Was the Ref right ??

[Ramon]

After player's request, The Ref refuses to clean the red!!

1-Why not?
2-was his decision correct?

Heard Lots of diff opinions about this matter.

[Ramon]

Just to add ,

The commentators are not agree with his decision , Neither do I .

[DeanH]

sec 3.2(c) ...a ball in play may only be cleaned by the referee upon reasonable request by the striker...
I am sure Chamberlain thought that because of the position of the red being positioned through a tight avenue through three balls, any movement by a clean may either give Selby the advantage of a millimetre or two to make the shot easier or that the cleaning may put Selby in a worst situation a millimetre or two the wrong way. Only fair not to make a bad situation worse
He looked at the red to see if there was any obvious dust or hair, he did not so did not clean the ball.
Also, maybe in the match Selby had already asked for balls to be cleaned many times and Chamberlain had had enough so the request was not "reasonable" :biggrin:
My vote is - he was correct

ps - I played it silent so only visual, no commentary

[rimmer10]

I remember that occasion. Apparently he had the right to refuse it cause there was no dirt on the contact point. Never liked Chamberlain though, glad he's gone.

[Ramon]

Respect for Selby, tbh.
If I was the player, I would certainly
protest .
The Red was totally free. I do'nt see a single reason why the ref should'nt do it.

[DeanH]

"totally free"? maybe that it was not surrounded by other balls but the direct line from cue ball was through a tight line by the blue, pink, and yellow, that to me made the decision to not clean the ball right.
there you go, a single reason of a maybe why not to... :wink:

[Ramon]

"totally free"? maybe that it was not surrounded by other balls but the direct line from cue ball was through a tight line by the blue, pink, and yellow, that to me made the decision to not clean the ball right.
there you go, a single reason of a maybe why not to... :wink:

SO ???

Com on Dean !!
You can'nt be serious !!

He's gonna put the ball back on it's spot , right ?

anyway , it's your opinion .


My vote NOT correct !!

curious what others have to say.
Maybe I'm crazy, after all !!

[rimmer10]

SO ???

Com on Dean !!
You can'nt be serious !!

He's gonna put the ball back on it's spot , right ?

anyway , it's your opinion .


My vote NOT correct !!

curious what others have to say.
Maybe I'm crazy, after all !!

Was it within his right to refuse? Yes
Was is sporting to refuse? That's a different story.

[Cue crafty]

sec 3.2(c) ...a ball in play may only be cleaned by the referee upon reasonable request by the striker...
I am sure Chamberlain thought that because of the position of the red being positioned through a tight avenue through three balls, any movement by a clean may either give Selby the advantage of a millimetre or two to make the shot easier or that the cleaning may put Selby in a worst situation a millimetre or two the wrong way. Only fair not to make a bad situation worse
He looked at the red to see if there was any obvious dust or hair, he did not so did not clean the ball.
Also, maybe in the match Selby had already asked for balls to be cleaned many times and Chamberlain had had enough so the request was not "reasonable" :biggrin:
My vote is - he was correct

ps - I played it silent so only visual, no commentary

Circumstance is everything in these situations. I don't think you can call it unless you watch the match. Can't help feeling the ref thought the asking player was looking for an advantage no matter how slight, a refs job is not as easy as simply applying the rules, his gut feel and subjective view of all components are key.

At best this posts question is 50/50 based on opinions on this....so Great post Ramon.

[Ramon]

Was it within his right to refuse? Yes
Was is sporting to refuse? That's a different story.

Thanks ,

Was it ?
I wonder what is the rule regarding that part !!
As far as i know , He's allowed to refuse if he is unable to re-spot the ball back on it's spot.


If a player asks for a ball to be cleaned, the ref is supposed to clean it !! JV and Thorne! and Hallett on Eurosport couldn't believe it either .

[Ramon]

Circumstance is everything in these situations. I don't think you can call it unless you watch the match. Can't help feeling the ref thought the asking player was looking for an advantage no matter how slight, a refs job is not as easy as simply applying the rules, his gut feel and subjective view of all components are key.

At best this posts question is 50/50 based on opinions on this....so Great post Ramon.

Cheers ,

My primary confusion ( and concern ) here is,

He was able to re-spot the ball back exact on it's spot.
Why did'nt he ?
I can'nt think a thing of ,tbh .

[rimmer10]

Thanks ,

Was it ?
I wonder what is the rule regarding that part !!
As far as i know , He's allowed to refuse if he is unable to re-spot the ball back on it's spot.


If a player asks for a ball to be cleaned, the ref is supposed to clean it !! JV and Thorne! and Hallett on Eurosport couldn't believe it either .

I think this was more of a case of Chamberlain being a d...head tbh

[Cue crafty]

Cheers ,

My primary confusion ( and concern ) here is,

He was able to re-spot the ball back exact on it's spot.
Why did'nt he ?
I can'nt think a thing of ,tbh .

So for me, this was a very important point in the frame and match. Deans quality knowledge of the rule states reasonable request of the player. If the ref felt in this crucial point of the frame and match that it was not reasonable and the minute chance that he may "flinch" and move the ball which even with video assistance might be a few mm out, that is good reason to refuse.

At your best here Ramon 😎 Quality.

[Londonlad147]

The referee may accede to a 'reasonable' request to have a ball cleaned. However, when the position of the ball is absolutely crucial, as here, then it is perfectly reasonable for the referee to refuse, as Dean has said. Particularly when there's no obvious dirt on the ball.

To those saying 'it'll go exactly on it's spot', well, ball markers are not 100% accurate. They do a very good job, but there is margin for referee error: balls can and often do roll a little as you lift your finger and it is easy with some of the lighter markers to actually move the marker a fraction. The risk of the ball being a millimetre out here is not worth the advantage or disadvantage that Selby might have gained.

In summary, Chamberlain was 100% right to refuse the request.

[Londonlad147]

Was it ?
I wonder what is the rule regarding that part !!
As far as i know , He's allowed to refuse if he is unable to re-spot the ball back on it's spot.


If a player asks for a ball to be cleaned, the ref is supposed to clean it !! JV and Thorne! and Hallett on Eurosport couldn't believe it either .

The referee is not supposed to agree to clean a ball on every request, only a 'reasonable request'. Whilst that is not defined in the rules, that is usually accepted to mean where position is absolutely crucial, or where placing a ball marker would be particularly difficult (eg sone or more other balls would have to be moved to easily lift the ball.

Really not sure what you mean about only when the referee is unable to re-spot the ball on its spot. Reds, for example don't have spots. If by 'its spot' you mean its original position then a ball can always be placed very closely on its original spot, even if it means moving other balls (which is why most refs will carry two or more markers). However, there is no guarantee that a ball, once replaced will be in EXACTLY the same position. Most of the time a millimetre isn't going to make any difference, but where the position is critical, then the referee is within his rights to refuse.