Post a reply

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Wildey » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Witz78 wrote:this thread HAHAHAHA

i know load of bullocks.

Monique

of course you have the exciting players to draw in Fans BUT you have to let it happen naturally and it always has so by Artificially trying to speed up the game the aspect of what makes the Likes of Ronnie Different and exciting is lost if you dont let it just happen.

if everyone played like Him how boring would that be and Ronnie would only be one of the Crowd.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Lucky » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Snookers problem seems to stem from the fact that the refs are unable or aren't allowed to make a judgement call, if a player is deliberately slowing the game down beyond what is acceptable then the ref should step in and warn the offending player, no need for shot clocks, beeps etc. just common sense taking the situation into account. Unfortunately, like with the miss rule, everything has to be black and white, trust the refs and let them police the game <ok>

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Wild wrote:
Witz78 wrote:this thread HAHAHAHA

i know load of bullocks.

Monique

of course you have the exciting players to draw in Fans BUT you have to let it happen naturally and it always has so by Artificially trying to speed up the game the aspect of what makes the Likes of Ronnie Different and exciting is lost if you dont let it just happen.

if everyone played like Him how boring would that be and Ronnie would only be one of the Crowd.



For the 100000000000000 times I'm not asking for speeding the game artificially , all I'm asking for is that the rules that have been around for ages are actually applied . What's wrong with that? I would think it's the essence of every sport that it's rules are respected and unnecessary slow play is against snooker rules

Can you read wild? The operative word is in big red letters!

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Witz78 » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Muppet147 wrote:
Witz78 wrote:this thread HAHAHAHA


Wild is insane. Talk about 'women on the verge of a nervous breakdown.' <ok>


yeh any remaining semblance of credibility and respect Wild was clinging onto is surely gone now :wave:

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby snooky147 » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Witz78 wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:
Witz78 wrote:this thread HAHAHAHA


Wild is insane. Talk about 'women on the verge of a nervous breakdown.' <ok>


yeh any remaining semblance of credibility and respect Wild was clinging onto is surely gone now :wave:


give it a rest guy's

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Witz78 » 26 Feb 2012 Read

snooky147 wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:
Witz78 wrote:this thread HAHAHAHA


Wild is insane. Talk about 'women on the verge of a nervous breakdown.' <ok>


yeh any remaining semblance of credibility and respect Wild was clinging onto is surely gone now :wave:


give it a rest guy's


if he can dish it out he should take it

or do yous just expect him to dish abuse and insults out left right and centre and nobocy to bat an eyelid :shrug:

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Roland » 26 Feb 2012 Read

JIMO96 wrote:Sonny, do you really think the "ball in hand" rule is too draconian to adopt? At the Shootout (bad example, I know) most players didn't know where to put the cue ball, and I saw a couple of breaks end at 9.....so ball in hand doesn't mean end of frame automatically.

Another idea of mine.....to take out the miss rule.....is to introduce what I'd call a "push-out". If a player fouls (deliberately or not), the referee offers the incoming player a "push-out". This would entitle the player to strike the cue ball (not "place" it) into a desired position without hitting any other ball. This would be like a "free shot", but if the player strikes another ball during this play, it would be deemed to be a legal shot and the "push-out" given up.

Do you think this would make the game too easy (it's got to be better than placing the white anywhere, because a degree of skill would be required). Any pitfalls you can see?

At least there'd be no more tiresome re-setting of balls by the ref (a responsibility I think is unfair). I think some of these days, a tournament is going to be controversially won or lost by a wrong repositioning of the balls. There has to be a better option than the miss rule.


It's definitely too draconain. The reason it didn't seem to impact much in the shootout is because the player didn't have enough time to think properly. Bringing it into regulation snooker is far too draconian for me whatever the circumstances. The suggestion of a push out just means the player incoming will play a roll up more often than not.

As far as the miss rule goes, everyone knows where they are with it. I've watched many amateur games without referees where the players use the miss rule among themselves and they play very fair with each other and know the situation. That's why in its current form I think the necessary of all evils is to keep it as it is.

I've just played in a competition without the miss rule and to be honest it is quite farcical what you can get away with in terms of not getting out of a snooker and playing in such a way that you don't leave anything on, and that's why the rule was brought in in the first place.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 26 Feb 2012 Read

About the miss rule …

What is your (plural) opinions about the fact that it's not in operation when the snookers required stage is reached? Would you like to see that change and why or why not?

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby GJ » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Monique wrote:About the miss rule …

What is your (plural) opinions about the fact that it's not in operation when the snookers required stage is reached? Would you like to see that change and why or why not?


My view is if a player needs a snooker but the points he gets from a successful snooker buts him back at the stage where he no longer needs snookers i think the miss rule should apply

example

Ronnie trailes by 30 with 27 on but his opponent misses the snooker ronnie sets and ronnie gets 4 points

Ron then trails by 26 with 27 on

in that case it should be called a miss

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby GJ » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Example 2

Robbo trails by 35 with 27 on

He sets a snooker which his opponent misses and robbo gets 4 points

so he trails by 31 with 27 on

Miss rule shouldnt be used as robbo still requires more snookers

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Roland » 26 Feb 2012 Read

It's because they say if you're past the required snookers stage then there's no advantage to missing so that's why it doesn't count after the snookers required stage. To be honest I'm not sure how it works in GJs example 1

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby GJ » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Sonny wrote:It's because they say if you're past the required snookers stage then there's no advantage to missing so that's why it doesn't count after the snookers required stage. To be honest I'm not sure how it works in GJs example 1



What i mean is if say a player puts his opponent in a really tough snooker and the points he gains from the first failed escape takes him out of the snookers required stage for me the miss rule should be used .

But in example 2 if he sets a really tough snooker and the points he gains from 1 failed escape from his opponent doesnt take out of snooker required stage a miss isnt called.

Sorry if its abit complicated ;-)

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Casey » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Monique wrote:About the miss rule …

What is your (plural) opinions about the fact that it's not in operation when the snookers required stage is reached? Would you like to see that change and why or why not?


I think that the miss rule should not apply when snookers are needed - so stay the same. If it was changed you would have players that need 20 penalty points continuing at the end of frames - that would get pretty brutal.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby jojo » 26 Feb 2012 Read

to be honest as a die hard traditionalist i wouldnt want any aspect of the rule to be changed except the interpretation of the miss rule for example if there is an easy escape but the player choses a more difficult option but for better results such as to stop his opponent from scoring then the miss rule should be applied as there an easier escape

but in life things move on for example in football the backpass rule in cricket they have twenty twenty

as someone said you will always have the traditionalists but to attract new fans for future generations maybe it appropriate to make a few tweaks here and there

i still say bullocks to the one who say the roll up shot should be scrapped i love the way the game is bar the miss rule

for me sport is nothing without contrast in styles and being able to skin a cat in more way than one

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Roland » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Me too jojo. The younger generation of snooker player are somewhat clonelike in their insistence to take everything on and hit the ball hard. For me without the variety of players playing styles I would lose interest very quickly and thankfully we have a top 16 with no two players alike and long may that always be the case.

I think Monique raises an interesting point about employing that rule for slow play because it is in the rules and I remember Dean Reynolds getting the hurry up once and losing the match and being in tears afterwards. I have to say for the life of me I can't think of a time when I've watch snooker and felt the referee really does need to have a word to speed things along. Some games drag on and the balls go awkward and the match finishes late when two styles clash and get bogged down, but if it's like that I just turn off and go do something else instead. When that happens in a big match such as a Crucible match, with the extra importance of the occasion sometimes that makes it more dramatic and watchable e.g. Dotty v Robbo final.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby jojo » 26 Feb 2012 Read

one of the best matches i ever see was ebdon v ronnie in 2005 and ebdon made a thirteen break in something like over five minutes or was it eight minutes ?

it was compelling stuff and people who want the game speeded up because they only like watching snooker when ronnie o sullivan play they need shooting

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Well I can think of 2 occurrences where I really think the rule should have been applied. That's not much considering the number of matches I've watched, but that's still two "too much".

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby GJ » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Monique wrote:Well I can think of 2 occurrences where I really think the rule should have been applied. That's not much considering the number of matches I've watched, but that's still two "too much".



thoughts on my idea above ;-)

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 26 Feb 2012 Read

jojo wrote:one of the best matches i ever see was ebdon v ronnie in 2005 and ebdon made a thirteen break in something like over five minutes or was it eight minutes ?

it was compelling stuff and people who want the game speeded up because they only like watching snooker when ronnie o sullivan play they need shooting


Well we will have to differ here Jojo and I'm not one who watch only when ROS plays. I watch about everything that's watchable and as you may know I go to a lot of events … whether ROS plays in them or not.
But I thought and still think it was totally out of order - actually that it was against the rules - and extremely painful to watch. I know I'm not the only one of that opinion neither, as I know that Clive Everton for instance also thinks that Colin Brinded, the referee, should have warned Ebdon under section4.1 of the rules. BTW Ebdon was a member of the board then and in a way the employer of the ref in charge, a man in very ill health to top it off … he knew he would got away with it.

Now shoot me if you want… with a water-pistol preferably ;-)

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Roland » 26 Feb 2012 Read

I was supporting Ronnie in that match and was getting frustrated by Ebdon but at the end of the day it was absolute box office, you couldn't take your eyes off it.

Remember Ronnie scratching his forehead till it bled? <laugh>

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Sonny wrote:I was supporting Ronnie in that match and was getting frustrated by Ebdon but at the end of the day it was absolute box office, you couldn't take your eyes off it.

Remember Ronnie scratching his forehead till it bled? <laugh>


Yes I do and TBH I was appalled. I'm not the type of person who can take pleasure in witnessing any living being in deep pain, be it mental or physical. I know that sports is about pushing the limits … but there are limits even to the limits. For me at least.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Alpha » 26 Feb 2012 Read

Monique wrote:
Sonny wrote:I was supporting Ronnie in that match and was getting frustrated by Ebdon but at the end of the day it was absolute box office, you couldn't take your eyes off it.

Remember Ronnie scratching his forehead till it bled? <laugh>


Yes I do and TBH I was appalled. I'm not the type of person who can take pleasure in witnessing any living being in deep pain, be it mental or physical. I know that sports is about pushing the limits … but there are limits even to the limits. For me at least.


I didn't get to watch the whole match but I remember watching bits of it when I could {luckily i missed Ebdon's break of 5} and when I read how Ebdon pretty much gamesmanshipped {if that's even a word} his way to victory I too was appalled. But then thinking about it I wondered why should Ebdon have speeded up just to keep pace with O'Sullivan? Ebdon said it himself, if he had sped up he would have been slaughtered {he was 8-2 down at one point} and as O'Sullivan himself said in the post match press conference Ebdon had a wife and 4 kids to feed. He did what he had to do to win.
And let's not lay any blame at Colin Brinded's door either. Yes Ebdon should probably have been warned for slow play but the referees are under enough pressure as it is. And as Colin said at the time, he didn't want to lose the respect of Ebdon. If it was such a problem O'Sullivan should have brought it up during the match.
Unfortunately, the fact O'Sullivan lost that match 13-11 from 8-2 up when he was world champ at the time is down to one man. And it isn't Ebdon or Colin Brinded.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby jojo » 26 Feb 2012 Read

yes i know the referee colin brindead is dead as his name suggest and i know some commentators were annoyed with ebdon ie parrott and everton but for me it was compelling viewing i enjoyed every second

a bit off topic but ebdon as a player should not have been allowed on the wpbsa board as in effect he in charge of the referee i also remember his shenanigans against cope he knew he could get away with it

i thought there was going to be a fight between ronnie and ebdon i loved the way ronnie was almost taking the snake hiss out of ebdon laughing at him and ebdon was in his own zone not taking any notice

this was entertaining so no changes to the rules ha

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 27 Feb 2012 Read

jojo wrote:yes i know the referee colin brindead is dead as his name suggest and i know some commentators were annoyed with ebdon ie parrott and everton but for me it was compelling viewing i enjoyed every second

a bit off topic but ebdon as a player should not have been allowed on the wpbsa board as in effect he in charge of the referee i also remember his shenanigans against cope he knew he could get away with it

i thought there was going to be a fight between ronnie and ebdon i loved the way ronnie was almost taking the snake hiss out of ebdon laughing at him and ebdon was in his own zone not taking any notice

this was entertaining so no changes to the rules ha


There need be no change to the rules Jojo, it was and is against the rules as they are, section 4.1 - Conduct - and have been for a long time and that's my point. In any sport the rules should be apllied or it becomes a joke and Ebdon should have been warned under the existing rules.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Roland » 27 Feb 2012 Read

If the referee had applied the rules, we wouldn't be talking about that match right now. It was a classic when all is said and done, everyone remembers it. It was good for the game.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Monique » 27 Feb 2012 Read

Sonny wrote:If the referee had applied the rules, we wouldn't be talking about that match right now. It was a classic when all is said and done, everyone remembers it. It was good for the game.


And? Should we accept unfair decisions because it's "good for the game" that we talk about it? Are you joking sonny? Is that how sport should be run, ignoring the rules to get a "good story"? I think not.
I'm almost certain that ROS would have lost that match even if the ref had warned Ebdon because by the time it was blatant what Ebdon was doing he was far gone already. But that's not a reason to condone an injustice. Ebdon should have been warned under the existing rules and there is no excuse for what happened.

Re: Rule changing to increase entertainment

Postby Roland » 27 Feb 2012 Read

When all is said and done, Ronnie should have won from 8-2 no matter what games Ebdon played. I can honestly say I've heard more positive comments about that match than negative. People still talk about it, people loved watched it. I'm not joking when I say it was good for the game, it got people talking, it made newspaper headlines. I also think even if Ebdon had got the hurry up he would've played exactly the same. That's snooker.

You're right, it is in the rules about slow play but it's so hard to enforce and it would make a bit of a mockery if suddenly players started getting warnings for playing the same way they have been doing for years with no problem.
Post a reply