I don’t understand Ken’s point at all. This is not a stalemate situation. Yes, you might not like to watch this type of snooker (even though personally I find it intriguing) but that doesn’t mean it is a stalemate and the ref needs to step in. Eventually the pink would’ve been potted, however long that might’ve taken. Suggesting that Holt should play a deliberate foul is very questionable.
Ken reccomending a deliberate foul was concerning and Mr Wilson harassing the referee was equally questionable. Michael Holt behaved with professionalism, humour and class in my opinion. He win the frame well after the re rack.
Wow, I just got to that point and am gobsmacked, even as a Yank... Lose points on purpose to help your opponent for the sake of what, not being boring or too long a frame? Get bent, fella! EDIT - Holy crap, he didn't just suggest it ONCE, but multiple times??? Wow. The onus is on the ref to advance the frame at this point at BEST.
I think from a point of view of "avoiding the re-rack and maintaining his point advantage in that frame", it's true that Holt knocking the pink in and trying to avoid leaving a red on was the only way to achieve that. Having said that, the game shouldn't reward players for intentionally playing incorrectly, and the ruling around deliberate fouls ensure that it doesn't. A well-known and respected personality within the game shouldn't be suggesting on national TV that a player commit a foul on purpose. Wilson played more or less the same shot many times in a row in a period of about 10 minutes, and Holt was doing similarly. The issue with Wilson isn't THAT he was asking, it was HOW he was asking - questioning what the time has to do with it, for example. He's a hot-headed guy, 4-1 down and in a situation that was going nowhere - if anything, I'm surprised he wasn't more animated. Holt did everything correctly here - he tried to progress the frame and was understanding that it was on him to do so given his lead, yet as soon as he couldn't play a shot to return to the baulk end he forfeited his 35 point lead by offering a re-rack. Obviously, it's easy to do something like this when you're 4-1 up - but some players definitely wouldn't have done this.
I wouldn't say he was harassing the ref personally, but he was definitely starting to get frustrated. However I think the ref should have been more commanding, the stalemate shouldn't have lasted that long
Gary was bang out of order. It's the referees decision how long it goes on for and he certainly isn't obligated to say how long it should go on for. If he was so desperate for a resolution he should have knocked the pink. Holty should never have given him the re rack as he had a handy lead and Wilson was on the ropes
Fairplay to Michael Holt who didn’t really need a sacrifices relatively big lead but having that for one advantage made him think otherwise fair play to him Gary Wilson stop your whining and get on with it.
Could someone explain why the commentator kept suggesting that it was to Hold's advantage to foul pot the pink? If he did the Wilson would have a clear run at the reds.
Gary Wilson seems a little like a moaning minnie. Delighted Holt won the frame and the match. Chose to be the bigger man and got his just rewards. Ken's commentary was painful
Many frames go much longer than this, there was no need to stop it there. It's not true that it was not going anywhere. What a poor decision to rerack!
It was a difficult situation for the referee who clearly didn't want to decide on his own back. Gary clearly wanted the rerack but Michael didn't due to his lead and he was trying to find a snooker. Michael only gave in when it was clear he was never going to get back to the baulk which is right. Ken was the disappointment for me suggesting to foul deliberately. That's not the right spirit at all.
Watching this… wish Ken would just shut up. This is intriguing fascinating stuff that you don’t get to usually see. I’m engrossed. Eventually something will give and the pink will get potted by accident. Wilson started fouling repeatedly, so it was evolving all the time anyway. Patience.
It's not intriguing, it's boring and looks like it could go on another bit. The ref let it go on too long. In the end, it was a re rack so Ken was right.
Really interesting stuff to a 'snooker' to snooker like myself! I've only been watching a few years, and a frame like this poses questions and rules I don't regularly get to see.
Poor sportmanship from Gary Wilson! Harrassing the ref to re-rack because he's an age behind in the frame and not in control of the safety exchange! I wonder if his decision to re-rack would have been as forthcoming had the points been carried over?!?
Can't tell but was Holt agreeing to an re-rack at the time Wilson suggested because if so, the referee should of accepted it as both players agreed. If not then the referee is in a very difficult position given Holt's lead in the frame. As Ken says, it's down to Holt to put Wilson in such a telling safety so he had to hit the shot harder to hit the reds which may of potted the pink.
I think Michael should have definitely just nudged the pink in there. He had a big lead and if Gary broke the reds up far and wide he wouldn't be guaranteed to be on a colour
Gary Wilson out of order for me. Does he understand its a spectators sport? If its boring, no one watches it? Imo Holt should’ve potted the pink and left Wilson awkwardly on the next red too
Yes, but it's unlikely that other player would agree to a rerack when they are 40 or so points in front. 99% of the time reracks occur at the beginning of the frame when the payers are pretty much level on points.
Snooker rules are in the dark ages they need to bring the game on to suit all the attacking play that you see now. No one wants to pay for a ticket and watch half an hour of this, cruel on the player leading the frame that you have to concede your lead because it’s going nowhere.
The score was 36-9, IMO there is no lead to protect! Sure if I was playing a mate down the club on a Sunday afternoon, that's a tidy lead. But at this level any lead under 60-70 isn't a lead - it's just one visit to the table away from defeat.
I agree nobody wants to see this going on that long. But I don’t think they need to change anything. The referee should’ve stepped in much earlier, and the current rules allow for that.
The score was 36-9, IMO there is no lead to protect! Sure, if I was playing a mate down the club on a Sunday afternoon, that's a tidy lead. But at this level any lead under 60-70 isn't a lead - it's just one visit to the table away from defeat.
Snooker’s outdated rules lag behind modern demands, making it slower compared to other cue sports. It consumes excessive viewer and broadcaster time. Adopting a "ball in hand" rule for fouls, similar to the Shoot Out but without the time clock, could modernize and streamline the game.
why is everyone in such a hurry these days?
I don’t understand Ken’s point at all. This is not a stalemate situation. Yes, you might not like to watch this type of snooker (even though personally I find it intriguing) but that doesn’t mean it is a stalemate and the ref needs to step in. Eventually the pink would’ve been potted, however long that might’ve taken. Suggesting that Holt should play a deliberate foul is very questionable.
Ken reccomending a deliberate foul was concerning and Mr Wilson harassing the referee was equally questionable. Michael Holt behaved with professionalism, humour and class in my opinion. He win the frame well after the re rack.
Wow, I just got to that point and am gobsmacked, even as a Yank... Lose points on purpose to help your opponent for the sake of what, not being boring or too long a frame? Get bent, fella! EDIT - Holy crap, he didn't just suggest it ONCE, but multiple times??? Wow. The onus is on the ref to advance the frame at this point at BEST.
Ken’s comments were annoying!
I think from a point of view of "avoiding the re-rack and maintaining his point advantage in that frame", it's true that Holt knocking the pink in and trying to avoid leaving a red on was the only way to achieve that. Having said that, the game shouldn't reward players for intentionally playing incorrectly, and the ruling around deliberate fouls ensure that it doesn't. A well-known and respected personality within the game shouldn't be suggesting on national TV that a player commit a foul on purpose.
Wilson played more or less the same shot many times in a row in a period of about 10 minutes, and Holt was doing similarly. The issue with Wilson isn't THAT he was asking, it was HOW he was asking - questioning what the time has to do with it, for example. He's a hot-headed guy, 4-1 down and in a situation that was going nowhere - if anything, I'm surprised he wasn't more animated.
Holt did everything correctly here - he tried to progress the frame and was understanding that it was on him to do so given his lead, yet as soon as he couldn't play a shot to return to the baulk end he forfeited his 35 point lead by offering a re-rack. Obviously, it's easy to do something like this when you're 4-1 up - but some players definitely wouldn't have done this.
I wouldn't say he was harassing the ref personally, but he was definitely starting to get frustrated. However I think the ref should have been more commanding, the stalemate shouldn't have lasted that long
@@VoiceOfTheKen was on point.
Gary was bang out of order. It's the referees decision how long it goes on for and he certainly isn't obligated to say how long it should go on for. If he was so desperate for a resolution he should have knocked the pink. Holty should never have given him the re rack as he had a handy lead and Wilson was on the ropes
Fair play to Michael there, totally see his point, he was well ahead in the frame, not like it was close.
Fairplay to Michael Holt who didn’t really need a sacrifices relatively big lead but having that for one advantage made him think otherwise fair play to him Gary Wilson stop your whining and get on with it.
Could someone explain why the commentator kept suggesting that it was to Hold's advantage to foul pot the pink?
If he did the Wilson would have a clear run at the reds.
what a great performance by holt !! Bravo !!
Odd frame, congratulations to Michael, having a great tournament, welcome back to the tour.
Should never be a re-rack after 9 reds have been potted. That is not snooker.
Sorry Gary you would of done the same thing in michaels shoes
Gary Wilson seems a little like a moaning minnie. Delighted Holt won the frame and the match. Chose to be the bigger man and got his just rewards. Ken's commentary was painful
Many frames go much longer than this, there was no need to stop it there. It's not true that it was not going anywhere. What a poor decision to rerack!
It was a difficult situation for the referee who clearly didn't want to decide on his own back. Gary clearly wanted the rerack but Michael didn't due to his lead and he was trying to find a snooker. Michael only gave in when it was clear he was never going to get back to the baulk which is right.
Ken was the disappointment for me suggesting to foul deliberately. That's not the right spirit at all.
Mr Doherty encouraging a player to foul on purpose?
He was 35 points up in a good position I would’ve been slightly peeved too
2:25 - Class safety, that.
2:50 - Equally class return to be fair.
Watching this… wish Ken would just shut up. This is intriguing fascinating stuff that you don’t get to usually see. I’m engrossed. Eventually something will give and the pink will get potted by accident. Wilson started fouling repeatedly, so it was evolving all the time anyway.
Patience.
Ken is paid to talk not keep quite.
It's not intriguing, it's boring and looks like it could go on another bit. The ref let it go on too long. In the end, it was a re rack so Ken was right.
Exactly. They seem to be pushing the skill out of the game.
Really interesting stuff to a 'snooker' to snooker like myself! I've only been watching a few years, and a frame like this poses questions and rules I don't regularly get to see.
Agreed it's these type of matches that keep us in suspense and if you are winning on points only right you want to carry on
Poor sportmanship from Gary Wilson! Harrassing the ref to re-rack because he's an age behind in the frame and not in control of the safety exchange!
I wonder if his decision to re-rack would have been as forthcoming had the points been carried over?!?
Best frame of snooker.
Fair play to holt for giving up a lead to re rack he didn’t have to say it first
Holt should have been more attacking and keep clipping reds into the open. Wilson was quite happy to combine the reds
The referee keeps saying “don’t worry.” That’s not an answer.
@johnsrabe he is not obligated to give an answer. Just a decision.
He doesn't have to answer anything
Agree. Such poor refereeing there. Acted with no assurance. Even Holt could see it. Fair play to him or we’d probably still be there the now.
Missed out “be happy”
Way to over dramatize the title.
Yeah, shut up Ken
Ref was useless. Time is not a factor
Can't tell but was Holt agreeing to an re-rack at the time Wilson suggested because if so, the referee should of accepted it as both players agreed.
If not then the referee is in a very difficult position given Holt's lead in the frame. As Ken says, it's down to Holt to put Wilson in such a telling safety so he had to hit the shot harder to hit the reds which may of potted the pink.
Oy tink ken tret dat frame like we are ejits so we are.
❤🎉😮
I think Michael should have definitely just nudged the pink in there. He had a big lead and if Gary broke the reds up far and wide he wouldn't be guaranteed to be on a colour
"I'm keeping time". The amount of times he kept saying that was so jarring. Surely the ref should just take charge of the situation at that point.
Gary Wilson out of order for me. Does he understand its a spectators sport? If its boring, no one watches it?
Imo Holt should’ve potted the pink and left Wilson awkwardly on the next red too
I blame the ref, he handled that poorly. Terry is one of the worst on Tour in general and today we got another reason why.
Agreed, really poor weak refereeing, should have stepped in a lot sooner.
Wth? Isn't that the exact type of situation reracks are for??
Yes but look at the score. It's easy to rerack when both scores are low or even or both. Hard to allow a rerack with a 27 point lead
Yes, but Holt did not want to give away his lead in points.
Yes, but it's unlikely that other player would agree to a rerack when they are 40 or so points in front. 99% of the time reracks occur at the beginning of the frame when the payers are pretty much level on points.
Seriously why the women commentating? No thanks 😂😂😂
Snooker rules are in the dark ages they need to bring the game on to suit all the attacking play that you see now.
No one wants to pay for a ticket and watch half an hour of this, cruel on the player leading the frame that you have to concede your lead because it’s going nowhere.
Should never have been a re-rack. Play snooker and that means things like this happen. If you want non stop potting then watch pool.
I would love to see half hour of this.
The score was 36-9, IMO there is no lead to protect! Sure if I was playing a mate down the club on a Sunday afternoon, that's a tidy lead. But at this level any lead under 60-70 isn't a lead - it's just one visit to the table away from defeat.
I agree nobody wants to see this going on that long. But I don’t think they need to change anything. The referee should’ve stepped in much earlier, and the current rules allow for that.
let's see how many views this video gets before you make that sweeping statement...snooker is a game of quirks, and I enjoyed watching this ;)
This is why people think snooker is boring😢
The score was 36-9, IMO there is no lead to protect! Sure, if I was playing a mate down the club on a Sunday afternoon, that's a tidy lead. But at this level any lead under 60-70 isn't a lead - it's just one visit to the table away from defeat.
She shouldn't be commentating she's not a player just a podcaster where's Denis?
Ffs.. woman commentator. Another sport il have to mute.
Just re-rack. What a waste of time. We all want to see tactical snooker, but that circumstance is a re-rack all day long.
Snooker’s outdated rules lag behind modern demands, making it slower compared to other cue sports. It consumes excessive viewer and broadcaster time. Adopting a "ball in hand" rule for fouls, similar to the Shoot Out but without the time clock, could modernize and streamline the game.