Rule changing to increase entertainment

First off, I'm biased to some extent because I'm a player first, spectator second. As such I favor the rules of play as they are and believe changing the rules to make the game more entertaining for the spectators is a mistake.

This is a sport, first and foremost and the goal is to win. Does anyone out there really think players are worried if they look good while winning? Really?

If you answered yes then please name me another sport where the player's primary concern is looking good. Name me a single coach who after a loss said "at least they looked good".

Could you imagine telling a golfer the rule's changed, he's not allowed to lay up, he has to try and hit his 3 wood 295 over water, into the wind, with only a 10x10 island green for a target....because it'll be entertaining.

If we consider implementing a rule that forces a player into a tactically wrong shot that could cost them the match it's wrong.

I've seen some suggest changes to stop the roll up shot so let's examine that for a second......

When the roll up shot was more commonly played (pre 90's) players were far less prone to win a frame in one visit. Now that the shot is much rarer and we've got a standard of play where every player is capable of killing a frame in one visit you want to remove that defensive shot? In the name of spectator amusement?

Safety is part of this game and we just have to accept it in every form. Now and then there will be slow matches and fans just have to deal with it, not try to change it to suit their own selfish view of entertainment.

Snooker is a beautiful game in so many ways, not least of which is the wide variety in playing styles. Changing the rules to favor one style over another can have no other end result but a bunch of carbon copy players all playing the same game.

Where's the entertainment in that?

But hey, I'm biased

Very well put.
On this peice "could you imagine telling a golfer the rule's changed, he's not allowed to lay up, he has to try and hit his 3 wood 295 over water" Yeah, 1. A couple of players spring to mind who I'd like to tell. Davis Love 3 3/4's being one & 2. Yeah, why not? I can't do it so I'd like to see one player do it!
Hope you're well too bud.

Passionate words.

Ray Reardon said in the feature on him on BBC2 Wales during the Welsh Open final that in todays game ok with the better conditions it may be easier to score heavier and win frames in one visit, but that makes it harder to defend. If you're playing Judd Trump and pot a shot to nothing with reds nicely spread and you land just past the baulk line and you're not on a colour and suddenly you're not allowed to play the roll up shot because of some stupid "rule advancement", then you're immediately at a disadvantage and being punished for hitting a shot 99% right. With the roll up shot you can rightly take advantage of your good shot and keep your opponent under pressure.

As Rory McLeod said, it's called snooker, it's not called potting. Snooker is a tactical game with one aim being to try to stop your opponent from potting balls!

During the Welsh Open there was a period where one of the tables was incredibly slow. It was slow by club table standards. The players struggled massively, the deep screw shots and a lot of positional shots were not available to them. I've seen it said that the cloths are too fast and need slowing down. That's complete nonsense, the players know what they're talking about more than the armchair critics on this subject and they want faster, if they remained as slow as on that Welsh Open table then it would be far less a spectacle and far more frustrating to watch knowing what we know about what shots are the right shots to play.

The biggest load of nonsense in all of this though is the shot clock. Defensive or more careful players will take the immediate negative option rather than be rushed into a missed pot. This means that overall the shot clock encourages negative snooker. It also encourages bad snooker because obviously a hell of a lot of shots are not thought through so not all options have been considered. I've heard Willie Thorne say in commentary that the shot clock doesn't make a difference because the first shot you look at is the right one. I burst out laughing, I'm sure I don't need to point out what an idiotic remark this is. In fact WT is the only ex-player I've heard come out in favour of the shot clock. Enough said.

When the shot clock is in operation, the top players make a fair amount of century breaks as they do under normal conditions. But when they are playing under normal conditions the century break doesn't take any longer because in order to make a century break you need to have control of the cue ball and when you have control of the cue ball you already know your next shot so you're generally going to get down and play it in 10 to 15 seconds. When the frame becomes tactical, that's where the shot clock comes in and ruins it. It kills any tension, it takes away any importance that match may have had and turns it into a farce. Of course if it's a circus event put on for entertainment purposes (Shoot-out) and not a serious sport such as a ranking event then it doesn't matter as the result isn't more important than the people attending having a good time. That's when the shot clock has a place, and a 15 or 20 second shot clock at that.

Mark Selby demonstrated in the Power Snooker event that tacticians will always find a way to buck the trend. In one of his matches he had a healthy lead and knowing his opponent had the break in the next frame he guarded his lead by keeping the brown on the table for I think 10 minutes. He played within the rules and although he got some boos for "not entering into the spirit" he proved his point by winning the match. After all, that's the point in turning up and playing and the reason why the prize money increases round by round in every event so why would you want to lose a winning advantage in order to play "in the intended spirit"?

The reason someone from Sky decided to bring in a shot clock to snooker is because whoever did it wasn't a fan of the sport and perceived it as "slow and boring, but I like Ronnie O'Sullivan". So by that logic if we reduce the amount of time players can think over a shot then we can have everyone playing like Ronnie O'Sullivan and it will be better. No, what you get is top players playing to a high standard on television because they're top players (we've not seen a shot clock with lower ranked players or amateurs have we?) but playing incorrect shots because of time pressure and producing a lower quality of snooker as a result. We've seen Marco Fu in the premier league struggling with the shot clock so much he's managed to get frames to last much longer than without a shot clock and we've seen many occasions where a player takes the less attacking option due to the time constraints and not wanting to be rushed into something they would rather not take on without assessing the situation so over all with a shot clock you get a more negative brand of snooker.

One thing that will always happen with snooker at all levels is that the quick-fire exciting naturally talented players that everyone loves to watch will get tied up by the matchplayers. That's always been the case and it will always be the case no matter what you do with the rules. And as far as rules are concerned, everyone knows where they are with them, everyone understands them (even if some pretend not to understand the miss rule) and it's a level playing field. It is not up to some bigwig working for Skysports to decide they think snooker needs "spicing up" and therefore that they are in a position to change the rules to suit their needs.

I wont quote that Sonny, kind of long. But interesting points.

I think you're spot on though. Shot Clock does speed up shots, but not frames. If anything it encourages mistakes, it doesn't encourage fast play. And I liked the example with Selby. A player's natural game is their natural game. Coming up with absurd rule changes isn't going to make a player faster or more attacking just by magic.

Can't argue with that can you Witzybaby?

It's already easy enough for the attacking players to score heavily against the more tactical players. They don't need it even easier. Anyway if everyone was fast and attacking, the game would become boring as all the players were the same. If you change the rules the tactical players will adapt. Maybe the entertaining players should become better instead of waiting for a rule change, so that they can beat the tactical players.

PS Sonny you've been holding in that rant for ages haven't you?

Sonny wrote:Can't argue with that can you Witzybaby?

Don't encourage him.

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:Can't argue with that can you Witzybaby?

Don't encourage him.

hmm funny you should say that...................

nah its a Saturday and ive better things to do, like hit the pub in 50 mins.....er, make that 49

i'll apologise in advance for any spelling errors in my drunken 3am response to this "debate"

To touch on Sonny's shot clock comments - it works with certain players in the PL because they are at the very top of the game. However if you were to open it up to a ranking event - 128 players then it would be a different story. Not all those players could cope, in fact as proven in the PL, the majority wouldn't.

Take Mark Allen as an example - a quick player with a quick cue action but he has performed terribly with the shot clock in the shoot out and power snooker.

These formats are good for light entertainment, I am sure power snooker and Blackpool were great events to attend. They are not serious events though and never will be with these silly gimmicks.

The true test of how snooker is flourishing is new tournaments in China, Germany, Australia and India - all these events are growing under the traditional rules. These Country's are not asking for gimmicks. Enough said.

Casey wrote:To touch on Sonny's shot clock comments - it works with certain players in the PL because they are at the very top of the game. However if you were to open it up to a ranking event - 128 players then it would be a different story. Not all those players could cope, in fact as proven in the PL, the majority wouldn't.

Take Mark Allen as an example - a quick player with a quick cue action but he has performed terribly with the shot clock in the shoot out and power snooker.

These formats are good for light entertainment, I am sure power snooker and Blackpool were great events to attend. They are not serious events though and never will be with these silly gimmicks.

The true test of how snooker is flourishing is new tournaments in China, Germany, Australia and India - all these events are growing under the traditional rules. These Country's are not asking for gimmicks. Enough said.

Were they great events to attend because of the snooker or because everyone was completely snake hissed?

The entertainers get the fans, the women and the adulation, the matchplayers get the titles. Both are winners in their own way, when you get a hybrid like your Ronnies and Hunters and Judds, that puts them on another level. They didn't need the help of rule changes in order to achieve what they have.

A lot of sports have changed rules in the past to make the game better to watch. Football banned keepers from picking up backpasses 20 years ago because it was causing a lot of negative play. So it's not like Snooker is the only sport where these things happen. I can't think of anything wrong with the rules myself so theres nothing I would change. The main problem is the qualifiers system which squuezes out any young players natural flair by putting them into an endless sludge of grinding sessions against journeymen. But it looks like that will be changing soon.

Ok … a few cents. ;)

1. The shot clock was never introduced with the purpose to "punish" the slow players or to turn them all into "Ronnie clones". No. The simple fact is that, originally, it was introduced as an attempt to better control the length of the frames for broadcasting purpose. Of course that didn't work in all cases but that was the goal. Nothing else, nothing more.
2. The shot clock doesn't kill tactical play neither and Sonny himself - à son corps défendant I'm sure - is giving the evidence by highlighting how Selby's tactical nous made use of the time constraint to win the game. Shot clock snooker is just a different game, like blitz chess is different from chess or duplicate scrabble is different from the usual scrabble. No you don't have the time to consider all options, but then your opponent doesn't have it neither and you know it. We have seen how some players in the PL and the shootout make tactical use of the time constraints - Ronnie and Selby are both masters at it. The "right" shot under time constraint might not be the "perfect" shot but if it puts the opponent under huge pressure it's still the right shot in the context. Similarly if the rules were to change - which I'm NOT asking for because I don't see why they should change - and were more pool like it wouldn't kill the tactical side neither, it would just lead the ones with a tactical nous to change their tactics. World rules 8-balls is one of the most tactical games you can play and just rolling behind a ball is not permitted. Players defend differently. That's all.
3. So I don't see why the "shot-clock" bashing. You don't like it, don't watch it. Simple. Where I agree though is that introducing the shot-clock to remedy to "slow play" is wrong. The rules are clear that unnecessary slow play is ungentlemanly conduct and that the players who resort to it should be warned and/or punished by docking frame or match in case of repeated infringement. It would be enough that they were applied. This is nothing new, it has been in the rules for ages. Let's just apply it. We all know who the players are who do it. So surely do the refs.
4. Finally about entertainment. Any sport needs resources to be run properly. Those resources come through the paying audience, the sponsoring (and they rely on an audience so that their products get max promotion) and the broadcasters (and again they rely on the audience). Now the audience comes to watch sports mainly for entertainment. Now "entertainment" of course is not just about "looking good" even less about "being fast". It's a mixture of thrill, drama, tension, skills and more. But entertainment IS essential and those who don't see it are deluded. I don't see why snooker should change its rules but other sports have done it under various pressures. So this situation is not unique to snooker. Table tennis for instance has changed its competitive format from best of 3 over 21 points to best of 5 over 11 points. My hubby is a player and he competes at national level. He didn't like the change but he admits it makes the matches more cut-throat which was the goal and - for what his perception is - mainly driven by the Asian market.

Monique wrote:Ok … a few cents. ;)

3. So I don't see why the "shot-clock" bashing. You don't like it, don't watch it. Simple. Where I agree though is that introducing the shot-clock to remedy to "slow play" is wrong. The rules are clear that unnecessary slow play is ungentlemanly conduct and that the players who resort to it should be warned and/or punished by docking frame or match in case of repeated infringement. It would be enough that they were applied. This is nothing new, it has been in the rules for ages. Let's just apply it. We all know who the players are who do it. So surely do the refs.

Just one thing I want to mention. It's not as simple as don't like, don't watch. Unless we make it clear that we don't want to see shot clocks in the main game, the TV companies may look at things like the Shootout and think that's what audiences want, when it isn't.

Skullman wrote:

Monique wrote:Ok … a few cents. ;)

3. So I don't see why the "shot-clock" bashing. You don't like it, don't watch it. Simple. Where I agree though is that introducing the shot-clock to remedy to "slow play" is wrong. The rules are clear that unnecessary slow play is ungentlemanly conduct and that the players who resort to it should be warned and/or punished by docking frame or match in case of repeated infringement. It would be enough that they were applied. This is nothing new, it has been in the rules for ages. Let's just apply it. We all know who the players are who do it. So surely do the refs.

Just one thing I want to mention. It's not as simple as don't like, don't watch. Unless we make it clear that we don't want to see shot clocks in the main game, the TV companies may look at things like the Shootout and think that's what audiences want, when it isn't.

Well, sorry, but if those events fill the venues and traditional snooker is played in front of 3 men and 2 dogs - and I'm not saying it's the case but IF … - then it is what thegeneral audience wants even if it's not what the "purists" want. It's indeed that simple.
We all know who are the players who put bums on seats and they aren't the Rory McLeod or Rod Lawler of this world. The players who put bums on seat ultimately are the ones who bring the money into the game and without money the very survival of any sport is at high risk.

exactly Monique

the snooker diehards and purists will always be there but for the sport to truly grow there needs to be some characters the general public and casual fans will be interested in.

Hence the crown of PEOPLES CHAMPION has been in snooker since the 70s for the player who does just that. Weve basically only had Alex, Jimmy, Ronnie and Judd whove ALWAYS put bums on seats, generated headlines (good or bad) and appealed to the masses.

Shot clocks don't put bums on seats, top players do.

Sonny wrote:Shot clocks don't put bums on seats, top players do.

never said that.

exciting players put more bums on seats and generate more interest.

why do you think the Beeb always put Ronnie or Trump on the live afternoon games rather than dare i say it Selby or Robbo

That's my point, the topic has strayed into which types of players bring the public in to watch and it's got sod all to do with rule changes. What puts bums on seats are newspapers rolling with stories about players hating each other, and players who take risks and go for do or die shots which is why Jimmy White is the one who got me so hooked as a kid.

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:Shot clocks don't put bums on seats, top players do.

never said that.

exciting players put more bums on seats and generate more interest.

why do you think the Beeb always put Ronnie or Trump on the live afternoon games rather than dare i say it Selby or Robbo

So they can put on more Hairy Bikers.

Sickpotter wrote:
Snooker is a beautiful game in so many ways, not least of which is the wide variety in playing styles. Changing the rules to favor one style over another can have no other end result but a bunch of carbon copy players all playing the same game.

Where's the entertainment in that?

personally i would scrap the PL but have a week long RANKER on Sky for ALL tour players BUT played with a SHOT-CLOCK

its obvious the age old argument that shot clocks only there to favour Ronnie is rubbish as you and Wild have inadvertabtly proved with some of the examples youve cited.

with around 90,000 ranking points up fopr grabs, a 5,000 tariff shot clock ranker wouldnt distort the rankings at all and it would be interesting to combine a shot clock with the ranking event element to see how that mixed things up.

I think the shot clock critics are just petrified that things like the Premier League, Shootout, Power Snooker have been successes and look as if there here to stay. The so called threat to traditional snooker is rubbish, traditional snooker will always be king, but a bit of variety does no harm and i include the shotclock among options id like to see make an appearance in the ranking events calendar.

Others include set play used in an event, a reintroduction of last seasons World Open format, UK reverted back to best of 17s.

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:Shot clocks don't put bums on seats, top players do.

never said that.

exciting players put more bums on seats and generate more interest.

why do you think the Beeb always put Ronnie or Trump on the live afternoon games rather than dare i say it Selby or Robbo

O'Sullivan and Trump are more fun to watch than workmanlike players like Selby, Robbo and Higgins. Trump, like Jimmy before him, thinks he owes it to the fans to entertain.

Sonny wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:
Snooker is a beautiful game in so many ways, not least of which is the wide variety in playing styles. Changing the rules to favor one style over another can have no other end result but a bunch of carbon copy players all playing the same game.

Where's the entertainment in that?

having all the rankers as clones of each other with the same tried and trusted format is equally dull though and potentially favours one style over another. Its the 21st century, snooker needs to mix it up more in this ever changing world, to stay relevant.

Muppet147 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:Shot clocks don't put bums on seats, top players do.

never said that.

exciting players put more bums on seats and generate more interest.

why do you think the Beeb always put Ronnie or Trump on the live afternoon games rather than dare i say it Selby or Robbo

O'Sullivan and Trump are more fun to watch than workmanlike players like Selby, Robbo and Higgins. Trump, like Jimmy before him, thinks he owes it to the fans to entertain.

same with Alex

he threw away the 1980 WC final by playing up to the fans

He did an he was very entertaining and I took an afternoons holiday off work to watch O'Sullivan v Trump because I love watching them play. Would Rory McLeod v Rod Lawlor be good viewing if they played under shot clock conditions? No they wouldn't because they're not that type of player. Whatever you do to the rules, the more attacking players are going to pull in the crowds and the more tactically aware players are going to win the bulk of the tournaments. I have no problem with mixing it up a bit, but there is only one form of the game that should ever count towards ranking points and be taken seriously as a sport and that's the one we've got right now.

I should also add that I am a fast player myself and like to get on with it and don't like playing slow players because it knocks my rhythm.

,

I've seen it said that the cloths are too fast and need slowing down. That's complete nonsense, the players know what they're talking about more than the armchair critics on this subject and they want faster, if they remained as slow as on that Welsh Open table then it would be far less a spectacle and far more frustrating to watch knowing what we know about what shots are the right shots to play.

im pulling you up on that straigh away sonny.

Footballers Dont want wet and Muddy Pitches either Golfers Dont want Head Wind.

Tough its Conditions DEAL WITH IT and ADAPT.

HOWEVER if every event was like that then it wouldnt be a spectacle.

Wild wrote:,

the players know what they're talking about more than the armchair critics on this subject and they want faster,

im pulling you up on that straigh away sonny.

Footballers Dont want wet and Muddy Pitches either Golfers Dont want Head Wind.

Tough its Conditions DEAL WITH IT and ADAPT.

But it's easier to control how fast a snooker table is playing than it is to control the weather. I do agree that once they're out there they have to adapt, but that doesn't mean they can't ask for conditions to be improved after the match is over.