Ronnie O'SULLIVAN Requires Key Rule To Be Explained By Referee

What rule is he confused about? Free ball?

This is like a chess grandmaster not knowing the en passant rule

This ref is great, he knows how to have a smile and a laugh and speaks to the players as equals, fair play to him.

Although Ben is correct on this occasion, why the hell is he laughing his head off? It’s not a comedy show! Same ref who pissed off Jimmy White by laughing at him. Why does he do it?

I find this funny but have absolutely no idea what rule they’re debating 😂

I've always wondered the same thing Ronnie asks - if it is also a three-miss rule when you technically can't see the red full ball because of other reds in front of it

Jimmy would of said to this ref “why you laughing, it’s not funny”

What’s funny about that

Michaela Tabb Ben Williams and Desislava Bozhilova are best refs by far! Fun, professional and intresting to watch.
And then there is Olivier Marteel aka Fuddy-Duddy

Foul and a miss x3 lose frame if there is full ball contact available. A ball on can not be snookered by a ball on .

Free ball is unable to hit the extreme edges of a ball on after a foul and not both sides. Extreme edges will vary depending on the distance of the ball on from the cue ball.

I can't believe Ronnie asked the name of Leo Scullion. I know who Leo is. I was at the Scottish open last week and both were there too. He must have reffed Ronnie hundreds of times by now.

Great job from the ref here, handles it with humility and humour, doesn't take Ronnie's questioning personally. Have to say I didnt quite know how exactly how this rule works myself, so it's always cool to learn something new!

laugh a lot. is he idiot?

Perfect way to disarm any turn in emotion. Well done with respect, care, and humor. Not many would've made that happen. Good on ya, ref! EDIT - I say this as an admitted hothead who is easily disarmed by this very thing. Not passing judgment in the negative on old Ronnie there more than a reflection of myself and maybe Ronnie as a younger man.

GET RID OF THE FOUL AND MISS RULE.
The foul and miss rule should be put in the rubbish bin where it belongs, whoever thought up this stupid rule shouldn't be in a position to frame rules.
It can't be applied to any game that doesn't have a referee, there are ample penalties for any foul shot without making the game so complicated.
Besides the penalty points gained from a foul shot, a player can make their opponent play again if they feel disadvantaged by the foul, or if the foul shot results in a snooker another ball can be chosen to represent the ball in play.
This is enough without taking all the enjoyment out of the game and starting conflicts with this stupid foul and miss rule that most players don't understand.
The rules for chess and so many other games don't change every ten years but it seems that the officials who make the rules just can't leave the game of snooker alone.
Social snooker is declining in the UK and elsewhere and the fact that the foul and miss rule can't be played without a referee has a lot to do with it.
The game used to be fun and the rules were fair but now it's the stage for conflict when two players can't agree on where balls were placed before the foul and miss.
Constant rule changes have ruined the game of billiards and snooker will follow.

All three of those reds between the line of the pink and brown are snookered by the pink, aren't they? Shouldn't matter where any of the other reds are or whether they're "snookering" the other reds.

this goes to show the absurd depth of snooker rules.

As a dutchman, and I think every non English person : Why is the game of 2 people hitting coloured balls regarded as a combination of a Shakespeare play and WW 3 negotionations? All this talk about "Ahhh little smile there from Ronnie" "Tremendous reaction from the referee" "what a great character he is". It's just a silly game isn't it?

Commentators just chatting shit and talking over what the ref and Ronnie are actually saying. If they just shut up for 10 seconds they might hear what's actually happening

Magic

I am gobsmacked that Ronnie been in game for over three decades, won 7 world championship titles etc and did not know that rule.

Ronnie is within his right to question the ref and the ref cool calm an collected explained the rule, no need to get frustrated on either end. I see some refs trying too hard to be assertive with ronnie and think they are superior which usually doesnt end well with a character like ronnie. This ref defuses tension by laughing and talking calmly therefore ronnie doesnt get angry.

I find this very interesting. Pause at about 20 seconds so see what I'm looking at.

In most instances, you lose the frame if you fail to hit a red when it's possible to hit the red in the middle and the extreme left side and the extreme right side - as in you could hit that red ball anywhere without being hindered by another ball. We can see that Ronnie can hit the ball in the middle, and on the right side of the ball (left as we're looking at it).

The confusion comes where Ronnie notices that he can hit the extreme left edge of the the ball because he'd hit the red next to the pink first. But apparently that doesn't matter because it's still a red (legal) ball. Interesting. I wasn't aware of that rule. I didn't know that if another legal ball blocked part of another legal ball that counted as being able to hit all of the ball.

🎱

If he'd caught the bump of the middle pocket it was frame over, only a few inches from it!

I like that referee. Give him the final

I'm confused!!

I don’t get it if he’s going for a red he’s got loads to chose from hasn’t he and forgive me if I’m wrong but you don’t have to pot a ball every time you go to the table to be able to win a game of snooker

Tweets with Ben williams

Ben the ref here had a stroke few years ago.he seems to have recovered well thankfully.

Would have been interesting to see how John Williams got on with ronnie.think he retired before Ron came but not sure on that .

Old John Williams would have said don't argue with me and play your shot.

That was nice .the ref handled it well.

I always thought it used to b both sides of the ball? Didn’t realise it was now full ball 🤯

I never understood this rule either it thought this was snooker not baseball

Can someone explain what exactly is happening here? What is it that led to him being in this situation? It evidently isn't a free ball so what is it?

If the commentators would shut up we'd be able to hear them

High class referee example.

Very well dealt with, I like to see a referee with so much confidence and believe in himself, he knew the rules and didn't question it but also didn't deliver it rudely. I've seen a few referees panick when questioned and doubt themselves and it makes them look awful. Fair play to him.

The utter mailbox ostensibly stitch because year prospectively tumble since a amuck jumper. black, cloistered tie

"the referee" is a man with a name : Ben Williams

Can somebody explain me what the heck happened here???I don’t know this rule!

I don't know much about snooker, only really watch full matches when it's Ronnie... but I have no clue what they're talking about. This was about as clear concrete.

The Ref handled that perfectly. Good humour and confidence in his knowledge.

Refs a great bloke!

Functional two balls are required..that s it

The rule basically supports tactical play. Ronnie is in a position where he is likely to let his opponent straight back in if he hits a red directly. That is good tactical play by his opponent. But Ronnie can get round it by choosing to come off a bunch of cushions instead. The rules kind of say, "that's fine if it is skill, but if you keep missing we will deem you to be relying too much on luck, and you will be penalized by forfeiting the frame". So the rules recognize the skill of your opponent for putting you in that position.
The issue here is: what is meant by "hitting a ball directly". There is one definition if your position has resulted from your opponent committing a foul, and another otherwise. Ronnie was using the wrong one.

How has Ronnie even questioned this? If you can hit a ball (ie not being snookered ) then the 3 miss rule concession counts... this has nothing to do with the free ball rule where you must be able to see the finest cut on both sides of any ball in play... I guess the referee didn’t help by bringing up that other reds don’t count, as that makes no difference whatsoever, the only thing he needs to point out is that if Ronnie can see the finest cut of any single ball in play, then the 3 miss rule is valid

Success and adulation gone this jerk's head now
His behavior is pathetic in almost all tournaments
Great player
Shit human