Marco Fu, a total gentleman and a credit to snooker, wish there was more like him in the game

When you're in a literally impossible snooker (i.e. can't directly hit any cushion), like Jones was in, you're required to shoot directly at an object ball, regardless of what other balls are in the way. The ref does not then call a miss, and play continues with a foul. It's in the rules, there's no ambiguity about. The ref handled that Holt situation terribly, Jones played it exactly the way it's supposed to be played.

First case:bingham is saying to holt “try once maybee its possible”. Second case:fu is accepting that its impossible to hit a colour. In both case there’s finally (thow different cases)a gentleman’s agreement,ONLY in snooker!!! But i love among all the procedure:first the player look at is opponent by saying “i can not escape”, then his opponent has to agree with him.but its not enough:he has to turn to the judge and receiving his agreement too. And then the judge goes and talk to the opponent by asking him what would be the shot he would be quite happy with without calling a “miss rule”. That’s why I LOVE SNOOKER so much,its a gentlemen’s(and ladies)game.

2:15 when you are deciding what you want from the chippy

Marco being a gent saying it's not a miss. If only Bingham had the respect he should have. The miss rule was put in place for people taking advantage missing balls deliberately. Please use that as a guideline refs...

Jones' shot was an outstanding shot. As I understand the rules, if it is impossible to escape a snooker, you have to aim directly at a legal ball with enough pace that you would hit it if there was nothing in the way, and in doing so you avoid the "miss" being called. Fair play to Fu for agreeing it was indeed an impossible escape, although it clearly was, and any ref would see that. For Jones to not leave an easy red, and get the cue ball to baulk, that was outrageous.

I like Holt, he's got a sense of humour.

It's funny the ref doesn't explain the rule to Jones in English. Instead, he explains it to Marco in Cantonese, and then Marco does the translation.

"You're just gonna keep putting it back until I leave him on...that's what the miss rule is for, yeah?" 😂

How interesting. First time I've seen this occur.

I don't think you can compare both situations identically. Holt was able to hit a cushion without hitting a red as seen in the video while it was impossible for Jones to miss a red from that position. However, both were unable to hit a color either way. I agree with how the situation was addressed by Fu with the referee. It's going to be a foul, inevitably, but a miss should not be given on any sort of attempt to get out of the situation.

Is the ref really saying to Holt in the first clip that a miss will be called until he leaves something on for Bingham? If so that shows a complete failure to understand the miss rule by a professional referee...

Bad refereeing in the first case "Foul and a miss" being a default response.

RESPECT Goes to....... MARCO FU!!!

I wish there was commentary. I do not know the rules but I am fascinated by this game.

This just happened with Anthony McGill and Mark Williams gave him a rerack. What a genuine guy.

In a situation like this the player should make an attempt to hit a colour, a good way to do it is to act as if there are no red balls blocking a colour and there is a line to hit a ball. Then they play the shot with enough power to hit the colour otherwise a miss is called. This prevents tapping a red gently. EDIT: a miss shouldn't have been called in my opinion since holt made a clear attempt to hit a colour with no tactical advantages

As the 1st player showed I'd pass the cue to the ref aswel and love to see them attempt them shots as nothing on at all

Tough spot because the ref has to judge if it was a good enough attempt to hit a color or if it was just an attempt at leaving the opponent with no shot without really caring about hitting a red

Holt could try to catch black by swerving left to the side rail that would have left several pottable reds. Instead, he called green and swerved to the right, there seemed no route. I think the miss call is right in that aspect although the referee didn't mean that.

Should ask the ref "If that is a miss then please tell me how to attempt the shot better so as no to have a miss call?"

Respect ... Marco

How could he call miss for the first shot and then not call it for a similar 2nd shot ?

That first ref doesn't even know the rules! At least the second one got it right, the player should know the rules though he's supposed to be a professional

It is my understanding that "foul and a miss" is declared by the referee when there's a realistic possibility of hitting the "on" ball, but in the referee's view the player did not do enough effort to do so. However, I have seen dozens and dozens of times almost impossible snooker situations where it would take almost literally a superhuman feat to get out of it without a foul... yet the referee keeps calling "foul and a miss" again and again, even though the player _very clearly_ is trying his best to not to foul. I never understood that.

The miss-rule is good; its only possible in a Gentleman's game like snooker, though. In many instances, I have seen players who just didnt take the miss even if the ref called it because they knew it was either almost unhittable or a good enough attempt, even if it was a foul. I'm surprised Bingham didnt just continue playing after the first shot.

The ref is correct, its still a miss if the other player ends at a disadvantage after the shot is played. You need to understand, players at that level can play a miss so well, it looks like an attempt on target but with more emphasis on playing it safe. You cant just call a foul because its an “impossible” snooker without calling a miss if the other player ends up at a disadvantage.

I think that in the case of having Holt try it once and if there was no way to hit a color, then the next attempt wouldn't be a 'miss'. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the miss rule, but I'll be buggered to within an inch of someone else's life if I can figure out a better way.

How do they not know what to do here? That situation must come up ALL THE TIME.

The rule is actually quite simple. If snookered on all balls on, then the striker must hit towards the ball on with the same force as if the snookering ball was not there.

I think they should just crack open a nice packet of Hob-Nobs and have a good game of soggy biscuit to decide the outcome.

they generally call a miss to easily, its supposed to stop people deliberately not putting full effort into trying to escape and preferring to give up 4 points but leave the cue ball safe. so the second snooker was fair. However for the first one there was an easier shot going for the black but the result would likely leave an easy shot

I'd like to see moments like this, where a player is in an impossible to escape snooker, be a frame conceding moment. Give these impossible snookers the value of a checkmate. Adds value to safety shots and raises the skill ceiling.

There are times when I don't understand the 'miss' call!

What is Billy from EastEnders doing playing snooker?

Both snookered guys should have asked the ref to clean the white ball.

I cant help but feel there should be a snooker player not taking part in the tournament on standby that the referee can phone to get their input on whether a situation is impossible to escape or not

Well, these are very interesting situations. I like what Marco Fu did, that is nice! The first one is more special, from a referee's perspective. Had it been one of mine leagu-games, I would have done the same as he did. I understand the question from Holt, but I would also call miss the first time. The reason is; The miss-rule is there to ensure that a player does his best to not disrupt the play. So if a referee thinks that the player COULD do it better, we call miss, and gives the discision to the opponent player. If the referee belives that the player has done the best possible try to hit the ball, we don't call miss. So to explain why I think that a "miss" is correct in the first one?; Holt gives it a try, that is fine. But, in order for the referee to let Holt try and find a better shot, he calls a "miss" and tests Holt. When it, after the second attempt, becomes apparent that this shot WAS the best possibility, and that Holt gave his best, the referee only calls foul. To me, that is very OK done by the referee, and I would have done the same :-)

The worst part is that he has to nominate a color. Also the not calling a miss on holts second is the right (judgment) call. The ref believes on the first shot that the ball can be struck, missing the same shot twice indicates that it cant be hit.

I love you Marco.

I'm still a bit confused about the first shot. Michael Holt's two efforts were essentially very similar to each other - but produced two outcomes, the first being he didn't leave Stuart on an easy red, and the second being - he did leave Stuart on an easy red. Why did the referee call a miss the first time but not the second time? Surely, the matter of leaving your opponent on a red or not is completely irrelevant to the situation. What if the same situation occurred with only a few reds on the table, all of which were evidently safe (i.e. tied to each other on cushions)? I honestly feel the referee got it wrong here, along with Stuart's rather odd action of accepting the miss. Michael Holt played a perfectly good shot the first time, should never have been called a miss

When the situations like that for michael holt... as long as hes deemed too have made a genuine effort, and hes hit it hard enough too hit the colour he nominated, he shud not be deemed a miss... and bingham deffo shud not av put the ball back either... ref clueless... bingham unsportsmanlike...

He should never have called a miss on Holt, what a joke.

Wasn't there a rule somewhere if the cueball is trapped you nominate the color and hit as if there was no ball interfering and that counts as a fair attempt? Can't quite remember...

The proper and correct shot to take was the black from the bottom cushion with a touch of left spin, obviously employing the rest.

I really hate it when a player asks for the white to put back when the opponent has snookered himself accidentally. I think that's poor sportsmanship what Bingham did. I know that's in the rules but a player should be sporting.

Holt's laugh reminds me of Mickey mouse on South park 😂

This would make more sense of I had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

0:43 !

Can someone explain this game to me? I’m only familiar with 8 & 9 ball.

What happens when your opponent gets you in an impossible to get out of snooker? Is it still retake until they say other wise or is it just a foul? Also, by the rules could the players make these retake again? First match seemed impossible yet it was foul and miss?

If I understand this correctly, in a situation where it is impossible to escape without commiting a snooker, the player has to hit the balls, in such a manner, as to leave an easy shot on for his/her opponent. Is that correct?

Marco was just way too kind to Jamie. It is pretty obvious to see that Jamie did not try his very best to hit any one of color balls. He was just simply trying to get the cueball safe after discussing with Marco. Ref should have called miss. Every credit to Marco, a true gentleman. Yet, there should be some protocol for referee to not apply any players suggestions before the shot.

Ref should know that you play towards a nominated ball at a pace that would reach said ball in an impossible to hit situation.

I'll check the exact wording of the rule later, but I don't see how you can call a miss on the first attempt there.

What is the rule on it not being a foul? He has to touch a colored ball or net the black one, right? It looks tough but not impossible to try for the black in that first shot.

They aren't following the rule properly. You are supposed to aim 'directly' at a colour in a straight line even though you are aiming at the reds. It's a weird rule anyway. I think you have to nominate the colour you are going for.

In first clip, maybe must play black ball from black cusion.

Noise reduction might be good (Audacity)

once in a lifetime ！

The ref totally wrong if a snooker is impossible to escape from, the rules says to use enough speed in a direction of the colour you call .

Really interesting thanks! No way Holt's first effort should've been called a foul. Also, as Jones didn't nominate which colour he was going for I wonder if the foul should've been 7?

Quite funny how everyone seems to know the rules here.. the referees know what they’re doing (most of time)

You can't call a miss on a shot like that, it's just a foul. I've seen Bingham in situations like this before - he;'s not a good sport.,

What was the point of ref calling holt's first attempt and miss when it was so obvious he couldn't get to it.

The second situation seemed to be handled much better. In the first, no way should that have been called foul & miss, and pretty poor from Bingham too (in my opinion) to put Holt back in the same spot.

Surely you just have to forfeit at that point. If all you can do is foul then it's never going to be in your opponent's interest to take the shot on.

hello how many times does a player have to attempt the impossible shot?

Jones could have tried the old, "Oh my gosh everyone look up there" then played the shot.

As a Referee I cannot say what I think about that call, all I can say is that you all should read Section 3 Rule 14 (a) (iii) The rules do cover this situation. (iii) says - a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on, in the latter case it must be assumed the striker is attempting to hit the ball on provided that he plays, directly or indirectly, at the ball on with sufficient strength, in the referees opinion, to have reached the ball on but for the obstructing balls. N

Why was there an issue with the non shooter when the shooter played a bad shot?

He didn't even try in the open side he just choose the red that's not fair

Jones took advantage and made no attempt to even try hitting a colour. should have been called a miss. or should be free ball. Marco was too nice hope he won that match.

Tricky. Bingham is gaming the situation. But Jones might be too - it looked like he was trying to get the white as safe as possible, through as many non-nominated balls as needed. Maybe a new rule is needed?

The player has to play towards the object ball with a speed that would have brought the cue ball to the object ball if there were no other balls covering the object ball. Then a miss would not be called. If, however, in such situation you play the cue ball not towards the object ball, then it would be likely to get a miss ;) he plainly never played the ball towards the object ball so it should have been a miss .

If an escape is absolutely impossible then I really do not know any solution. Perhaps just let the player do what he wants and the ref calls a foul + enough points to the opposing player to mean the player in the predicament would need to pot every ball.

Bingham looks like Wilson Fisk from Daredevil

I totally understand what is happening.

No matter what the sport, no matter what the laws/rules are ,there comes a time when they go out of the window and simple straightforward commonsense must prevail.....

0:40 "That is impossible to hit, fucking hell cmon" Who was that, was it Holt himself that said it?

first clip = why was the first one foul and a miss and the second "take" just a foul?

Swerve round the red only option there good effort

Technically you could masse into the pink.

I'm a new snooker fan. I have idea what's going on in this video.

it's a simple rule , if the escape is impossible you nominate colour and hit the cue ball in a straight line to the nominated ball hard enough to reach it ,foul called no miss

In the first case I think the referee is wrong. You can only call out a "Miss" if there is an easier possibility available which was not taken by the player. I would be interested to hear from the referee what this easier solution would have been. At least I don't see any, and I played snooker for decades.

So if the opponent calls a miss then the shot is reset? When does it end if you can't play a shot without fouling? In theory you could make opponent play the same shot till they concede the frame?

Couldn't both cases have been possible with some side and a cushion? The first situation it looks like he could have gone off the black cushion with some left spin and hit the black. The second situation it looks like he could have gone off the right cushion with some right spin and hit the black, although he might have to go off the black cushion also to get around the red.

They haven’t a clue

jones played the shot right

The rule is simple: An impossible shot leads to a foul, but it's not a miss!

I think Bingham point was that he could have nominated and hit the black. Whether he was correct in that I couldn't tell you but that was his point.

What kind of shot was that Jones???

The foul and a miss is ridiculous. It should only be for clearly intentional misses, that was not one of them The ref's smile after that doesn't help to believe he genuinely believed that was a miss

Where is Mark Fu disappeared now a days, he is such a great player.

When did Drake Bell start playing snooker?

Because he left him on

Is Holt suffering from the old Farmer's?

poor ref replacing balls piece of cake?? ...😥😥

I am not a snooker player (I do watch it a lot), but it seems to me that it is possible for Holt to hit the black with a masse shot. Is that what Bingham is telling him too? Also, what I don't understand is that the ref calls a miss with the first attempt, but not with the second attempt. What is the difference? He attempts the same shot.