In snooker, it is a foul to jump over any part of an obstructing ball, period. That is why you don't see jump shots, only kicks and swerves. You could hypothetically jump the white over nothing to pocket a ball on the other side of the table in order to maximize spin if you didn't trust your cue action, but that would be very difficult and unnecessarily risky. You would have to strike down onto the cue ball, as in pool.
I just watched that match you mentioned. you can actually hear the miscue. That sound sticks out. He was probably trying to put some backspin on the cue ball and didn't quite execute it correctly.
Decision was correct (though I don't fully understand the bit about it hitting the front half of the pink ball not being a foul, vs if it had hit the back half of the pink ball, it would have been a foul). Can anyone explain that part to me? I think it means that if the cue ball hit the front half of the pink on it's way down, the cue ball would be considered to have jumped over the pink ball (which would have been a foul).
It's clear (at least to me) what his shot was going to be. It was obvious he wasn't trying to actually jump the pink with the cue ball. He was shooting the cue ball at the pink. There was nothing past the pink ball anyway which he could have played, thus, zero reason to jump the pink.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, it's here:
Is There any Form of Legal Jump Shot in Snooker?
Title: Is There any Form of Legal Jump Shot in Snooker?