Masters 2020

Joe_ Public

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Was half watching this as it was such a boring match and the Steve Davis commentary style was in lullabye mode at this point
A little after the point where the video above stopped JV posed the question if a replay was available while the camera was on the markers face and the marker shook his head in response. The marker is listening in to the commentary from the guys in the box behind him and does get to see the tv coverage which shows the replay there and then but unlike the Scullion incident the marker decided not to act here.

This seems to be the issue to me. Do any of us here know what the guidelines or conventions are in relation to these things? Neither referee nor marker yesterday seemed to think it was their place to use the technology to make the ruling while in the allen-hicks case they did. I blame the wpbsa for this, the scullion thing should have raised a flag that they needed to issue a directive on this. All referees should be on the same page but clearly they aren't.

Joe_ Public

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

I didn't give Ronnie the benefit of the doubt on that one. I saw it live on t v and noticed it straight away. There is no chance that Ronnie didn't feel,see or hear that rest moving the red. I'm a Ronnie fan but i'm not blinded by loyalty and it was the most blatant cheating i've seen in a long time on a snooker table. Of course Ronnie acted all surprised when asked about it post match but pundits were afraid imo to call it as it was and very few Ronnie fans would say anything negative about him. He cheated 100% imo.

Definitely, ronnies post match interview that night was like a comical pitch for a snooker raspberry. But my memory is that lots did give him benefit of doubt. Not everybody, obviously.

To me its the same as last night. We can have our opinion but ultimately only the player knows what was going through his head. Maybe carter knew he didnt hit yellow, but it would be a strange thing to risk your reputation like that for the sake of 4 points. Its possible but i doubt it sufficiently to be willing to give him benefit of doubt.

Chalk McHugh

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Definitely, ronnies post match interview that night was like a comical pitch for a snooker raspberry. But my memory is that lots did give him benefit of doubt. Not everybody, obviously.

To me its the same as last night. We can have our opinion but ultimately only the player knows what was going through his head. Maybe carter knew he didnt hit yellow, but it would be a strange thing to risk your reputation like that for the sake of 4 points. Its possible but i doubt it sufficiently to be willing to give him benefit of doubt.

Yea fair point. I didn't see the Carter match so can't comment on it. But you're right about risking his reputation for four points would be ridiculous.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Joe_ Public wrote: »

This seems to be the issue to me. Do any of us here know what the guidelines or conventions are in relation to these things? Neither referee nor marker yesterday seemed to think it was their place to use the technology to make the ruling while in the allen-hicks case they did. I blame the wpbsa for this, the scullion thing should have raised a flag that they needed to issue a directive on this. All referees should be on the same page but clearly they aren't.

The rules clearly state that: "If the referee has failed to notice any incident, they may at their discretion take the evidence of the marker or other officials or spectators best placed for the observation or, if available, they may view a camera/video recording of the incident to assist their decision."

I think it's clear that Bozhilova messed up here. If she was unsure whether Carter hit the yellow, she had leeway to consult the marker, other spectators, and video evidence before calling a foul.

In this case, though, she did call a foul, and then allowed herself to be overruled by Carter himself. She should not have reversed her decision without consulting the marker or the video.

The Nal

Very odd one. He sort of asked Higgins who said "I don't know".

I don't think he cheated. He needs his eyes tested though.

Joe_ Public

Richard Embarrassed Guppy wrote: »

The rules clearly state that: "If the referee has failed to notice any incident, they may at their discretion take the evidence of the marker or other officials or spectators best placed for the observation or, if available, they may view a camera/video recording of the incident to assist their decision."

I think it's clear that Bozhilova messed up here. If she was unsure whether Carter hit the yellow, she had leeway to consult the marker, other spectators, and video evidence before calling a foul.

In this case, though, she did call a foul, and then allowed herself to be overruled by Carter himself. She should not have reversed her decision without consulting the marker or the video.

Absolutely correct. I think thats my point though, question needs to be asked why didnt she consult video. Did it not just occur to her or is she even aware of the rule? Thats what i think they should nail down. Maybe it will take a major controversy in a final before they do. Just seems a pretty basic thing to me anyway.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Absolutely correct. I think thats my point though, question needs to be asked why didnt she consult video. Did it not just occur to her or is she even aware of the rule? Thats what i think they should nail down. Maybe it will take a major controversy in a final before they do. Just seems a pretty basic thing to me anyway.

Agreed entirely. I think this should be clarified to all referees.

Another issue is that she remained standing behind the top right corner pocket while the cue ball was traveling slowly towards the left-hand side of the yellow. She wasn't in line with the shot, and she didn't walk down the table as the cue ball was in motion, as Jan Verhaas often does, to get a better look. If she had positioned herself better to get a better view of the cueball and yellow, she might have been more sure of her decision. Inexperience showing here, tbh.

Joe_ Public

Richard Embarrassed Guppy wrote: »

Agreed entirely. I think this should be clarified to all referees.

Another issue is that she remained standing behind the top right corner pocket while the cue ball was traveling slowly towards the left-hand side of the yellow. She wasn't in line with the shot, and she didn't walk down the table as the cue ball was in motion, as Jan Verhaas often does, to get a better look. If she had positioned herself better to get a better view of the cueball and yellow, she might have been more sure of her decision. Inexperience showing here, tbh.

Yeah, i wouldnt want to be too hard on her, but she's certainly no jan verhaas anyway! By nature you might only get one contentious incident at most per match and you will be judged on how you deal with it.

Joe_ Public

One other interesting thing to note i think. In the mark allen situation it was the marker who brought the foul to the referees attention, after the shot was played. Whereas last night, according to Arthur's account above, the marker was shaking his head at virgos commentary, seemingly indicating there was nothing he could do. That doesnt seem quite right to me.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One other interesting thing to note i think. In the mark allen situation it was the marker who brought the foul to the referees attention, after the shot was played. Whereas last night, according to Arthur's account above, the marker was shaking his head at virgos commentary, seemingly indicating there was nothing he could do. That doesnt seem quite right to me.

Agreed. The rules say the marker should assist the referee in her duties. So it's wrong to indicate there was nothing he could do.

tanko

She's a useless referee. There was also an incident in the sixth frame where a fly went in under the pink. She tried to get it out for a while, couldn't do it and gave up. After the next shot the rolled the pink over the fly and got rid of it, laughing away while she did this. Does she think she's refereeing in a pub.
Allowing herself to be overruled by Carter when he blatantly cheated was pathetic.

DelBoy Trotter

tanko wrote: »

She's a useless referee. There was also an incident in the sixth frame where a fly went in under the pink. She tried to get it out for a while, couldn't do it and gave up. After the next shot the rolled the pink over the fly and got rid of it, laughing away while she did this. Does she think she's refereeing in a pub.
Allowing herself to be overruled by Carter when he blatantly cheated was pathetic.

To be fair, Higgins told her to leave the fly where it was. The fly was under the pink which was beside a red. Higgins told her to leave it until he potted the red, then she rolled the pink over it to kill it and removed it

nkl12xtw5goz70

I wouldn't call her useless, but I think her comparative inexperience has shown up a few times this week.

Gilbert and Maguire on now. Gilbert at the table in the first frame.

Chalk McHugh

I like her as a referee. Not a bad looking lass either. More easy on the eye than Len Ganley anyway.

Come on Gilbert this is your chance for a Triple Crown. Like to see him win it.

Chalk McHugh

Gilbert opens up with a beautiful 144. Great to watch.

Joe_ Public

Impressive from dave. He's the player on the up here. Bunged a few quid on him for the worlds last night as i think he might be a fair bit shorter by the end of the week.

waynescales1

That was some 144. Every ball centre of the pocket, not once out of position.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Maguire looking cleanshaven and determined himself today.

Chalk McHugh

Not a fan of Maguire. Him and Wilson are the only two players i dont like watching. I see Maguire still wearing runners. Colin Murray was slagging him the other day saying hes exaggerating the bad foot so he doesn't have to walk up to the BBC and Eurosport studios. Plus the only player not wearing a tie or bow. The angry faces and death stares he pulls are classless.

Arthur Daley

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One other interesting thing to note i think. In the mark allen situation it was the marker who brought the foul to the referees attention, after the shot was played. Whereas last night, according to Arthur's account above, the marker was shaking his head at virgos commentary, seemingly indicating there was nothing he could do. That doesnt seem quite right to me.

To be fair play moved on very quickly. Higgins was at the table on his next shot in a few seconds. I think the comment from JV and the marker shaking his head at it in response was a few moments after play had resumed. So the opportunity to stop play had passed and in fairness to the marker he may only have seen replays subsequent to play resuming.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Feeling sorry for poor Desislava now, having to put all these balls back!

waynescales1

Bozhi under pressure here after last night’s antics.

Joe_ Public

Arthur Daley wrote: »

To be fair play moved on very quickly. Higgins was at the table on his next shot in a few seconds. I think the comment from JV and the marker shaking his head at it in response was a few moments after play had resumed. So the opportunity to stop play had passed and in fairness to the marker he may only have seen replays subsequent to play resuming.

Fair enough, point taken. I didnt mean to be critical of the officials themselves, because i believe it is the responsibility of the wpbsa not just to introduce the rule but also to ensure proper application of it and not sure that is happening.

Joe_ Public

Some high quality snooker in this frame from both players. Stark difference in standard from the dross served up last night.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Cracking match so far. Gilbert is a class act. It's hard to believe he's never won a title.

Joe_ Public

Richard Embarrassed Guppy wrote: »

Cracking match so far. Gilbert is a class act. It's hard to believe he's never won a title.

Has the ability for sure, getting over the line is the question mark. Remember that final he played against williams a few years ago, think he was 8-4 up or something and lost 9-8. I imagine those kind of things leave mental scars.

waynescales1

Enjoyed that interview with Maguire there. It’s a cliche but he seems genuinely down to earth. Absolutely no interest in fame or social media.

Chalk McHugh

Had to turn over to the BBC as Joe Johnson never stops talking. A terrible commentator imo. Sometimes saying nothing is the right thing. He tries to explain the most mundane shots that a 2 year old would understand. Time for a bit of Doherty and Virgo.

Arthur Daley

waynescales1 wrote: »

Enjoyed that interview with Maguire there. It’s a cliche but he seems genuinely down to earth. Absolutely no interest in fame or social media.

Yeah Steve agreeing with him. Although Steve is on twitter a bit with his DJing. Provides a good excuse not to engage with it. Well if it's good enough for the nugget....

Joe_ Public

Twitter is a pox. Remember judd tweeting from his dressing room during the mid session interval at the crucible a few years back, having a go at dominic dale if memory serves. Crazy stuff.