Ask the Referee...
John Street :
CueSport are pleased to welcome One of the sport’s most respected professional referees, John Street, to the team with his new regular column...
Questions & answers at the ready please...
editorial :
I am very honoured to have been asked to write a monthly article for this exciting new magazine. I will, of course, be concentrating mainly on writing about anything that may be of interest to referees and the rules of the games of Billiards and Snooker. As a member of the Referees Committee of the EASB I will also be able to keep you up to date on any relevant information from that body. I would point out that although I have mentioned the EASB (which is the body for England) I will be only too pleased to pass on information from any other referees associations from any part of the globe. Another service I can offer is that any rule queries I receive will be answered. If I feel that the question and answer would be of interest to all our readers I will do my best to get it published. If that is not possible, then I will answer it personally
During my ‘resting’ from writing, I have done quite a bit of research - I think you will be surprised with what I have managed to dig up for future columns
My first article in CueSport is an ‘exclusive’ story, although not strictly on refereeing, I know several referees will be interested because they love to keep records of snooker matches.
Higgins v Spencer ?
Some time ago I was contacted by a gentleman called John Koblecky, who lives in Newmarket (also doing some research). He asked me if I could supply him with some information. We spent a huge amount of time trying to trace the correct score of the final of the 1972 World Championships between Alex Higgins and John Spencer. We now know that every magazine and book published up to the present day is wrong
I will now explain why we are confident that we are correct and everyone else is wrong. All the national papers of that time we have seen printed the result as 37-31. The April 1972 edition of the only magazine around at the time, printed on the front cover, a score of 37-32 and this was repeated inside in the account of the match.
However close study of the facts in the account of the match does not bear this out. All sessions were six frames with the final session to be seven. During the first five days the re were 12 frames per day played which is 60 frames.
On the sixth, there were six frames played in the afternoon and two frames played on the final night. This makes a total of 68 frames played and not 69! Therefore the final result could not be 37-32 (69 frames) and must have been 37-31 (68 frames). It has been confirmed that there were no exhibition frames played after the final so there cannot be a mix-up there. The figure of 68 frames is verified by the account in the magazine of each frame score. I will not repeat them here but I will set out the close of session scores, John Spencer first. The first session ended 3-3, the second 6-6, then 9-9, 13-11, 16-14, 18-18, 21-21, 21-27, 25-29, 28-32, and the final afternoon ended 31-35. So far 66 frames played. It is a well-known fact that there were only two frames played of the evening session. Higgins won the first 62-38 and in the next, Higgins made a 94 break, his highest of the match, and then 46 to win 140-0. This makes 68 frames played and not 69.
easb :
Ever since the days of the old BS&CC to the present day of the EASB whenever the question of referees fees comes up you hear the same old cry. ‘What do we get for our money?’ and ‘what does the EASB ever do for me?’ Here is a story to prove that the EASB does try and do things for referees but sometimes the referees do not want to help themselves.
Dave Smith who hails from Bristol is the EASB Tutor for 5 areas. For those areas under his jurisdiction he thought it a good idea to hold an all day seminar for referees. To try and attract even more people he also included those referees in Devon and Cornwall. At his own expense he hired a venue, arranged for a buffet lunch if required. Paying the postage out of his own pocket he sent out 85 letters to all the referees concerned. The seminar was to be in a club on a Sunday and he gave everyone two months notice of the date and requ ested a reply to say if they could or could not attend. Of the 85 referees, 49 did not bother to reply at all and 15 said they could not attend. The remaining 21 turned up to what proved to be a very rewarding seminar. Everyone benefited from the discussions and they all went away satisfied that making the effort to attend was well worthwhile. In fact some of them even asked how soon was the next one was going to be! In my own area (Exeter & District) 15 referees did not bother to attend and many did not even have the courtesy to reply including, might I say, a couple of Examiners! I trust that no one will say to me ‘What does the EASB do for me?’ because my reply will not be one they will like. I can assure them that all the Tutors in the EASB give up a lot of time for the benefit of referees. It does not give them much encouragement to arrange a seminar and have only about 25% of the people bother to turn up! Knowing Dave like I do I know he will not lose heart and he will still go on trying to help the referees in his area. Let’s hope that next time he gets the support he deserves.
The following is a copy of the statement issued by the EASB.
A Statement From The EASB Referees Committee
“The EASB referees Committee unanimously agreed that they do not support the action and decision taken by the referee over a ‘Foul and a Miss’ situation that occurred during the Benson and Hedges Masters final on television last February. The decision by the referee not to apply the Foul and a Miss rule was a breech of the rules as laid down in the official Rulebook.”
In view of the vast number of telephone calls from referees to members of the EASB Referees Committee being questioned about the incident immediately following the televised programme, and stil l are being questioned by referees, the Referees Committee members have had the un-necessary duty to clarify to all confused referees the following situation.
In a frame of snooker the striker pots a Red and the cue-ball finishes at the back of the pack of remaining Reds. The only colour the striker could see was the black which he could see full ball. What is the procedure now?
This is fully covered in Section 3 Rule 14(c) of the Rule Book and reads as follows:
After a miss has been called under paragraph (b) above when there was a clear path in a straight line from the cue-ball to a ball that was no or that 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:
(i) a further failure to first hit a ball on in making a stroke from the same position shall be called as a FOUL AND A MISS regardless of the difference in scores, and (ii) if asked to play again from the original position, the offender shall be warned by the referee that a third will result in the frame being awarded to his opponent’.
IMPORTANT. There has been no alteration to this or any other Rule.
