Snooker Referees: The Unsung Heroes

Much like one of the very first Short posts on this website looking at ‘Stephen Hendry as a Commentator’ (click here to read that), this is more of an appreciation post for the deceptively difficult role that snooker referees undertake. While there are referees that we are all familiar with, it’s great to see a lot of newcomer referees introduced into the game.

They are aided by technology and a supporting marker (second referee), but referees still require immense focus and concentration. The act of re-spotting colours, announcing player and break scores, ensuring they’re behind the player each shot and keeping switched on in the case of a foul may not seem like a demanding role, but over the course of a match which could last many hours is an impressive feat. All while maintaining a high level of professionalism. If you’re someone who is impatient or has difficulty in maintaining an extended period of concentration, then you can understand how difficult this can be. But I imagine if you’re a snooker viewer, then your patience is pretty good.

Patience and judgement are key characteristics exhibited by referees in a snooker match. They may find themselves in a match where they have to deal with certain players being a little unconventional; or correctly call a foul and a miss which in itself is a fairly controversial ruling. A recent example involved Leo Scullion and Mark Allen at the Scottish Open where Allen unknowingly feathered the cue ball and Scullion had to intervene afterwards.

Even though snooker is a gentlemanly sport, there can be situations where the referee has to be firm and let the player know this. One time that makes me think of this is at the WSC final between Selby and Higgins; Jan Verhaas had to show a steady hand on whether the cue ball touched the black ball upon nestling behind it, even if players may not agree with the decision.

Given that there are more tournaments to be played in a season, there has been a rising exposure to many different referees that are becoming well integrated into the sport. Referees such as Marcel Eckardt and Terry Camilleri who are becoming quite well established and others such as Desislava Bozhilova and Maike Kesseler who are a little more unseen compared to senior referees, are becoming more confident as they gain more exposure in ranking events.

It’s no easy task being a snooker referee, but it’s definitely something that can go under the radar in the grand scheme of a match. When a player is making a century break, their job can seem quite easy but when that isn’t happening, much like the players, the referees have to uphold their concentration as the match progresses; since they are as involved as the players themselves.

Are Best-Of-7 Matches Too Short?

It’s an age old question which still rings true to this day but is there something to say about the length of these matches? It’s a format which populates a vast majority of the tournaments in a season but is it something that should be altered or does it have a place in the game?

These short format ‘sprints’ came to the scene mainly after Barry Hearn took over the commercial arm of snooker. These shorter format matches are effectively what can allow all of these tournaments to take place and in such a tightly packed schedule.

The main criticism that come with these matches are that it doesn’t give enough time for a player to get into the game. Combined with the flat-128 draw that is associated with a lot of these tournaments can result in some shocking early round results, more often than not.

Also, a first-to-4 may not show the true representation of what could happen in a match, as compared to a first-to-6. Kyren Wilson was on the receiving end of a couple of these; most notably when he was 5-1 up against O’Sullivan in the Shanghai Masters and 4-1 up against Un-Nooh in the World Open, yet he still lost to both these competitors in the best-of-11 format. If it were a best-of-7, it would have resulted in dominant victories for Wilson, but the complexion of the match was significantly changed as it was a best-of-11. The best-of-11 is what seems to be the reasonable compromise for the early rounds of these events.

Another common issue is the playing conditions that come with these shorter style matches. As these matches often occur in qualifying rounds which all players are required to go through, this is something that should be looked at. Considering the money available to snooker is increasing as time progresses, some should trickle back down to improving these conditions for the players.

This shorter format will better suit certain players as opposed to a longer, drawn out tournament. But many say that a player isn’t really tested until they battle it out over a considerable number of frames. I think for certain tournaments it might be suitable, such as quick, non-ranking events like the Paul Hunter Classic, in which the final is contested in a best-of-7. A general guide could be the higher the prize money for an event, the more frames that should be contested.

I think best-of-7’s are okay for qualifying rounds for tournaments but once most of these tournaments commence, a best-of-11 is a better early round format. At the time of writing, the Champion of Champions is taking place which involves 16 of the top winners starting with a best-of-7. When dealing with the higher level players, this should be changed to a best-of-11 because I think it would provide a better match.

How Competitive is Snooker Right Now?

This week’s Masters has seen a significant number of its higher seeds defeated in their first round matches where, despite being highly ranked, they are beaten by those considered underdogs in comparison. Previously, it could be fairly accurately determined as to which player would win in a head-to-head but nowadays given how high the standard has become, it’s not so simple anymore.

When Shaun Murphy triumphed over Judd Trump in their Round 1 match this past week, he says the reason that he and others like Perry and Gilbert succeeded in their respective matches was due to how close the gap between rankings have become. Murphy was stating that the difference in skillset and match-play between ranks 1-16, and even beyond have become far slimmer.

This makes it very difficult to predict a winner in any given contest. Looking at Perry vs Ding; based on their head-to-head, rankings and Ding’s recent success, it would seem like one-way traffic. But nowadays, you can’t write off any competitor because shock results can happen at any time. Gilbert, who was the underdog in his match against Allen performed as if there was a role reversal – in his Masters debut! Perhaps this is something that has happened because it is the Masters where the standard is higher than any other tournament; but it’s not just limited to this event.

That’s why the next few years in snooker will be really interesting. Despite his recent minor dry spell, Trump has done very well to dominate in this season thus far. But with the number of tournaments there are, a number which seems to be increasing, is why we probably won’t see one particular face going forward like a Hendry or Davis. Where a player could probably begin a tournament with a couple of easy rounds to cruise through, there’s a high chance that some top seeds can crash out in a best-of-7 straight from the offset.

O’Sullivan also mentioned in an interview after Murphy’s win about the closeness in rankings where there aren’t necessarily any players anymore that are significantly better than the rest. Any player can beat a top seed on any day. He eluded that Hendry was able to get away with this because he was miles ahead of everyone else in the 90s so he could afford to play at 50% and cruise ahead. However, this isn’t something any player could get away with now because anyone, including those at the very top can be toppled. And things will only get more competitive and the gap will continue to close as time goes on.

Five Players You May Not Know Won The Masters

As the Masters progresses this year, I thought I would look back at some of the former winners of this prestigious event; some that may have been forgotten in time and once held this great Triple Crown. This can quite easily happen since this tournament has more multiple time winners than any other event.

Alan McManus (1994)

After turning professional in 1990, McManus’ most notable success came at the Masters in 1994 where he couldn’t have faced tougher opposition. Hendry had won the previous 5 Masters prior to their contest and had already built a 7-5 lead. McManus didn’t stumble though as the 23 y/o fought to a decider before winning his first and only Triple Crown title...so far.

Dennis Taylor (1987)

Following his memorable, late night win at the World Championship in 1985, Taylor decided that he would want to win his one and only Masters trophy in a similar fashion. Taylor battled Alex Higgins from 8-5 down to clinch four frames in a row to win in yet another deciding frame. Who would have thought that it would take over 30 years before a player from Northern Ireland would win another Triple Crown title?

Perrie Mans (1979)

South African Pot Black winner in 1977, Perrie Mans defeated Cliff Thorburn, Ray Reardon as well as Alex Higgins to win the Masters in 1979. What an impressive list of players to beat to achieve his most noteworthy victory. He also made the WSC final in 1978 where he lost out to Reardon 25-18.

Terry Griffiths (1980)

World Champion in 1979, Griffiths did well to follow up this win to claim his second Triple Crown. He beat Alex Higgins (that’s happened a few times) as well as John Spencer and Cliff Thorburn. Griffiths made the Masters final a further three times following his success in 1980 but wasn’t able to add to his collection.

Matthew Stevens (2000)

Requiring the World Championship to complete the Triple Crown, 2003 UK Championship winner ran through a distinguished list of competitors to succeed at the Masters in 2000 where he won his first Triple Crown. He defeated the defending champion, Higgins (John, not Alex - phew) as well as 1997 WSC winner Ken Doherty in the final. This was also the match where Doherty attempted that maximum break…you know which one.

Who has been your favourite Masters winner since the tournament commenced in 1975? Who do you think will succeed this week? Let me know what you think!