the other player can just lay up behind a nominated free ball and get an easy snooker.
Language barrier between Higgins and the ref was certainly less than ideal. Not unusual for a player not to know every rule especially an obscure one like this.
Somehow VAR has arrived in snooker and made it even slower.
I've been watching snooker since 1969 and I thought I knew all the rules; now I no longer understand this game with all its contradictions!
This is what I love about Snooker, (most of the time) players are always fair and always admit mistakes or try to correct an issue if they aren’t sure. I know there has been times when players try to be sneaky with it but most of the time everyone is fair and honest.
The captions are... Don't turn the captions on...
Strange turn of phrase, "the referee failed to explain it correctly to John". Surely it was unreasonable to expect the referee to know that a player of Higgins' standing would be ignorant of such a straightforward rule?
Most ppl who have commented don't even understand the issue here. Its not about the freeball, the fouled one or the Higgins one. The issue is what constitutes a "snooker", thats what Higgins seemed to question. He thinks its not a snooker if he can hit the red.
All I gained from this is the big geezer with the red tie doesnt age still looks the same as he did 15 years ago lol
It seems like he just wanted clarification as to why he gets a free ball, idk why its controversial.
It's obvious: John didn't want to win that frame :D
There goes a bungalow
Prob had a dodgy bet on that frame,
@@SRKarting probably had a bet on how long the frame lasted, think he had a few grand on over 30 mins
Forgot to add fixer lol
O.k.
Higgins misses the red, hits a black,
School kid gets 7,
School kid then goes for the pink shot as a free ball into middle pocket.
Misses and ends up snookering Higgins.
So why the confusion?
Higgins just clearly pissed that he's been snookered again.
Come on Higgins! Unbelievable! At least the referee was bang correct as you expect him to be.
Don’t get why John is questioning it, what’s not clear?
Can understand why confused, I never knew this rule, I thought the free ball has to hit a cushion atleast anyway. But good call for referee to even remember this rule.
The pink effectively became a red for Wu Yize after John Higgins fouled the black but although he tried to pot the pink as a red, he missed it and so the pink reverts back to being the pink again and they carry on as before with Higgins on a red for his next shot.
The issue here though is if the pink became a red for Wu Yize and when missing the pink he left Higgins snookered, that's a foul because you can't really be snookered on a red behind another "red" which the pink temporarily became with the first free ball.
So then once the pink reverted back to actually being the pink again, Higgins was snookered and he couldn't see both sides of the remaining red and so was given a free ball.
@@seanscanlon9067 Which as the pink was temporarily a red the foul points was for a red not pink, so 4 points not 6.
@@JJ-Malone Yeah to be honest I wasn't even thinking about that but you are right though.
@@JJ-Malone couldn't understand bit ... damn lol thanks
It's not pool m8 lol 😂
Was it actually a free ball in the first place the Chinese player could see all of that last red?
Retweet.
Couldn't see both sides
Couldn't hit both sides
I was taught you can't roll up or snooker with selected free ball
Here’s what people are missing Wu Yize had a free ball, tried to hit the pink in and missed and snookered John on the same ball (pink). If John would have been snookered on any other ball it would have been good this is the confusing part. I personally don’t understand the rule Let’s say some one tried to hit ball at the bottom of the table and missed, que ball ends up in the bulk snookered on all reds you get a free ball if you cant make anything and you can roll up behind a color. So I don’t understand it’s like Wu is being penalized for trying to make the pink and missing
The rule is indeed there to prevent rolling up behind a free ball, but the way it is worded made this a foul too. This makes the situation in the video unfortunate, but the decision was correct.
An exception is when only pink & black are left. You can then nominate black as a free ball & snooker behind it.
The rules of snooker are available for download from wpbsa's web site.
Rules of Snooker section 3 rule 10 (b) it is a foul if the cue-ball should (ii) be snookered on all Reds, or the ball on, by the free ball thus nominated, except when the Pink and Black are the only object balls remaining on the table.
That was actually bad luck for Wu, because he definitely tried to pot the free ball and didn't intend it to come back and snooker John on the red.
the referee made the mistake at 00:37 of not saying "John Higgins, four"
that in itself would be a mistake - the nominated ball was pink so the ref should have said "John Higgins, six"... the scorer only added a four point foul because of this...
The nominated ball is regarded as the ball on (red in this case) both when potting (1 point) and fouling (4 points). The ref did not make any mistake.
@@CesarMuroya @Cesar Muroya the referee didn't give those four points to higgins, that was sorted out by verhaas at 04:13
Nothing controversial there he is trying to play the game fairly and not take advantage of the other player well done him.
What was higgins problem.if he was getting a free ball and points on foul by wiu
Snooker is still considered as a sport of gentlemen - at least in the most cases. So Higgins was asking why because he didn't want to get some "undeserved" points.
When I first started playing snooker this was one of the first rules I learnt because years ago you could run up behind the nominated ball
Jan Verhaas is a legend
I do not speak English. could someone explain to me what Hinggins doubt? Thanks
What is that music at the end please?
@TheRoadToFame It's called "Plenty step" from the UA-cam library.
I bet this has happened a lot in live play without a foul being called.
Unlikely. It should be a well known rule that you cannot snooker with a free ball. Also, it is well known that to be snookered it means that you cannot hit both extreme edges with the cue ball.
A simple reading of the rules makes that obvious.
How long Higgins been playing snooker?
I don't understand the rules of this game but the description has me even more confused. I mean detectives, gangster etc
Can anybody explain this?? After second free ball , Does Jhon had the option to nominate any other ball for free ball except Pink ?? If yes why ?and if no why ?.. And why foul score was given 4 points?
Yes. He can choose any ball as the free ball, or choose to play the red as it is his shot, the previous one doesn’t matter. It is only 4 points for the foul as the pink was acting as a red ball, so it counts as a foul on a red
and is Higgins playing the alien from mac and me??
🤣🤣🤣
Even after 4 and a half minutes, Higgins still asking if he had a free ball... Ffs...
At 3.40 turn on subtitles / captions for an hilarious wrong translation
😂😂😂😂
And at 3;24
Actually all pretty funny after 1:20
Today we will pursue sensual - all your 40m. Then I am happy :-)
Fuck's sake. The ref knows his onions, so let him get on with it. He was completely correct throughout and never wavered in his assurance. Let the ref do his job.
not to be pedantic but "penalty is value of the ball or four, whichever is higher" doesn't cover what happens if the value is 4, could be interpreted as no penalty at all 🤔
So you’re saying the higher of 4 or 4 is zero?
@@davesouthword1298 no I'm saying none is higher. they're both highest though