At pool, the "ball on the brink" rule has a specific time stated: five seconds. If the ball remains apparently motionless for five seconds and later falls, it is put back. With a specific time a definite decision is made as part of the shot with clear guidance. I think the rules of snooker would benefit from the equivalent. If you time the red in the video it fell at very close to five seconds after apparently stopping.
One of the reasons this becomes a big deal is the referee asks King if he agrees with the decision. Whether or not King agrees with the decision is irrelevant to the outcome, the referee simply needs to make his decision and ensure the players understand it.
I don't one hundred percent agree with you. A good referee, and I think Marcel is the very top one, is always interested in players point of view. He will make the final decision based on facts but he is well aware that he might not have seen or considered everything 100% correct in the first moment so is fine with players stating their opinion and even changing his decision, but only if player/players have convinced him that the facts are indeed different from what he thought has happened. A good referee is 100% gentleman, 100% authority but 0% ego
@@EloyGijon67agreed, who’s in charge ? 1. The ref ? 2. The ref & the players, or 3 The players & ref & the audience ? 😂😂😂 Red should have stayed up, that’s the newer rule. Way back in my day it stayed down. Now it’s replaced after shot comes to full stop then drop after player walks away. That’s the rule as far as am concerned.
@one world once you have a ball placed at a tangent alongside the yellow, it was "clear" that it wouldn't go... "Clearly" doesn't imply a speed at which you can reach a decision, simply that it is unambiguous or without doubt. Once the red ball was used, it was clear, and at that point Neil so "graciously accepted"!
SO MUCH WORK for the "Bonus" section of the video?! Omg Cesar you're just outdoing yourself with every video you put out. Appreciate your work so much!
Marcel shouldn't have let them argue with him. He should have said' "right! Listen here, slapheads! That's the rule, if you don't like it you can eff off! Respect my authority!" Referees need to be firmer.
Weak refereeing for the first incident, the red should've peen put back. Red had stopped. If the white hadn't gone in and the red dropped when Mark got up from the table that wouldn't be allowed surely? same as bumping the table? The referees decision should be final and players shouldn't be allowed to change that in circumstances like that.
I think it's 5 seconds from the time the shot is considered to have finished right? It was about 3-4 seconds after the white dropped, so technically the shot wasn't over, but I suppose it's up to the referee to interpret the situation how he saw it.
Thanks for taking my suggestion, Cesar. Dropped a like ;) The more I see of Neil Robertson, the more I'm impressed with his attitude. The simple phrase "your call" doesn't even reveal what he was thinking about the ref's decision. He might have been thinking it isn't a free ball. But the guy is humble enough not only to not question it but also to not make a fuzz about it.
And he'll have played all the better for the rest of the match too, rather than letting it get into his head. So, yep, agree.. Moments like that, that's when you show your character.
@@EannaButler also at the end of the day, it's the refs call. if it was that close and he thought it was a free ball then that's it and to be fair he did give it a right dose of looking at.
The red should not be replace! The shot finished when all the balls have stopped. If a ball falls down after, it must have been caused after the shot and results in a fouls by the next player, Peter.. Is the ref stating his movement resulted in the red going down, taking the white out the pocket?
Nice Clip at the end there. I was also not sure it was a free ball i remember but this camera angle can be misleading even to the the best of us !!! lol
Well personally I thought the red only fell in because he nudged the table climbing off it. Long after the white fouled in pocket. So referee was correct in replacing the ball. I mean if the white didn't foul and red fell in he'd have to call a foul and replace the ball. I think it just got confusing as the white had already called foul, so technically was a double foul. End of the day I think referee made the right call here under difficult circumstances.
White going in off was the only foul ! If it hadn't and the red had still fell in afterwards they might have argued as to whether it was a valid pot and King could continue or it should be replaced but either way not a foul.
The ref should have a copy of the rule book to hand, that he can quote from directly. And like others here, am surprised that Mark and Peter weren't familiar with this rule. And, I hope Neil Robertson gets to see this video, to vindicate his good nature in the matter of the free ball. I'm gonna get Leo Scullion up to my house next time I'm putting up shelves! Since he can detect
I remember this. It must have been mark king pushing away and lifting himself from the table that set it off to fall. Although you cant be sure i reckon it would have stayed there. It must have been the friction from the cushion it was resting on that didnt let it roll forward even tho it was probably ever so slightly into the curve of the slate in the pocket . That tiny force up there in equilibrium with the very slight force that is tangent to that curve on the slate if that makes sense. Even tho they dont go through the same axis it could still rest there. Well at least thats how i see it. I remember mark williams played a shot and the red stayed in the pocket. I think it was in the world championship. And he jokingly pushed on the table to make it fall. But he pushed quite hard with his body because they switched to the pocket camera at that moment and i am very certain i saw the red wobble because of marks pushing. SO even tho these table are very rigid and have so much mass, would it not have been a foul if in some extreme case mark made the red fall with his pushing ? Even though you cant be sure it would have stayed up...
@@nicktrousers fair play mate I actually read ur original comment its spot bit to intelligent for me 🤣anyway hope u are well hopefully wen all this over we can get back on the magical green baize. #baizelife is the way forward
TBH, I think Snooker refs should be a bit more insistent. It is in nobody's interest that there are big discussions over decisions in sport matches. It was apparent also in the match between Ronnie and Mark Allen, where Ronnie accused Mark of deliberately disturbing Ronnie's shots. Or in a match where Desislava Bozhila referee'd, there was a situation as well where she didn't insist enough on her decision. Seriously, just tell the people how the rules are, and that's it. No discussions. If players don't know the rules as well as the ref, there's absolutely no point in having 5 or 10 minutes of discussion. It's bad for the match, and bad for the spectators as well.
In the free ball situation, it is a difficult call to make and the referee is in the best position to make the call. As Cesar clearly points out, the actual angle is very difficult to infer even from an overhead view because it is so close to 90 degrees. To dispute such a close call when you are not actually at the table is remarkably arrogant. There was another such free ball situation recently which I think was decided incorrectly. Anyone remember that?
I didn't quite get the first one with Marcel. The subtitles seemed to have praised him for being firm in his decision (to bring back the ball), but in the end he actually takes it off (when the audience applauds)? I guess i missed something...
The question to ask is this one, if the cue ball had not gone into the side pocket, then would the red have scored and a stroke on a colour then been played or, would he have taken it out and put it back? Marcel complicates this by talking about "part of the shot' when the rules say in Sect 3 Rule 9(a) being no part of any stroke in progress, it shall be replaced and any points scored shall count so if the referee thinks it fell in as part of a stroke, then it must stay in the pocket, the only reason it can be taken out at all is if the referee felt it had been sitting there 'too long' so fell in and it was not part of the stroke. so I think he was saying that as he thought the stroke was over and then it fell in, then it had to be replaced, that's not what the rules say exactly, he would have been far better off saying that as it sat there too long, then it had to be put back, as, S3 R9 (c) says - (c) If a ball balances momentarily on the edge of a pocket and then falls in, it shall be considered potted or pocketed and shall not be replaced. ' So the term 'momentarily' is not defined as being so many seconds, most referees consider that if a ball sat there for longer than 3 secs and then fell in, then it gets replaced, if it falls in sooner than 3secs then it scores as points scored or penalty points and does not get replaced. So you can count yourself from when the red stopped moving. did it fall in sooner than 3 seconds or longer than 3 seconds, me I counted to 4, so that tells me it was there for between 3 and 4 seconds so is in the area that some referees may put it back and some may let it score. What was a mistake was the long conversation and asking players for their opinion, and stopping the game as they chatted about it, as these rules are for the referee alone to decide what happens, he decides and then there is not any talking about it, so he decides then he asks the next player to play the next stroke. About Neils situation, first he is a class act regarding accepting the referees decision but, I have said before on a previous post regarding this incident that I do not believe the 'red dead ball' was sitting in the correct place to test the free ball, it had to be placed at a direct 90deg right angle to the line the cue ball would come from and then see if it was touching the brown ball at its rear or was there a gap between it and the brown, but it looks to me that the front of the red is behind the front of the yellow ball, so were it sitting at a 'right angle' to the yellow ball, then I think there would have been a gap between it and the brown, so then not a free ball. Its hard to tell from video images but it does look to me it was not exactly in the right angle position,, yes Mark did go on to play the free ball and win the frame. so then the frame score was, NR5/MS4, I cant remember who won the match. N
That difference on red placement for testing was silly. 90 degrees. If it's too close to call, call it a free ball. However a overhead camera and quick drawing skills of two lines hardly is the end of the world. But then, I get you have to be able to have full choice on the contact angle but it all is a bit of a dummy out the pram moment, even without someone actually crying about it. Nice to see professional responses.
the rules of snooker are very complicated . the biggest one most people dont know , and comes up all the time , is the free ball rule . you cannot snooker a person behind the free ball nominated . unless there is only the pink and black on the table .
"Momentarily" should mean "until either the next shot is made or someone touches the table, or the table is disturbed by a force such as an earthquake."
I knew that answer instantly I haven't played for years ,if a ball drops in because a door is opened or through some one stamping feet or any other reason it is replaced ,this is in the old book of rules i read years ago,when clubs were busy and these things did happen but that is the rule ref was right.
I passionately dislike Marcel Eckhart. Snooker is renowned for the sportsmanship and integrity of its professionals as it pertains to playing of the game (owning up to fouls and aiding referees in replacement of balls etc.) On several occasions I’ve watched him speak quite abruptly to players (many of which whom have been in the game for decades) this is not football - referees should welcome the input of players to resolve these rare issues when they occur. He handles this incident so poorly, speaking to King pretty rudely and then having to backtrack when the player set to benefit suggests he reconsider.
"Momentarily" means the ball sits on the edge of the pocket for a moment, and then falls in of its own accord. This ball fell in when King shifted his weight off of the table. He should be happy he didn't take a penalty for it.
The red was sat on the edge of the pocket for an eternity. Only when King gets physically off the table, likely jogging it, does the red go into the pocket.
I always thought that if a red goes in as the result of a shot, it counts. The shot ended when Neil King sat down, and Peter Ebdon approached the table, by which point the red had fallen in. Having said that, it is up to the referee to make the final call, and if a player disagrees, they should say "I respectfully disagree", and then carry on with the match. I'm sure there are people to whom a proper complaint can be made. (Unless it's a game/frame changing pot, in which case, stand your ground! lol)
My understanding has always been that if the player is still at the table and the ball falls into the pocket then it is counted as a legitimate point. If on the other hand the player that took the original shot has left the table and the incoming player has approached the table then the ball should be replaced. It did seem in this instance as though mark king was still at the table. However ebdon had already approached the table also and the original shot was a foul.
White went in-off, see 0:20, and the red fell in 4 seconds later- bit hard to say if part of the shot or not. I'd agree with referee not part of shot so should be replaced but it was quite close.
The referee was completely right, Mark King was in the wrong and he knew it (even though he pretended not to), and Peter Endon was very generous (probably because he'd already eyed up the safety shot).
Very sporting of Ebdon. Also, a moment of time is 90 seconds, so using a term like "momentarily" in any rule is ridiculous. Standardise the time that a ball can hang before dropping into the pocket, both for fouls and for legal shots and then it's not up for debate.
You would think that King would know the rules of the game, that is the correct ruling, if a ball falls into the pocket while no one is at the table, the ball should be replaced, I can’t believe Kings reaction, he just comes across as an idiot. I believe the refs original decision was correct and should have stuck to it, if refs are going to overturn there decisions just to keep players happy it will only lead to more ambiguity. Then in the next incident the ref calls a free ball but then continues to ask if Neil agrees, what the heck is going on? The refs have to make decisions wether they’re correct or not and the players must honour those decisions wether they agree or not, it’s that simple, otherwise there is going to be continuous discussions in to many games.
Everyone may seem happy - but they shouldn’t be as it wasn’t resolved properly, and therefore the issue still isn’t resolved for future reference. The right decision was reached, but by committee and not because it was right. The red should have been left off the table because it was part of the shot king played, UNTIL Ebdon replaced king at the table - then kings shot was over. As soon as ebdon assumes ‘ownership’ of the table, kings shot remains his. Therefore, had the white not gone in, and king left the table for ebdon and then red then dropped - it would be replaced. All down to who has ownership of the table at the time.
According to official rules, a stroke is not completed until: 1. all balls come to rest; 2. spotting required is completed; and 3. any ancillary equipment has been removed, or the referee is satisfied that the stroke is completed. It sounds like you mean the player's turn, but ending the turn is not a requirement in this case. Besides, the opponent is not required to be at the table for the turn to end.
I've often wondered what the rule was regarding a late dropping ball so it was interesting to see this, can anybody tell me what the rules are regarding a ball dropping late when the opponent is already at the table feathering his first shot?
The ball that dropped gets put back. If it drops after the white was struck not due to contact with any ball, and it would have been struck had it not dropped, then all the balls get respotted and the striker gets to replay the shot without penalty.
Refs are too meek and sheepish, as this one. I find too much that they usually ask players "if they agree"... Wtf, they must abide their decisions. They know the rules much better than players.
The fact that even Ebdon mocks at him shows this ref is not what it should be expected from a ref. You cant be debating for such a stupid thing all day long 3:01
My understanding is that shot is not complete until the balls have stopped... To replace the red would indicate a foul was committed by the next player... It cannot go back, mental!!!! 🤪
Robertson - Selby was close but not a free ball imo. If that had been Ronnie & not Robertson, Ronnie would of been giving the ref a right old talking to.
Listen marcel is a great ref but I’ve seen him get it wrong before That pool video with Sfr or whatever his name is breaking illegally even though he was inside the break box. That was an Angel Hernandez bad call so I’m glad he revoked his decision here. I think when balls drop in like this it should count even if the player is walking back to their seat. There’s actually a rule if you leave the table you leave your turn basically but I think that’s a very outdated rule as well that needs reviewing.
What did it really matter? King wouldn't get the point for red anyway as he fouled on the shot. Why argue over something so trivial? It's not like one of the players had a big lead in the frame and the other player possibly needed that red. In the other clip to the naked eye it looked ok at first so as not to be a free ball. Then I noticed the brown and thought hang on... Even before the top down view was shown I thought the ref made the correct decision.
Because if the red was placed back right over the pocket then Ebdon had an easy pot on (either direct or a plant - very easy to make). It made a difference. Without it dangling over the pocket Ebdon played a safety instead of an easy pot.
The referee is correct, the ball goes down while the ref is removing the white from the pocket, so no one is in play at that point and the red needs repositioning, not rocket science
It was a controversial decision, and both players were happy with it being down. Peter Ebdon would have had an ADVANTAGE if it stayed up, and he also was fine with it staying down so as not to have an unfair (as possibly seen by his opponent) edge. So the referee overruled himself. Makes sense to me.
@@michaelanderson7715 try an experiment in your local snooker hall: put a ball on the extreme verge of falling into a pocket, then hit the table with your hip several times. You'll realize you can't pot the ball. And King made a minor movement, he did not hit the table with much strength. His movement was irrelevant, these tables are really difficult to move and affect the behavior of the balls.
I think Mark King was right but its a marginal call and the ref needed more gravitas and stop being so wishy washy , the moment you consult players you get the players to potentially fall out with each other (higgins and Thorburn etc) - The ref should make a call and unless both players realise its an out an out howler should shut up and get on with it (like Roberston did in the second clip)
It is the correct decision, what is not is asking if players agree with it, why ask? Did not agreeing change anything? Nope, the asking just caused problems, lead and say what is what, not ask oo do you disagree or agree
Are you saying the referee was wrong in the bonus footage? Caesar himself says he was RIGHT when showing the overhead camera angle. I also think the referee was correct, and I was thinking that even before he did his redball test. Play enough pool/snooker, and you can determine things like that just by sight.
