In the 10:52 Selby vs. Dott, if I were Graeme I would have just potted the white straight into the pocket on the next shot - you really need to be sportsmanlike when you have screwed over your opponent like that
If the referee was being as strict about what happened as he was, he would definitely be strict about intentionally missing the ball-on being a foul and a miss.
“In snooker, if you deliberately foul, you forfeit the frame. If you cannot physically play a shot without it being a foul then it is a re-rack. So no situation exists to warrant a deliberate foul” The ref would have to follow this rule. And Dott would forfeit the game.
Absolutely magnificent! Now I just need to know the rules of snookers because YT suggested it and I'll probably be seeing hundreds of "best of snookers" for years to come so I might as well learn the rules.
At 7:12, the red wobbled an astonishing 12 times until it eventually stopped over the pocket. Absolutely extraordinary, and that's regarding all of the snooker shown in this video.
Great selection! Most ridiculous fluke had to be Dave Gilbert 😂 But the most unlikely event was the successive angled shots between Yuan and Lei, astronomically low probability
With Dott and Selby’s incident I’m most impressed with Clive Everton. He predicted that the referee was going to call a foul because he’s seen it before.
This was a result of an anomaly in the rules (as they were then). Correct call by the referee but the rules have since been updated because of this incident.
I know this rule has changed slightly but I think if you do what Graeme Dott did and deliberately stop the cue ball from going in off, it should be an automatic forfeit of the frame. In that situation there is a huge difference between Selby having ball in hand and him having to play the shot from where it's landed. You just don't do that. Imo, it is a deliberate foul and unsportsmanlike and I think Dott should have lost the frame for that.
Well Selby would not have to play from where Dott pushed the white. After any foul you can make your opponent play again. I agree playing from hand would be more advantageous but don't believe that it was Dott's intention to prevent that option - don't think he's either so cunning or mean!
@@adrianwright8685 It's not the same though is it, Selby would have to play the position (or pass) where the ball was left, instead of having it from hand.
Hey, really sorry to hear about the demonetisation. I don’t get why the copyright holder has a problem with the vids on your channel. It’s likely the copyright holder has a vested interest in the success of snooker as a sport, and for me, your channel absolutely increases the reach of the sport to a wider audience. Also, if the copyright holder is just squatting on their content, and not putting it to good and fair use as you do yourself GT, then they are also guilty of stifling the game directly themselves. Very unfair to the sport…
Perhaps it’s because he is making money off of these video’s . So yes copyright infringement. You want to make money on UA-cam then maybe you should check out copyright’s . Then you are educated on them .
@@mikefleming12 I think World Snooker should be paying him for these highlight reels + getting money from UA-cam. They are great to share with people who do not watch Snooker as a way of getting them into the sport. Any advertising / promoting of Snooker should be encouraged, not punished. These videos take a LOT of time and effort to make. It's not like he is just re-uploading old games. I understand both sides of the argument, but lean more in favour of people who promote the sport, than try to hide it.
I'd be very unhappy to be denied ball-in-hand, simply because my opponent prevented the in-off illegally. Deliberately handling a ball in play should be a concession of the frame, otherwise a deliberate foul like Dott's incurs no penalty at all (the 4 point penalty he got would have happened anyway if he left the white to run into the pocket). So even if Selby hadn't picked the ball up, Dott would still have gained an advantage by cheating. It's only the generally high integrity of snooker players that prevents this sort of thing from happening all the time.
Dott should have asked Selby where he wanted the ball placed to take his shot and then moved it to that spot for him. That's the sportsmanly thing to do
@@elgringo1893 he can't really do that as it will forfeit the frame deliberately giving a foul to your opponent is considered cheating so yeah no can do
Komisar I love your funny videos always come back to them every now and then... I noticed I couldn't even find your vids typing your user name and funny snooker next. I used to be able to find them just like that. Not anymore!
In the case of Selby and Dott the decent thing of Dott would have been to deliberately play a foul and move the white so that it would be in a position in the half circle if Selby had repositioned it. 🤷♂️
“In snooker, if you deliberately foul, you forfeit the frame. If you cannot physically play a shot without it being a foul then it is a re-rack. So no situation exists to warrant a deliberate foul” The ref would have to follow this rule. And Dott would forfeit the game.
These are amazing. Thanks! (5:44) His opponent got ready to stand up :) (11:06) It would have been n a good spirit of sportsmanship for Dott to lift the ball again and put it on the table thus gaining another foul (negating Selbey's foul)
I believe that when you make a mistake on purpose, the referee can interpret it as a concession. But I agree with you that it would have been a beautiful gesture of fair play.
how does the ref know that when the white hit dotTs hand as it entered the pocket , it never left the table? LEAVING THE TABLE MEANS THE BALL LOST CONTACT WITH THE BAIZE
That Dott and Selby rule needs to change. If you deliberately put your hand into the pocket to block the ball going in, the ball needs to be considered pocketed and a foul called.
Странно, что в подборке нет ударов Магуайра на Мастерсе и Дональдсона на Championship League, где шар прокатился по длинному борту, а затем от губок одной средней лузы упал в другую, минуя синий на точке. Впрочем, все удары из этого видео тоже очень впечатляющие!
I don't see how anyone can say snooker is boring. The moment you've played 3 shots yourself you understand how it's amazing they hit anything at all. Let alone making it look easy sometimes. (Looking at you here, mr rocket)
It only came out because it left the bed of the table before it hit the back of the pocket. Trump hammers balls into the pockets, they almost never come out.
11:16 Selby got boned there. Dott was called for a foul after striking the appropriate object ball and sending the cue ball directly to a pocket. The logical interpretation of that foul call was that Dott potted the cue ball. The referee _should_ have explained what he saw and ruled before Selby went to take his shot, especially if he was making a ruling that was technically correct but not logically obvious.
I have been playing snooker and pool since I was 6 years old (30 years) and I have never had a ball hit the back of the pocket and come straight back out
Отличная и очень большая подборка интересных моментов👍. Спасибо Яр👏👏👏, я так понимаю, что нового открытого контента более не будет? Только по подписке?
Как раз-таки старых видео в открытом доступе не будет, а новые будут, но с подпиской они будут еще и в раннем доступе. Пока так. Если в ближайшее время не будет продвиженй в монетизации, то, ну что ж, придется завязывать с этим.
What about the break, just touching a red on one side, so a cannon through the pack, pushing a slow red out the other side, which bounced off the side and returned to the pack, and cue ball returned to baulk line - so all returned to the start positions like nothing had happened
Can someone explain to a less snooker inclined person what happened at 10:54-12:32? Why did the commentator think the referee's decision was controversial?
I am a former referee & am happy to explain. Dott prevented the ball from going in the pocket. It was obviously going in so both players assumed it could then be picked up & played from the D. The initial foul against Dott was because he touched it. The cue ball should therefore have been played from where it stopped after he pushed it back. When Selby picked it up to put it in the D, he therefore committed another foul. The referee was correct but it was felt by many that the rule itself needed amending, so it has been. An addition was made: "3.16(b)A ball, intentionally moved or picked up by the striker will be deemed forced off the table".
The jumpshot over the red was not a foul, right? It hit the red furst, then jumped over it, the red went in ... isn't that something similar that happened with Big Bill's pot of the century? 14:58 - That snooker cost their friendship. :)
The cue ball never left the table because the other player kept it from falling into the pot. Touching the white ball while it has not left the table is a foul. So while the referee was technically correct in calling it a foul, it's a grey area because the other player manoeuvred the white after playing it.
Yes, you cant jump over the ball you are hitting EXCEPT if CB hits a cushion then over the red. also you can hit the black and launch up on top of the REDS and split them. AS long as the white didnt pass over the Black on the way to going over the reds. Basically you cant directly go over the ball you are hitting unlike pool.
In the situation with dott and Selby, why didn't dott just move the white again by a millimeter, that would give Selby the net 4 points he should have got from the white about to go in and Selby would be at the table with the white where he wanted it
At the 11:03 mark, When Dott put the hand to prevent ball goes in, this rules is so stupid when Selby has to play the ball where it stop, Dott should be penalised for using his hand, Else everyone will put the hand to prevent white ball goes in and instead push the white ball to a unplayable spot. This could be a biggest loophole in the rule. The person who foul is the one has the advantage. Its so stupid
17:12: "Even Peter Ebdon has to smile."
*camera proceeds to show the most unamoused face Ebdon could produce*
Bro that was literally the most animated and excited I'd ever seen him. What you saw was rare, treasure it.
Ebdon was the original captain holt
The commentator was exaggerating. It crossed his mind but he thought better of it
Has peter ebdon ever smiled?
In the 10:52 Selby vs. Dott, if I were Graeme I would have just potted the white straight into the pocket on the next shot - you really need to be sportsmanlike when you have screwed over your opponent like that
If the referee was being as strict about what happened as he was, he would definitely be strict about intentionally missing the ball-on being a foul and a miss.
Came to say the exact same thing. Ridiculous from Dott
“In snooker, if you deliberately foul, you forfeit the frame. If you cannot physically play a shot without it being a foul then it is a re-rack. So no situation exists to warrant a deliberate foul”
The ref would have to follow this rule. And Dott would forfeit the game.
@@darktherapyThis, it was an unfortunate situation but the ref followed the rule to the letter.
Frame should immediately go to Selby and re-rack. That’s the actual rule the ref missed. It’s a forfeit.
This may well be the best compilation of snooker shots / situations I've ever seen on UA-cam. Great work!
Yes he has found some gems here that I have never seen. Awesome content
Absolutely magnificent!
Now I just need to know the rules of snookers because YT suggested it and I'll probably be seeing hundreds of "best of snookers" for years to come so I might as well learn the rules.
At 7:12, the red wobbled an astonishing 12 times until it eventually stopped over the pocket. Absolutely extraordinary, and that's regarding all of the snooker shown in this video.
What about the time STEPHEN LEE was caught eating a salad?
@@PlayMoreGolf-RipOff 😂😂
These were fun to watch. I'm glad you included one of our favorites - Mark Williams' brilliant and completely lucky pot.
Snooker fan from UK manchester for 20+ yrs .awesome video which also bought back old memories ❤
Great selection! Most ridiculous fluke had to be Dave Gilbert 😂 But the most unlikely event was the successive angled shots between Yuan and Lei, astronomically low probability
With Dott and Selby’s incident I’m most impressed with Clive Everton. He predicted that the referee was going to call a foul because he’s seen it before.
Dott should have played the cue ball into a pocket, would of been the honourable thing.
This was a result of an anomaly in the rules (as they were then). Correct call by the referee but the rules have since been updated because of this incident.
I’d have thought it would have been loss of frame for interfering with the ball and not allowing it to drop in
@@TheRip72 glad to hear it... ridiculous rule that a player can gain advantage by doing that
@@theowldrinksambrosia and forfeit the frame? I don't think so.
Even Peter Ebdon has to smile...
Peter Ebdon proceeds to not smile 😂😂
Makes me smile because it's Peter Ebdon
@@chriswelcome8102 Mr Ebdon dally your mother or something?
@@lew115 ᎩᎧᏬᏖᏬᏰᏋ ᎥᏕ ᏕᎧ ᏕᎧᎦᏖ ᏁᎧᏇ. ᏋᏰᎴᎧᏁ ፈᏗᏁ ᏕᏬፈᏦ ᎷᎩ ᎷᏬᎷᏕ ፈᏬᏁᏖ ᏗᏁᎴ ᎶᏋᏖ ᏗᎥᎴᏕ ᏗᏁᎴ ᏖᏂᏋᎩ ፈᏗᏁ ᏰᎧᏖᏂ ᎴᎥᏋ
That’s an incredible variety of stuff, and a lot of them I haven’t seen before. Well done! I don’t know how you find so many!
I think its staged. I bet he ask all the players to do this on purpose...
@@themasteroogway9952 he hasn’t, I don’t know who he is. I just appreciated the content and wanted to say that
@@PeterDevlin147 It was a joke
@@themasteroogway9952 geeeez mate. I'm stoned and this theory just blew my mind...
Ive seen your videos before but only subbed now, good content man!
19:23 the most ridiculous thing is his haircut
Would love to see move videos of Hendry laughing during older matches. He was always so stoic and serious, that it is a rarity.
Man he was an absolute monster of a player. So consistent.
Even Peter Ebdon has to smile.
Ebdon: 😐
I’d love to see Break from life try to recreate these 😂
Good point!
thanks for this realy good compilation, i had a lot of fun!
I know this rule has changed slightly but I think if you do what Graeme Dott did and deliberately stop the cue ball from going in off, it should be an automatic forfeit of the frame. In that situation there is a huge difference between Selby having ball in hand and him having to play the shot from where it's landed. You just don't do that. Imo, it is a deliberate foul and unsportsmanlike and I think Dott should have lost the frame for that.
Well Selby would not have to play from where Dott pushed the white. After any foul you can make your opponent play again.
I agree playing from hand would be more advantageous but don't believe that it was Dott's intention to prevent that option - don't think he's either so cunning or mean!
Totally agree with an "unsportsmanlike conduct" ruling - principally because his action caused a different result from what was a certain foul.
@@timsullivan4566 Dott's action was a foul - and it was called foul by the ref.
@@adrianwright8685 It's not the same though is it, Selby would have to play the position (or pass) where the ball was left, instead of having it from hand.
@@alexkrstulovic6054 I did say that: "I agree playing from hand would be more advantageous"
Nicely compiled - thanks!
the best part of this is that the players can laugh and smile about this. even the opponent can sit there with a smile and move on with the game.
Robertson's screwed shot through the gap's unreal, insane cueball physics
Hey, really sorry to hear about the demonetisation. I don’t get why the copyright holder has a problem with the vids on your channel. It’s likely the copyright holder has a vested interest in the success of snooker as a sport, and for me, your channel absolutely increases the reach of the sport to a wider audience. Also, if the copyright holder is just squatting on their content, and not putting it to good and fair use as you do yourself GT, then they are also guilty of stifling the game directly themselves. Very unfair to the sport…
I hope the UA-cam authorities see this comment..
I think No, They will Not..😂
Perhaps it’s because he is making money off of these video’s . So yes copyright infringement. You want to make money on UA-cam then maybe you should check out copyright’s . Then you are educated on them .
@@mikefleming12 I think World Snooker should be paying him for these highlight reels + getting money from UA-cam. They are great to share with people who do not watch Snooker as a way of getting them into the sport. Any advertising / promoting of Snooker should be encouraged, not punished. These videos take a LOT of time and effort to make. It's not like he is just re-uploading old games. I understand both sides of the argument, but lean more in favour of people who promote the sport, than try to hide it.
@@EannaButlerthey won't
I'd be very unhappy to be denied ball-in-hand, simply because my opponent prevented the in-off illegally. Deliberately handling a ball in play should be a concession of the frame, otherwise a deliberate foul like Dott's incurs no penalty at all (the 4 point penalty he got would have happened anyway if he left the white to run into the pocket). So even if Selby hadn't picked the ball up, Dott would still have gained an advantage by cheating. It's only the generally high integrity of snooker players that prevents this sort of thing from happening all the time.
100% agree with you
They removed that rule since that incident now it's not really a concession of frame but rather a ball in hand
Dott should have asked Selby where he wanted the ball placed to take his shot and then moved it to that spot for him. That's the sportsmanly thing to do
@@oubrikbobaker Correct. It has now been included in 'ball forced off the table'.
@@elgringo1893 he can't really do that as it will forfeit the frame deliberately giving a foul to your opponent is considered cheating so yeah no can do
Komisar I love your funny videos always come back to them every now and then... I noticed I couldn't even find your vids typing your user name and funny snooker next. I used to be able to find them just like that. Not anymore!
Great compilation! At 15:03 Hawkins vs Fu Barry fought back in that one to only lose 13-11
Great video mate
In the case of Selby and Dott the decent thing of Dott would have been to deliberately play a foul and move the white so that it would be in a position in the half circle if Selby had repositioned it. 🤷♂️
“In snooker, if you deliberately foul, you forfeit the frame. If you cannot physically play a shot without it being a foul then it is a re-rack. So no situation exists to warrant a deliberate foul”
The ref would have to follow this rule. And Dott would forfeit the game.
Great video. Thanks for the upload...
Isn't it refreshing when the players actually break character and smile at what just happened.
7:46 This shot is unbelievable
These are amazing. Thanks!
(5:44) His opponent got ready to stand up :)
(11:06) It would have been n a good spirit of sportsmanship for Dott to lift the ball again and put it on the table thus gaining another foul (negating Selbey's foul)
I believe that when you make a mistake on purpose, the referee can interpret it as a concession. But I agree with you that it would have been a beautiful gesture of fair play.
how does the ref know that when the white hit dotTs hand as it entered the pocket , it never left the table? LEAVING THE TABLE MEANS THE BALL LOST CONTACT WITH THE BAIZE
This is the most excited i've ever heard a british person get over anything.
Great video, thank you!
17:10 "even Peter Ebdon has to smile..."
Ebdon: (not smiling)
1:47 Just shows how level that table is
The shot what bond did you could say he bonded with the table 😂
I have never seen Robertson with that big blonde afro before 😂
He said somewhere it was his covid haircut, seeing as he couldn't visit his hairdresser due to lockdown, so he let his natural curls grow out.
Yt randomness at it again. It's 2 AM and I'm somehow watching Snooker even tho I got no idea what's going on in the video or why it's impressive xD
That Dott and Selby rule needs to change. If you deliberately put your hand into the pocket to block the ball going in, the ball needs to be considered pocketed and a foul called.
18:13 has got to be the funniest and weirdest low % shots ever
19:24 the worst haircut in snooker
Странно, что в подборке нет ударов Магуайра на Мастерсе и Дональдсона на Championship League, где шар прокатился по длинному борту, а затем от губок одной средней лузы упал в другую, минуя синий на точке. Впрочем, все удары из этого видео тоже очень впечатляющие!
7:48 lmao
16:59 Peter Ebdon
13:13 remember watching this live. My favourite shot of all time, I think.
Omg Robertson with the curly hair 😂😂
In a pub that first one is like the average pot, just rare at high level where everyhing is calculated
Great Collection
I don't see how anyone can say snooker is boring. The moment you've played 3 shots yourself you understand how it's amazing they hit anything at all. Let alone making it look easy sometimes. (Looking at you here, mr rocket)
Robertsons hair in the second from last clip what was he thinking with that perm lol
19:00 I forgot Robertson's poodle phase
7:05 I counted 12 wobbles.
Great to see Paul Hunter. He could have been a real star of the game if only he hadn't been taken so soon.
Your table has issues if you pocket a ball right in the center and it jumps back out.
It only came out because it left the bed of the table before it hit the back of the pocket. Trump hammers balls into the pockets, they almost never come out.
@@anthonydenn4345 Idk, call me crazy, but if the ball goes into a pocket, and comes back out, seems to me it should still count.
@@brjones27 In these cases, the ball is more "over" the pocket than "in" the pocket :D You gotta shoot such that gravity has a chance to work.
15:35 such a rare occasion... he may lose the point but wins the table instead
Sad to hear that the greatest snooker channel on YT it’s likely to shout down.
How is sticking your hand in the pocket and knocking the while ball before if falls into the pocket to register a foul not an intentional foul?
11:16 Selby got boned there. Dott was called for a foul after striking the appropriate object ball and sending the cue ball directly to a pocket. The logical interpretation of that foul call was that Dott potted the cue ball. The referee _should_ have explained what he saw and ruled before Selby went to take his shot, especially if he was making a ruling that was technically correct but not logically obvious.
Good video! But where is shot by Maguire against Robertson? And shot by Mark King against Hawkins when Mark needed snooker on the pink and black.
I have been playing snooker and pool since I was 6 years old (30 years) and I have never had a ball hit the back of the pocket and come straight back out
Why should you be able to monetise content that doesn't belong to you!?
Does anyone know the result of the jumped red by Bond?
Отличная и очень большая подборка интересных моментов👍. Спасибо Яр👏👏👏, я так понимаю, что нового открытого контента более не будет? Только по подписке?
Как раз-таки старых видео в открытом доступе не будет, а новые будут, но с подпиской они будут еще и в раннем доступе. Пока так. Если в ближайшее время не будет продвиженй в монетизации, то, ну что ж, придется завязывать с этим.
Ball was on table, it's not fair😂
1:49 this guy should play the lottery... How is this possible?!
Very well edited, sir. Too bad the same care doesn't go into most UA-cam videos.
Is Robertson related to Bob Ross?
3:37 would've been even better if that black went straight into the pocket like a basketball after the jump 😄
11:10 Dott ought to play the cue ball directly into a pocket, disturbing no other balls, to restore the position of the game.
sunday my mate managed to get a red along the rail and into the pocket
needless to say we looked at each other with a big grin of dis belief
19:45 Kip of Robertsons hair. Christ
The most outrageous thing is Neil Robertson's perm.
What about the break, just touching a red on one side, so a cannon through the pack, pushing a slow red out the other side, which bounced off the side and returned to the pack, and cue ball returned to baulk line - so all returned to the start positions like nothing had happened
Can someone explain to a less snooker inclined person what happened at 10:54-12:32? Why did the commentator think the referee's decision was controversial?
I am a former referee & am happy to explain.
Dott prevented the ball from going in the pocket. It was obviously going in so both players assumed it could then be picked up & played from the D.
The initial foul against Dott was because he touched it. The cue ball should therefore have been played from where it stopped after he pushed it back. When Selby picked it up to put it in the D, he therefore committed another foul.
The referee was correct but it was felt by many that the rule itself needed amending, so it has been. An addition was made: "3.16(b)A ball, intentionally moved or picked up by the striker will be deemed forced off the table".
One day I'd love to see someone fluke a pot off a break, with the black pottable, then get a 147 from that without the opponent visiting the table.
These tables seem to respond weirdly.
I can't imagine tournaments like these don't have good tables. Or the resources to check to make sure when something like this happens...
OH AND THAT'S A BAD MISS
20:22 - Is it Williams' middle finger at Selby after good shot in 'polite' fashion?)
nice to see paul hunter.
"The white has cannoned into the black and pink!"
Well ...
Missed the rarest moment of all.... STEPHEN LEE eating a salad
Id pay to see @BreakfromLife try to recreate at least a few of them
The jumpshot over the red was not a foul, right? It hit the red furst, then jumped over it, the red went in ... isn't that something similar that happened with Big Bill's pot of the century? 14:58 - That snooker cost their friendship. :)
I don't think it is a foul, but Big Bill's was
The rarest sight is Neil Robertson's hairdo at 19:23
Sorry when did Robertson had that hairdo?! 🤣
Why does Dennis Taylor call every fluke a trickshot?
can u belive it ...
5:26 could that have to have been an illegal jump shot that Nigel Bond's played?
11:00 - Could anyone explain to me what happened? I'm a beginner, thank you in advance 🙏
The cue ball never left the table because the other player kept it from falling into the pot. Touching the white ball while it has not left the table is a foul. So while the referee was technically correct in calling it a foul, it's a grey area because the other player manoeuvred the white after playing it.
Yes, you cant jump over the ball you are hitting EXCEPT if CB hits a cushion then over the red. also you can hit the black and launch up on top of the REDS and split them. AS long as the white didnt pass over the Black on the way to going over the reds. Basically you cant directly go over the ball you are hitting unlike pool.
In the situation with dott and Selby, why didn't dott just move the white again by a millimeter, that would give Selby the net 4 points he should have got from the white about to go in and Selby would be at the table with the white where he wanted it
Wow 16:50 a shot from Paul Hunter.
Holy f. What the hell happened to Robertsons hair
It would be useful if you could get the commentary right so that it doesn’t then continue while the next shot has started
Resplendent
Indubitably.
17:35 thats crazy
14:48 That's what she said!
The red that landed on the rail and the ref put in the pocket, does anyone know if that was called a foul and 4 points conceded?
What is going on with Neil Robertson's hair? I thought it was Worzel Gummidge
At the 11:03 mark, When Dott put the hand to prevent ball goes in, this rules is so stupid when Selby has to play the ball where it stop, Dott should be penalised for using his hand, Else everyone will put the hand to prevent white ball goes in and instead push the white ball to a unplayable spot. This could be a biggest loophole in the rule. The person who foul is the one has the advantage. Its so stupid
3:45 who is he?
good call by the ref on that white