Cliff Thorburn vs Alex Higgins - Cue extension incident

califano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvGvLNdwUUI

gormdubhgorm

Funny enough I saw this recently. Alex knew well what Thorburn was at (honesty in snooker and all that!?)
Yet he is somehow proclaimed as the 'people's champion'despite been a bit of a boll!x all his life....

I was looking at the all time list of century breaks on cuetracker


https://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time

I looked further down the list to find the 70s/80s generation.
Thorburn is ahead of Alex Higgins 91 to 86 centuries.
But even more funny Terry Griffiths is equal with Alex Higgins on 86 centuries.
Two slow sloggers of the same era ahead/equal to the Hurricane!
Talk about shattering a myth the slow but consistent light breezes were better break builders than the Hurricane.

Joe_ Public

Great video. I love the fact the Cliff leaves the arena, ostensibly to cool himself down, but then returns and decides, fck it anyway, I’m not gonna let you away with this.

I remember reading somewhere that Terry was in his 20s when he had his first century in practice, it was a different time. Not surprised by that stat about higgins, he WAS a better breakbuilder but hard to put it together consistently on the table when you’re half drunk or hungover a lot of the time.

gormdubhgorm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Great video. I love the fact the Cliff leaves the arena, ostensibly to cool himself down, but then returns and decides, fck it anyway, I’m not gonna let you away with this.

I remember reading somewhere that Terry was in his 20s when he had his first century in practice, it was a different time. Not surprised by that stat about higgins, he WAS a better breakbuilder but hard to put it together consistently on the table when you’re half drunk or hungover a lot of the time.

I think Higgins was a terrible positional player which was his achilles heel besides the off the table stuff. Great single shot maker though kind of like Mark Williams except that Alex powered them in.

califano

Its just that Alex had panache and was suave. The charmed public will always forgive/turn a blind eye to a glaring bad side of a personality if they bring the former. Ken is the perfect example who forgives Alex for all his sins and wont dwell on how mean he could be.

Same in the workplace, the bigger the boll*x will strangely often be the most fondly remembered.

gormdubhgorm

I watched a video of Thorburn v Higgins it was the game AFTER the green/cue extension incident.
It was styled as a grudge match by the media etc, Higgins won it.

The most interesting thing is the post match interview of the game @11;10
Both players assured the interviewer that it was not a grudge game.

There is a gas exchange at the end - @13:53

Interviewer: In one word you must fancy yourself for the title?

Higgins: No, Now one match at a time, I'm not the type of bloke that makes rash statements. Because they could all play and it is really on the day.

Thorburn: *Cracks up laughing and points at Alex*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way @40:00 there is a story about Alex getting part of his cue from a taxi driver (note alex did not give a tip to the taximan)

Joe_ Public

I dunno bout others, but i am of kens generation and know i wouldn’t be a lover of the game but for alex. It’s difficult because we know what he was like and yet that emotional pull he had on people was very hard to resist. I remember when there was a holy hour in Dublin, pubs shut 2.30-3.30 and a couple of us would be tearing around trying to find a pub that might be open anytime alex would be playing. There’s no other player I’d ever have done that for, not even ronnie in his pomp.

Jakey Rolling

I have a vivid memory of Thorburn catching his crotch in the corner pocket when stretching for a shot.

Have searched YouTube to no avail - would love to see a video of that to make sure I didn't imagine it!

Arthur Daley

They didn't get on all that well, as they were chalk and cheese. But snooker is just generally a big family at the end of the day, which is a major part of its attraction I think.

As it turned out Alex's last few frames at the Crucible in 2010 were played against Cliff, not 3 months before Alex died.

Joe_ Public

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

I have a vivid memory of Thorburn catching his crotch in the corner pocket when stretching for a shot.

Have searched YouTube to no avail - would love to see a video of that to make sure I didn't imagine it!

As opposed to the sly dig in the crotch he administered to alex when they were supposedly about to shake hands following that famous bust up in the pub.

walshb

Thorburn fouled. And should have accepted it...

Higgins was always a pr1ck...

walshb

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Funny enough I saw this recently. Alex knew well what Thorburn was at (honesty in snooker and all that!?)
Yet he is somehow proclaimed as the 'people's champion'despite been a bit of a boll!x all his life....

I was looking at the all time list of century breaks on cuetracker


https://cuetracker.net/statistics/centuries/most-made/all-time

I looked further down the list to find the 70s/80s generation.
Thorburn is ahead of Alex Higgins 91 to 86 centuries.
But even more funny Terry Griffiths is equal with Alex Higgins on 86 centuries.
Two slow sloggers of the same era ahead/equal to the Hurricane!
Talk about shattering a myth the slow but consistent light breezes were better break builders than the Hurricane.

Weird. I too came across it very recently as well..

Itssoeasy

walshb wrote: »

Thorburn fouled. And should have accepted it...

Higgins was always a pr1ck...

I’ve only recently seen this video(it may only recently have come onto YouTube) but Thorburn clearly nominates the colour he’s playing to.

Joe_ Public

We're in does the tree make a sound if it falls in the forest territory here.....if the ref doesn't hear it, is it technically not a foul or not?

walshb

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I’ve only recently seen this video(it may only recently have come onto YouTube) but Thorburn clearly nominates the colour he’s playing to.

He fouled. The referee needs to call it back. Just because you heard it on a video doesn’t change that..the referee did not repeat the color back because he never heard Cliff nominate it. It’s up to Cliff to ensure that the referee acknowledges...he did not ensure. Foul..

Otherwise you could whisper or mutter it and then claim you nominated...

The rule is clear.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

We're in does the tree make a sound if it falls in the forest territory here.....if the ref doesn't hear it, is it technically not a foul or not?

Not a foul or not? This a typo?

This is it

walshb wrote: »

Thorburn fouled. And should have accepted it...

Higgins was always a pr1ck...

How did he foul?

Edit: Read your explanation, fair enough if that's the rule.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Not a foul or not? This a typo?

I don’t know is my honest answer. Is there a rule that explicitly states ref has to acknowledge your nomination and did that rule apply back in the time of higgins and thorburn?

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I don’t know is my honest answer. Is there a rule that explicitly states ref has to acknowledge your nomination and did that rule apply back in the time of higgins and thorburn?

I believe it did apply..

Regardless. The referee said he fouled. Unless folks think the referee cheated him here. The ref said he fouled because he did not nominate. The ref did not hear Cliff nominate...that is why he called a foul. Alex said he didn’t hear either..

eagle eye

Alex Higgins was the guy living on the edge. He was also probably the most talented but his problems got in the way.
He'd have a lot more centuries if he didn't hit the ball so hard so often.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

I believe it did apply..

Regardless. The referee said he fouled. Unless folks think the referee cheated him here. The ref said he fouled because he did not nominate. The ref did not hear Cliff nominate...that is why he called a foul. Alex said he didn’t hear either..

Thorburn DID nominate. That’s not in question. If ref didn’t hear it then that’s ok, he was entitled to call the foul. Thorburn shouldn’t have got so het up about it, such a trivial thing. But I don’t know of any specific rule where a ref has to acknowledge a nominated colour, maybe it’s there somewhere but not seen it, just curious about that.

Joe_ Public

Refs will generally try to help a player so it’s probably more of a courtesy thing for them. During the players Championship a while back i remember terry camilleri rushing in over ronnie asking him to nominate when it was fairly clear ronnie was only sizing up the table. Don’t remember if that was the case back in the day though.

Joe_ Public

eagle eye wrote: »

Alex Higgins was the guy living on the edge. He was also probably the most talented but his problems got in the way.
He'd have a lot more centuries if he didn't hit the ball so hard so often.

There were two Alex Higgins - one i followed religiously in the 80s and the one i read about in the 70s. The one in the 70s played kamikaze snooker, throwing matches away because he had this inbuilt compulsion to entertain. Should have won 3-4 world titles while he was relatively together. The guy in the 80s was a trainwreck but also a better tactical snooker player with a very good safety brain. Just a shame and a tragedy he was such a disaster at the time.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thorburn DID nominate. That’s not in question. If ref didn’t hear it then that’s ok, he was entitled to call the foul. Thorburn shouldn’t have got so het up about it, such a trivial thing. But I don’t know of any specific rule where a ref has to acknowledge a nominated colour, maybe it’s there somewhere but not seen it, just curious about that.

He did not nominate as per rules. A “valid” nomination needs to be verified/acknowledged by the referee...it was not verified. Foul...

The verification/acknowledgement by referee is essential..otherwise there would be no need to nominate..

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

He did not nominate as per rules. A “valid” nomination needs to be verified/acknowledged by the referee...it was not verified. Foul...

The verification/acknowledgement by referee is essential..otherwise there would be no need to nominate..

“As per rules...” What specific rule are you referring to? Im just curious here.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

“As per rules...” What specific rule are you referring to? Im just curious here.

Snooker rules. Player must nominate...

The referee said Cliff didn’t. Whether you or others heard him (on a YouTube video) is irrelevant. The referee did not. His say is what counts..the referee needs to acknowledge/verify. They then usually repeat for the opponent, audience and viewers..

Unfortunate for Cliff. But a foul nonetheless.

Joe_ Public

walshb wrote: »

Snooker rules. Player must nominate...

The referee said Cliff didn’t. Whether you or others heard him (on a YouTube video) is irrelevant. The referee did not. His say is what counts..the referee needs to acknowledge/verify. They then usually repeat for the opponent, audience and viewers..

Unfortunate for Cliff. But a foul nonetheless.

Not going to get bogged down, just wondering what specific rule in the book are you talking about - is it rule 12 regarding nominated balls? What rule says a referee has to acknowledge a nomination?

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not going to get bogged down, just wondering what specific rule in the book are you talking about - is it rule 12 regarding nominated balls? What rule says a referee has to acknowledge a nomination?

The nomination rule..

You are getting bogged down...

The referee is in charge. You nominate to him/her...

It goes without saying that an acknowledgement must occur. It’s logic.

No verification or acknowledgement, as in this case, and it’s a foul..

I am not saying the referee needs to make an announcement. I am saying that he/she must be aware that the player nominated. Aware, acknowledgement, understanding, or whatever other description you apply here..

But usually, and anytime I saw it, the referee verbally announced the color that the player had chosen..

Joe_ Public

I’m no great rules expert on the game and i tentatively suspect you’re not either. Acknowledging a nominated ball is nowhere in the rules, it’s just a thing refs do to ensure clarity. Make no difference if they did or didn’t do it.

No issue with a foul being called in this instance, but the rule explicitly states it is the responsibility of the ref to ask for the clarity which is why - in the instance i highlighted above - camilleri jumped in to ask ronnie.

Snooker rules can be a bit vague and open to interpretation though, which is why the player must always ensure it is clear what he is playing.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I’m no great rules expert on the game and i tentatively suspect you’re not either. Acknowledging a nominated ball is nowhere in the rules, it’s just a thing refs do to ensure clarity. Make no difference if they did or didn’t do it.

The referee MUST know what ball the player intends to hit. That is fact. In the case of a color being the object ball, and it not being clear on what one is on.....

Apply any word you want to it. Know, verify, accept, acknowledge, hear, understand etc etc

In almost all cases the referee will verbally repeat the chosen color for the audience, opponent and commentary....

Does he/she absolutely need to verbally repeat and announce....? I don't see a specific rule stating this...

But the referee still must know the ball on!

The onus is on the player to make sure that the referee has understood to his/her satisfaction what ball is being nominated. Cliff failed in this example.

Joe_ Public

There’s not much argument. The rule is clear. A player - when snookered on a colour - must declare what ball he intends to hit. If he doesn’t, the ref will call foul and award 7 points to his opponent. Crystal clear.

The problem with your position is you are retrospectively judging a near 40 year old clip by modern officiating protocol and completely missing the context.

That situation could almost certainly not happen these days. No referee would simply let Thorburn get down and play the shot without checking to see what colour he is nominating. Hence the incident with ronnie and terry camilleri i referenced above. The refs will remind the player if needs be, they won’t just stand idly by, waiting to shout FOUL as soon as the shot is taken. It’s not how the game works.

I’m not 100% on this but i would still be fairly certain that this protocol was developed and initiated by referees in response to incidents like the thorburn one and that’s how it evolved over the years, to ensure those kind of arguments don’t break out anymore. It’s not just the players responsibility, ref has a role to play too.

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There’s not much argument. The rule is clear. A player - when snookered on a colour - must declare what ball he intends to hit. If he doesn’t, the ref will call foul and award 7 points to his opponent. Crystal clear.

The problem with your position is you are retrospectively judging a near 40 year old clip by modern officiating protocol and completely missing the context.

That situation could almost certainly not happen these days. No referee would simply let Thorburn get down and play the shot without checking to see what colour he is nominating. Hence the incident with ronnie and terry camilleri i referenced above. The refs will remind the player if needs be, they won’t just stand idly by, waiting to shout FOUL as soon as the shot is taken. It’s not how the game works.

I’m not 100% on this but i would still be fairly certain that this protocol was developed and initiated by referees in response to incidents like the thorburn one and that’s how it evolved over the years, to ensure those kind of arguments don’t break out anymore. It’s not just the players responsibility, ref has a role to play too.

I agree here.....referees are there at times to prod and guide....and remind...

Genghis

I love how this one video of an incident 40 years ago brings about a discussion longer than some tournaments

To take a slightly different tack, you could argue to remove the rule altogether would not diminish the game.

You don't nominate a specific red ball, why should you need to nominate a specific colour?

Any serious player mentally nominates a ball that he judges is the best shot choice to either continue a break or put the table safe. If they fail to make that shot, there is a natural advantage given to the opponent.

I wonder why the rule came about in the first place?

Joe_ Public

Because I'd guess, it's like most rules in snooker. They're not really needed 99.9% of the time, but it's the 0.01% of cases you need to legislate for. Say, for example, in the Thorburn clip, the yellow and green were close together, then it becomes pretty obvious why a player would have to make a declaration. I'd assume it was out of disputes arising from such situations that the rule and application of it evolved the way it has. It's about creating as much clarity around the game as you can I suppose. If only there was a way they could achieve absolute clarity for the miss rule!

AllForIt

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Refs will generally try to help a player so it’s probably more of a courtesy thing for them. During the players Championship a while back i remember terry camilleri rushing in over ronnie asking him to nominate when it was fairly clear ronnie was only sizing up the table. Don’t remember if that was the case back in the day though.

I think if your just considering a shot and in doing so you actually need to get down to mock play the shot, you should still nominate instead of leaving it up to the ref to guess whether you intend to play the shot or not. In that incident that's what Ronnie did, he wasn't just lining up the angle, he was getting a feel for his body position on the shot as it was a bit awkward and ultimately decided against it.

Ronnie got quite snarky with the ref because he asked him to nominate and I think that's what influenced what followed. I thought he was going to play the shot and you JP felt he was just looking at it. But why should anyone have to make a guess as to what the players intention is? I think nominating even if your not certain you'll play the shot at all is the way to easily deal with these particular situations to avoid confusion. In fact I'm fairly certain I have seen players take this approach in the past. Not so much a rule as common sense. Obviously you can nomination a color, change your mind, and nominate again as many times as you like.

Genghis

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Because I'd guess, it's like most rules in snooker. They're not really needed 99.9% of the time, but it's the 0.01% of cases you need to legislate for. Say, for example, in the Thorburn clip, the yellow and green were close together, then it becomes pretty obvious why a player would have to make a declaration. I'd assume it was out of disputes arising from such situations that the rule and application of it evolved the way it has.

Yes, but I am saying if the rule was revoked, Cliff could legally hit any colour (as if it was any red on a red shot) and there's no dispute, no need to declare, no misunderstanding, no foul.

Am just curious, I can't work out the benefit of the rule.

The miss rule I would say I agree with more, but it no doubt is the one that gets the most attention for sure!

Joe_ Public

Genghis wrote: »

Yes, but I am saying if the rule was revoked, Cliff could legally hit any colour (as if it was any red on a red shot) and there's no dispute, no need to declare, no misunderstanding, no foul.

Am just curious, I can't work out the benefit of the rule.

The miss rule I would say I agree with more, but it no doubt is the one that gets the most attention for sure!

Ah ok, apologies, i didnt fully grasp the point being made. I see where you're coming from alright. I suppose the answer might be that you have to play a specific colour any shot (after potting a red) so the same simply applies in a snooker situation and you're asked to nominate to avoid confusion. Let's say you were playing a simple yellow but miscued and hit the green instead. That's a clear foul, right? You can only play one specific colour (you don't need to declare it because it's obvious what colour you're playing) so it seems logical to have the same procedure when a player is snookered. You could argue it doesn't take that much skill to get out of a snooker when you could be aiming to hit three or four target balls.

Joe_ Public

AllForIt wrote: »

I think if your just considering a shot and in doing so you actually need to get down to mock play the shot, you should still nominate instead of leaving it up to the ref to guess whether you intend to play the shot or not. In that incident that's what Ronnie did, he wasn't just lining up the angle, he was getting a feel for his body position on the shot as it was a bit awkward and ultimately decided against it.

Ronnie got quite snarky with the ref because he asked him to nominate and I think that's what influenced what followed. I thought he was going to play the shot and you JP felt he was just looking at it. But why should anyone have to make a guess as to what the players intention is? I think nominating even if your not certain you'll play the shot at all is the way to easily deal with these particular situations to avoid confusion. In fact I'm fairly certain I have seen players take this approach in the past. Not so much a rule as common sense. Obviously you can nomination a color, change your mind, and nominate again as many times as you like.

I wouldnt make too much of the incident to be honest. Ronnie doesnt like Camilleri so that was always going to rile him up that bit more, but it wasn't that bad really. I just thought the relevant point was that the ref immediately jumped in when he thought the player was going to play the shot. That's what refs will do but if ronnie had just went ahead and played it without declaring then it's an automatic seven point foul and no discussion about it. And you're right, sometimes players will nominate even when there's no definite need, just to be on safe side and it's definitely a good habit to be in for sure.