As discussed on The Masters 2017 thread, concerning ROS playing the snookered Yellow in Frame 10 and not getting Warned after the second Miss.
Some conjecture there should have been a Warning, others not.
So to summarise:
For clarity of the situation here is a screenshot and link to YouTube.
https://youtu.be/ViPLNDl_0lY?t=2h33m25s
Masters 2017 Round 1 Ronnie O'Sullivan v Liang Wenbo Frame 10
What happened:
1. ROS pots a Red, Cue-Ball ends in the back of the pack.
2. Black is clearly available.
3. ROS nominates Yellow which is snookered by the reds completely.
4. First attempt ROS misses the Yellow, "F&M" called, Cue-Ball replaced.
5. Second attempt again ROS misses the Yellow, "F&M" called, Cue-Ball replaced.
6. Third attempt ROS hits the Yellow.
Now, this has raised some questions due to the wording of the Miss rule, specifically:
"(d) After a miss has been called under paragraph (c) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or could have been on, such that central, full ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:..."
"...or could have been on..."
We have two groups of view to these words and what should happen.
Group A are saying, regardless that ROS nominates Yellow, he should have been warned after the second Miss, as the Black "could be on".
Group B are saying that the nominated Yellow is the only ball on, and the Black (and all other colours) is no longer a ball that could be on, and NO warning is issued because no full contact is available on the Ball On (Yellow). The "could be on" wording covers the scenario of multiple Reds where one Red is Full contact available but the player plays a Red that is not full ball contact available.
Again the wording of the Foul and a Miss rule has caused confusion, so discussion to understand it and hopefully clarify the rule for all is always good :)
I have sent this question to a couple of referees I know (one on the Rules Committee and one a long-time pro ref, instructor and assessor).
Miss Rule "...could be on..."
Some conjecture there should have been a Warning, others not.
So to summarise:
For clarity of the situation here is a screenshot and link to YouTube.
https://youtu.be/ViPLNDl_0lY?t=2h33m25s
Masters 2017 Round 1 Ronnie O'Sullivan v Liang Wenbo Frame 10
What happened:
1. ROS pots a Red, Cue-Ball ends in the back of the pack.
2. Black is clearly available.
3. ROS nominates Yellow which is snookered by the reds completely.
4. First attempt ROS misses the Yellow, "F&M" called, Cue-Ball replaced.
5. Second attempt again ROS misses the Yellow, "F&M" called, Cue-Ball replaced.
6. Third attempt ROS hits the Yellow.
Now, this has raised some questions due to the wording of the Miss rule, specifically:
"(d) After a miss has been called under paragraph (c) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was on or could have been on, such that central, full ball, contact was available (in the case of Reds, this to be taken as a full diameter of any Red that is not obstructed by a colour), then:..."
"...or could have been on..."
We have two groups of view to these words and what should happen.
Group A are saying, regardless that ROS nominates Yellow, he should have been warned after the second Miss, as the Black "could be on".
Group B are saying that the nominated Yellow is the only ball on, and the Black (and all other colours) is no longer a ball that could be on, and NO warning is issued because no full contact is available on the Ball On (Yellow). The "could be on" wording covers the scenario of multiple Reds where one Red is Full contact available but the player plays a Red that is not full ball contact available.
Again the wording of the Foul and a Miss rule has caused confusion, so discussion to understand it and hopefully clarify the rule for all is always good :)
I have sent this question to a couple of referees I know (one on the Rules Committee and one a long-time pro ref, instructor and assessor).
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire