Post a reply

Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby chengdufan

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I was watching the live scores from the McGuigan-Chandler match coming through. Chandler had been 3-0 up, but McGuigan pulled it back to 3-3.
The score was 66-42 to Chandler in the decider with 22 left. McGuigan needed foul points and got 4. 66-46
He then potted the brown. 66-50.
Then, McGuigan got two rounds of foul points: 66-54, then 66-58.
Next, Chandler potted the blue. 71-58.
McGuigan then potted the pink and black. 71-71 and a respot (which Chandler potted for the win).

So my question is, how did he get 4 foul points when the blue was the ball on? Surely any foul committed would result in him getting 5 foul points (or 6 or 7 if the pink or black was hit by mistake)?

I'm sure I'm going to look like an idiot when this is explained!

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby chengdufan

Well, i can understand 16 year-old Robbie McGuigan not questioning it at the time, but surely Harvey Chandler must have spotted it if there was a mistake?

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby James Bentley

It would be completely absurd if the result isn't overturned and McGuigan awarded the match if you ask me. But it wouldn't surprise me if they just go "no, the referee's decision is final. As there was no objection at the time, then the result stands".

Actually, is there a precedent for this? I'd be amazed if it's not happened before.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby Iranu

James Bentley wrote:It would be completely absurd if the result isn't overturned and McGuigan awarded the match if you ask me. But it wouldn't surprise me if they just go "no, the referee's decision is final. As there was no objection at the time, then the result stands".

Actually, is there a precedent for this? I'd be amazed if it's not happened before.

That’s a point. If there wasn’t an objection, why wasn’t there? You’d think McGuigan would have spoken up.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby chengdufan

Unless aces comes on to explain why 4 foul points were possible :shrug:

Not sure Gary Thomson is giving first hand info as he's got some of the details wrong.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby HappyCamper

If the players accepted it at the time there isn't really anything to do.

Beyond noting a possible error in the referees assessment I suppose.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby chengdufan

HappyCamper wrote:If the players accepted it at the time there isn't really anything to do.

Beyond noting a possible error in the referees assessment I suppose.

I disagree.
If it was two foul 5s, McGuigan won the frame by two points. And as a result the match.

A clerical error must not alter the result of a match.

If you applied for a job and were rejected because someone in HR inputted the score from your interview incorrectly, and this error was discovered before the other person was given the job, you wouldn't just say 'oh well, never mind, good luck to the other fellow'.

And as McGuigan is not yet a grown adult, it's unfair on him to give him the responsibility. People in decision making positions need to act here.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby HappyCamper

chengdufan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:If the players accepted it at the time there isn't really anything to do.

Beyond noting a possible error in the referees assessment I suppose.

I disagree.
If it was two foul 5s, McGuigan won the frame by two points. And as a result the match.

A clerical error must not alter the result of a match.

If you applied for a job and were rejected because someone in HR inputted the score from your interview incorrectly, and this error was discovered before the other person was given the job, you wouldn't just say 'oh well, never mind, good luck to the other fellow'.

And as McGuigan is not yet a grown adult, it's unfair on him to give him the responsibility. People in decision making positions need to act here.


it's not a job application, it's a sporting contest. refereeing errors are a well accepted risk of those. snooker has a very collaborative approach to officiating where players questioning decisions, as well as the expectation of highlighting their own fouls, is routine. if mcguigian is "too young" to handle that responsibility the he is not ready to be a pro snooker player yet.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby Iranu

HappyCamper wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:If the players accepted it at the time there isn't really anything to do.

Beyond noting a possible error in the referees assessment I suppose.

I disagree.
If it was two foul 5s, McGuigan won the frame by two points. And as a result the match.

A clerical error must not alter the result of a match.

If you applied for a job and were rejected because someone in HR inputted the score from your interview incorrectly, and this error was discovered before the other person was given the job, you wouldn't just say 'oh well, never mind, good luck to the other fellow'.

And as McGuigan is not yet a grown adult, it's unfair on him to give him the responsibility. People in decision making positions need to act here.


it's not a job application, it's a sporting contest. refereeing errors are a well accepted risk of those. snooker has a very collaborative approach to officiating where players questioning decisions, as well as the expectation of highlighting their own fouls, is routine. if mcguigian is "too young" to handle that responsibility the he is not ready to be a pro snooker player yet.

Yeah I think I agree with this.

It’s not like it was a controversial refereeing decision or conflict, the referee was just wrong, I don’t see why McGuigan would have a problem notifying the ref of that.

You’d think his opponent would have said something too.

Given there’s no crowd I suppose scores aren’t spoken out loud by the ref? But are foul points still spoken aloud? I guess they have to be, right?

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby acesinc

chengdufan wrote:Unless aces comes on to explain why 4 foul points were possible :shrug:

Not sure Gary Thomson is giving first hand info as he's got some of the details wrong.



Sounds like a referee's nightmare. Poor guy or girl is surely gutted by it. I have several responses for this thread, but I will edit my quotes to only include the relevant passages for response.

James Bentley wrote:...

Actually, is there a precedent for this? I'd be amazed if it's not happened before.


Everyone knows it is a very long standing rule in Snooker that if a foul is NOT called by the referee or claimed by an opponent, then it is considered to be condoned. Precedent of this rule goes back to English Billiards actually when high breaks could take hours so if a player had to leave the room for a comfort break, he needed to nominate someone to keep an eye on things while he was gone. Unfortunately, this case is not so simple as claiming a foul, but instead a scoring error. I don't think there is anything in the Rules to say exactly how to handle the case, it is a purposely minimalist document, therefore appropriate action can only be inferred from what IS written. And so parallel to condoning an unclaimed foul, that is the best with which we can come up.

In terms of Snooker precedent, surely this sort of thing happens all the time at amateur level, but no one notices or cares. I doubt it has ever happened before at professional level; I expect Q School probably only has a single referee working the table. (Andre?) With a Referee AND Marker, this incident is nearly certain to be avoided. I feel awful for all parties involved, including the match winner. But we still don't have a working time machine yet so we can't go back and fix it. That would be the only way.

In terms of actual precedent, all that I can really think of is the game of Golf. If a player knowingly or even unknowingly signs a scorecard with a mistake, I believe all the pro leagues will disqualify that player from the tournament. Even if the player signs for a WORSE score than was actually played and so disadvantages himself/herself; still disqualified. Harsh. So, simplistically, the incorrect penalty points were condoned at the time, and there is nothing anyone can do about it now. Once it is in the books, it is in the books.


chengdufan wrote:...

If you applied for a job and were rejected because someone in HR inputted the score from your interview incorrectly, and this error was discovered before the other person was given the job, you wouldn't just say 'oh well, never mind, good luck to the other fellow'.
...


Sorry, Cheng, can't really make that comparison. More accurate would be to say that HR filled out your application with the error, handed it to you saying, "Look this over," and you hand it back saying that all is fine. It is sad, but YOU are the one responsible for losing the job.



Iranu wrote:...

Given there’s no crowd I suppose scores aren’t spoken out loud by the ref? But are foul points still spoken aloud? I guess they have to be, right?


The verbalizations of the Referee are NOT for the spectators, but for the striker, the opponent, and the Marker. (But I expect in Q School, there likely is no Marker, which is really the genesis of this problem.) The Ref calls the score out loud while the Marker is tabulating it so there is redundancy and they can catch mistakes before said mistakes go into the "permanent record" as is the case here. I have seen once or twice watching Snooker on telly where the screen graphic was showing a DIFFERENT score than the "official" score. I don't know the exact technicalities of it, but the TV broadcast generates the score on the screen from their own information. Even if the Referee/Marker make a mistake, their score is OFFICIAL, not the numbers you see on telly.

The Ref is verbalizing break and penalty scores for EXACTLY this reason, that the players can verify that the call is correct. The audience is simply eavesdropping on this private conversation.



If all the info I have read in this thread is correct as I am sure it is, I feel bad for each and everyone of these people. Awful situation. I don't agree with DanCat though (sorry):

Dan-cat wrote:They've brushed it under the carpet haven't they? Potentially a life-changing mistake.


Getting out of bed in the morning is potentially a life-changing event. If you live in Australia and roll out the right side or left side, maybe a venomous spider is waiting for you and you won't see the sunset. Life is fraught with danger. If either or both of these players get to be as good as they wish to be, they will learn from this experience and never take things for granted again. I have made many, many mistakes in my own life and nearly always come out better for it. In the end, it is only a game of Snooker. All participants will be fine, even the Ref who will clearly be the most impacted by the incident.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby chengdufan

Well, it's very rare for me to disagree with HappyCamper and Aces, but I feel quite strongly about this.

I don't think your responses consider how high the stakes are for the individuals playing. For them, this is so much more than a game of snooker. This is the difference between the opportunity to have a full-time job that you've been training for all your life, or having to accept that despite your efforts, you're not good enough and you have to do something else. Most likely a menial labouring or service job.

So getting the decision correct is vitally important, and there was plenty of opportunity to do so. Arguably we had all the time up to the start of the Chandler Lawler match in the next round.

This isn't like sports such as football or basketball where mistakes by the officials are commonplace and grudgingly accepted. Errors from snooker officials should be limited to those rare tricky to call situations. When there has been a clear and obvious error, correction of it should be considered.

At the very least there should have been a statement acknowledging the incident and stating that the decision was considered with the result being xyz. But as Dan-cat said, they have swept it under the carpet.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby acesinc

I cannot speak for World Snooker's response or lack thereof; living here in the Snooker Desert of the USA, I may as well be living at the South Pole for my lack of information availability for these sorts of things. If World Snooker is ignoring or denying, I absolutely agree that is wrong. I can only speak from my own personal principles.

First, I know nothing whatsoever about any of these people, no pony in this race. I fully expect that they are all probably pretty good people with good convictions, lofty goals, etc. After all, they are associated with Snooker. That in itself says something to me. But I am not taking sides for or against anyone.

Someone above stated that one of the players is 16 years old, as if that should be taken into consideration? No, sorry, playing a "big boy" game, you play the game by the Rules, full stop. 16 or 116. The situation is unfortunate. If either or both of these players are truly destined to make the big time in World Snooker, then he, she, or they will make the big time, no matter their position in this incident. If either of these two players are basing their complete LIFE DECISIONS on the certainty of making the big time in Snooker without a fall back of some sort, then they are probably destined to live in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere eventually. Sorry to be blunt.

As I said, career-wise, the Referee will be taking the biggest hit. I don't expect to see him or her Refereeing the World Championship anytime soon.

If you wish to say that McGuigan "should have won" because the "score would have been....", sorry, that is a false argument. Any smart player will make a decision and play a stroke based on the current frame situation. With only Pink and Black remaining, whether the score is 71-58 (unfortunate "official" score) or 71-60 (what the score should have been but was not, officially) can and SHOULD have a huge impact on the shot choice that is made and played. Especially if the players believe they have the talent to play in the Big Leagues. So not you, nor anyone can say what "would have happened" if the scores would have been called and marked correctly. The players were both given the same (false) information, the players both either accepted or more likely ignored the (false) information. They both looked at the scoreboard at some point. They both made their decisions and played their strokes. And they carried on.

It is just sad. I am not saying you don't have valid points to be made, but a time machine truly is the only proper fix, not guessing games.

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby Iranu

acesinc wrote:In terms of Snooker precedent, surely this sort of thing happens all the time at amateur level, but no one notices or cares. I doubt it has ever happened before at professional level; I expect Q School probably only has a single referee working the table. (Andre?) With a Referee AND Marker, this incident is nearly certain to be avoided. I feel awful for all parties involved, including the match winner. But we still don't have a working time machine yet so we can't go back and fix it. That would be the only way.

Outside tables in pro tournaments often only have the referee with no marker I’m sure, so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility something like this could happen in a pro match.
acesinc wrote:The verbalizations of the Referee are NOT for the spectators, but for the striker, the opponent, and the Marker. (But I expect in Q School, there likely is no Marker, which is really the genesis of this problem.) The Ref calls the score out loud while the Marker is tabulating it so there is redundancy and they can catch mistakes before said mistakes go into the "permanent record" as is the case here. I have seen once or twice watching Snooker on telly where the screen graphic was showing a DIFFERENT score than the "official" score. I don't know the exact technicalities of it, but the TV broadcast generates the score on the screen from their own information. Even if the Referee/Marker make a mistake, their score is OFFICIAL, not the numbers you see on telly.

The Ref is verbalizing break and penalty scores for EXACTLY this reason, that the players can verify that the call is correct. The audience is simply eavesdropping on this private conversation.

You know, I was certain I’d watched matches on Eurosport Player in which the referee didn’t speak out loud but just used the scoring remote. Now I’m not so sure.

I don’t understand how both players could twice fail to hear “four” being awarded instead of “five” if it was spoken aloud (assuming Chandler hasn’t been dishonest).

Re: Foul 4 when down to the blue

Postby HappyCamper

there is only ever a separate marker on the show tables. outside tables the scores are controlled by a lone ref. the referees do announce the scores even on the outside tables, though the outside tables recording are basically just a wemcam, so the sound might not get picked up well.

at the gibraltar open last year they didn't even have that, as some tables shared a floating ref, and the players had to keep track of things. themselves!