There is nothing a bit of controversy to get people talking and the now infamous ‘red or pink’ incident from frame 17 of the Shanghai Masters final has certainly done that with the result that the WPBSA have today announced that an inquiry will be launched into the circumstances leading to the eventual decision…
Red or Pink?
The debate has rumbled on and on since the controversial moment during Sunday’s final in Shanghai, on Twitter as well as the various blogs and World Snooker have today acted by announcing that there is to be an inquiry into what appears to be not so much whether it was indeed red or pink, but more the procedure taken when coming to the decision.
WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson told World Snooker:
“”I want to make very clear from the outset that this inquiry is not part of any disciplinary procedure and has no effect on the outcome of the match. Mark Selby is a deserving champion and won the match fair and square. Our rules state that any decision by the referee is final.
“However, through this inquiry we will look to establish tighter guidelines for referees when such difficult decisions need to be made.
“A further statement will be released once the inquiry is complete.”
My first reaction to this is that this is a positive move because whether Eirian’s decision was right or wrong is almost besides the point, it was such a close call that even with the benefit of replays it is difficult to be absolutely sure whether it was red or pink, though I am fairly satisfied that it was red.
The issue here, as I actually alluded to at the time on Twitter was not the decision, but the process that led to it. It would appear from the video that Eirian Williams makes an initial decision of red first, before this is queried by Mark Williams and the decision is reversed which Mark Selby accepts. Subsequently following a review of the TV replays however Eirian rules that it was the red that was struck first.
Could this process be improved? Perhaps, I am not a referee and would not pretend to have the knowledge of matters such as these as them, but from the perspective of a viewer it did come across as somewhat messy.
I think one thing that needs to be considered and clarified across the board at the major televised tournaments is the use of television evidence and when exactly it is and is not available. Taking Sunday’s incident again, initially you can hear the referee explain that the facility was not available to view a replay of the incident, only for them to subsequently to see the replay on an arena monitor. To the viewers at home the procedure was evidently not standard and arguably ran on for longer than it might have.
I have seen other incidents at the Crucible too, take the infamous last 16 match between Martin Gould and Neil Robertson in 2010 where referee Olivier Marteel accidentally picked up the cue ball from the table while Martin was at the table. The most distracting factor however was not the mistake, but the length of time that it took the referee and the marker to get the footage up on the scoreboard in order to replace the cue ball.
Again at the Crucible this time in 2011 I was also at a first-round match where following a shot similar to Selby’s in Shanghai, where this time a foul was called, the referee immediately looked up to his marker to ask for the tape only to be told that it was not available.
The reason that television replays and the ‘Chase Review’ system used in tennis is so successful is because the facility is decisive and allows for a swift resumption of the play which in snooker would be the ideal outcome also.
Now obviously situations such as the Shanghai incident are considerably different as given the footage available and the proximity of the balls, there was to some extent a judgement call to be made by the referee as opposed to a strictly factual one. Whether or not the footage was there straight away I suspect would not have made a difference to Mark Williams’ view of the incident either way and the decision would not have been an instant one.
But overall and to some extent a viewer perspective, it would have presented a greater sense or organisation and ultimately caused less disruption for the player affected, something particularly important in the Gould example listed previously.
Perhaps this is one element that will be considered. What else do you think needs to be considered when reviewing Sunday’s events?
The floor is yours…