Rule changing to increase entertainment

Wild wrote:People on here are talking bucking bullocks

Close the thread sonny they just dont know what the buck is snooker END OF

Wild how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you spout tripe like this, people have opinions, including people who decide on snookers future...if and when they decide to make changes, you'll still lap it up, so if it brings any more fans in then surely thats for the good of the game. You are in the minority who enjoy a stagnated, stop/start frame or match. Dont get poor quality, negative snooker mixed up with end of a match mistakes which are brought on by tension and pressure, the two are miles apart

Some people are reluctant to accept change in the sport they love, some show outrage....then there's Wild, who goes off the scale with his furious incoherency. Perhaps he's insecure and snooker is his "comfort blanket"......that's a debate for another day.

I remember being disgusted, sickened even.....when the Dulux British Open in 1985, having played all the qualifiers over best of 11, bowed to TV pressure and played the last 32 onwards as best of 9. That was my first abrupt exposure to the notion of "commercial snooker".

There've been many more since then....Jimmy Whites annual invite to the Masters, Jimmy Whites shoehorn like inclusion in last seasons PL (no Darren Morgan this year? Obviously!), the uniquely ridiculous tiering qualifying system.....these were all "commercial" decisions that have sickened me in a similar way to the way Wild is reacting to this thread.

The difference between me and Wild, however is that I've accepted the changes and continued to enjoy the beautiful game. I also happen to think that negative play is the one thing that is holding the game back in commercial terms and that if the WSA tackled it, then the game could go stellar.....there'd be no need for crazy decisions for commercial reasons, because the game would be rid of its spoilers.

I don't think a rule change is the only thing that needs addressing though...the preposterous idea of playing China Open qualifiers in Prestatyn, Sheffield or Burton-on-Trent and making the Chinese travel here to play in them(!) is one crazy decision that still sticks in the throat....but that's off topic lol.

I've watched and played this game for 30 years and have developed and maintained an ocean of statistical info on snooker in that time; anyone who says I don't understand snooker in an expletive laden, point-free retort to a valid argument of mine, is only making themselves more of a laughing stock.

Witz78 wrote:Regarding Jono hes only turned negative in the last couple of years, certainly since he won the world title. Id actually cite the final v Dott as the game that changed Jono to a negative player.

He annoyed me well before then. But that may have had something to do with his effeminate cough and fist pumping antics.

Wild wrote:People on here are talking bucking bullocks

Close the thread sonny they just dont know what the buck is snooker END OF

You need to walk away if it's winding you up that much. You're not doing yourself any favours the way you're carrying on.

Sonny wrote:

Wild wrote:People on here are talking bucking bullocks

Close the thread sonny they just dont know what the buck is snooker END OF

You need to walk away if it's winding you up that much. You're not doing yourself any favours the way you're carrying on.

IF PEOPLE CANT TAKE IT THEY WALK AWAY NOT START TALKING bullocks ABOUT bucking CRAP LIKE SPELLING..

Lucky wrote:

Wild wrote:People on here are talking bucking bullocks

Close the thread sonny they just dont know what the buck is snooker END OF

Wild how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you spout tripe like this, people have opinions, including people who decide on snookers future...if and when they decide to make changes, you'll still lap it up, so if it brings any more fans in then surely thats for the good of the game. You are in the minority who enjoy a stagnated, stop/start frame or match. Dont get poor quality, negative snooker mixed up with end of a match mistakes which are brought on by tension and pressure, the two are miles apart

point is i like veriaty.

define negative play because im sorry but people are getting very deluded if they think Robbo and Selby are negative players.

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.

Nothing wrong with the miss rule in my opinion, the problem is with the way it is applied. Currently refs automatically call miss even when it's obvious that the player is not trying not to the hit the ball on. The only ref to use any discretion was Alan Chamberlain. Instead of putting unnecessary pressure on refs to speed games up, or introducing shot clocks into ranking events, give refs a bit more leeway in applying the rules.

There has to be a better option than the miss rule.

NO

just apply it with common sense.

Mon

I agree with your point

For me Robbo is now a smarter player and knows if he isnt on top form he has to adapt and vary his style.

For me that shows intelligence and not handing frames on a plate to his opponent if he goes for wild pots if he doesnt feel good in that match.

Muppet147 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Regarding Jono hes only turned negative in the last couple of years, certainly since he won the world title. Id actually cite the final v Dott as the game that changed Jono to a negative player.

He annoyed me well before then. But that may have had something to do with his effeminate cough and fist pumping antics.

So you admit no matter what robbo does you dislike him

Its clear that robbos cough is just a nerves thing and its petty using that as a reason to dislike him

So that says more about you than robbo

GJ wrote:Its clear that robbos cough is just a nerves thing

You're right. It gets on my nerves. Good post.

Witz78 wrote:

Monique wrote:Dotty is not a negative player by any means.
Ebdon wasn't slow and negative when younger and that's when he won most of his titles. He's become more negative over the years.
Higgins isn't actually negative although he isn't the most positive player around.

Actually I'd say that the most successful "negativish" (sorry for the neologism but I couldn't find a proper word for "displaying negative trends without being utterly negative") player in recent years is Robbo.

Regarding Jono hes only turned negative in the last couple of years, certainly since he won the world title. Id actually cite the final v Dott as the game that changed Jono to a negative player.

Graeme certainly was not the slow one in that final. Up to when he was 5-3 up the games were at a nice pace. Afer that Robertson slowed the game down to curb Graemes fluency. The problem was that it also curbed any fluency he had and ruined a world final as a spectacle for everyone as a result. Okay, fair enough but he has continued that slow,hesitant game in every match i have watched him in since.

Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

Even Ebdon is quicker than Robbo.

Muppet147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

Even Ebdon is quicker than Robbo.

of course thats why the NEUTRAL commentators say robbo is an exciting player to watch and name edbon as a methodical player

I have never heard any commentator describe Robbo as 'exciting'. Unless it was the muppet Willie Thorne, whose ramblings I always ignore.

Muppet147 wrote:I have never heard any commentator describe Robbo as 'exciting'. Unless it was the muppet Willie Thorne, whose ramblings I always ignore.

Thorne
Taylor
Foulds

GJ wrote:

Muppet147 wrote:I have never heard any commentator describe Robbo as 'exciting'. Unless it was the muppet Willie Thorne, whose ramblings I always ignore.

Thorne
Taylor
Foulds

Thorne and Taylor are full of marmite.

I think we should all leave the 2010 final alone. It was played under very special circumstances and I'm sure it affected both players. More Dott than Robertson probably because the people involved were a lot closer to him. But it was hard and unfair on both players. Their final, and what should have been their 2 days of glory, were spoilt as everyone caring about the game was worrying about its future.

Off topic but I feel I had to say it.

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

Muppet147 wrote:

GJ wrote:

Muppet147 wrote:I have never heard any commentator describe Robbo as 'exciting'. Unless it was the muppet Willie Thorne, whose ramblings I always ignore.

Thorne
Taylor
Foulds

Thorne and Taylor are full of marmite.

foulds

snooky147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

If I was in a World Final I wouldn't care how pretty I played. All I would care about is getting to 18 frames before the other guy.

GJ wrote:foulds

I've never heard Foulds describe Robbo as exciting. Even if he had, it would mean little as Foulds was one of the most boring players out there.

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

If I was in a World Final I wouldn't care how pretty I played. All I would care about is getting to 18 frames before the other guy.

Exactly right mate. So why all the discussion about entertainment?. Its about winning matches and as a player they hope to win playing well, but if not, tough.

snooky147 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

If I was in a World Final I wouldn't care how pretty I played. All I would care about is getting to 18 frames before the other guy.

Exactly right mate. So why all the discussion about entertainment?. Its about winning matches and as a player they hope to win playing well, but if not, tough.

snooky147 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

If I was in a World Final I wouldn't care how pretty I played. All I would care about is getting to 18 frames before the other guy.

Exactly right mate. So why all the discussion about entertainment?. Its about winning matches and as a player they hope to win playing well, but if not, tough.

Plus anyone who thinks that the players want to play scrappy matches is kidding themselves. The players like playing free flowing matches, but some are smart enough to realise they can't win that way and have tie their opponent up.

Edit: Welcome Alpha! Sorry I didn't notice you earlier.

snooky147 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

If I was in a World Final I wouldn't care how pretty I played. All I would care about is getting to 18 frames before the other guy.

Exactly right mate. So why all the discussion about entertainment?. Its about winning matches and as a player they hope to win playing well, but if not, tough.

As I said before we have here two different points of view, both valid. The players obviously want to win, that's their aim and they shouldn't care about how they do it within the rules of the sport. Then you have the organisers/promoters/broadcasters … all people involved into promoting the game and ultimately giving it the resources and exposure it needs to develop;. They will be concerned with entertainment, and rightly so, because ultimately people come to watch sport, any sport, for the entertainment it provides to them.
That's true in all sports BTW but the balance is more difficult to find in a sport like snooker that doesn't immediately appeal to the most basic - and often tribal - instincts of the human kind. People don't develop a sense of "belonging" to snooker players as they do to football or rugby teams, they won't punch their neighbour on their nose because he's supporting the other guy, and winning at all costs isn't enough. People watching high skilled sports- like snooker - want to see those skills in action.

Monique wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

GJ wrote:Funny how so called slow play didnt affect graeme in 2006 final against ebdon

Convenient excuse IMO

No mate, not an excuse at all. I am not saying that Graeme would have won had Robertson not slowed it down. I am saying that by doing that he ruined it as a spectacle. So, no, not an excuse.

If I was in a World Final I wouldn't care how pretty I played. All I would care about is getting to 18 frames before the other guy.

Exactly right mate. So why all the discussion about entertainment?. Its about winning matches and as a player they hope to win playing well, but if not, tough.

As I said before we have here two different points of view, both valid. The players obviously want to win, that's their aim and they shouldn't care about how they do it within the rules of the sport. Then you have the organisers/promoters/broadcasters … all people involved into promoting the game and ultimately giving it the resources and exposure it needs to develop;. They will be concerned with entertainment, and rightly so, because ultimately people come to watch sport, any sport, for the entertainment it provides to them.
That's true in all sports BTW but the balance is more difficult to find in a sport like snooker that doesn't immediately appeal to the most basic - and often tribal - instincts of the human kind. People don't develop a sense of "belonging" to snooker players as they do to football or rugby teams, they won't punch their neighbour on their nose because he's supporting the other guy, and winning at all costs isn't enough. People watching high skilled sports- like snooker - want to see those skills in action.

Skills isn't just potting. A game like snooker also involves tactical and psychological aspects which are fascinating to watch. The potting aspect is what drew me in, but the other parts are what keep me in.

I agree but the potting is what drew you in as it is for many because it's the easiest aspect to comprehend. So that's what promoters will focus on when the immediate goal is to gain new fans. Having said that I'm not saying that this is a valid motive to change the rules and destroy the soul of the game. In my opinion it would be a big mistake. But just ignoring the fact that the entertaining side is important also is equally a big mistake.