Rule changing to increase entertainment

Skullman wrote:

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.

WSA Suply tables Players play on table given none of this crappy rubish about slow tables just play.

Wild wrote:

Skullman wrote:

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.

WSA Suply tables Players play on table given none of this crappy rubish about slow tables just play.

It's not like they lovely lady and moan mid-match. They try to play their normal game. If the players think the WSA are consistently giving them crappy tables, are they not allowed to say it?

point is they not crappy tables just we are dealing with spoilt players thats had it too good on out of this world tables.

What do you mean pulling me up on it? You're missing the point which was deliberately making the conditions slower i.e. regression back to when conditions weren't as good.

Wild wrote:point is they not crappy tables just we are dealing with spoilt players thats had it too good on out of this world tables.

Well they're ones playing on the tables so they should know best. And if they have had better tables before why are they getting worse tables now?

Sonny wrote:What do you mean pulling me up on it? You're missing the point which was deliberately making the conditions slower i.e. regression back to when conditions weren't as good.

the tables at the welsh was not that bad but some of the quotes you would think balls was made out of rock and cloth out of carpets....

spoilt brats nothing else.

anyway sorry for digressing somewhat from the subject in hand.

conditions ain't rule changes

Skullman wrote:

Wild wrote:

Skullman wrote:

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.

WSA Suply tables Players play on table given none of this crappy rubish about slow tables just play.

It's not like they lovely lady and moan mid-match. They try to play their normal game. If the players think the WSA are consistently giving them crappy tables, are they not allowed to say it?

Players should be allowed to say it, and should say it, although not publicly as first reaction maybe. I was at the German Masters in 2011 and after their match both Mark Williams and Mark Selby expressed dissatisfaction about the table. They didn't do so publicly, they complained to the tournament director after the match, winner and loser alike. Mark Selby, who was the loser, didn't blame the conditions for his defeat. What he said though is that, as professionals, they want to be able to demonstrate their skills and give the paying audience a good match, something the public is entitled to expect having made the effort to come to the venue and spend their money on it. So being unable to do so, and looking poor by no fault of their own was very frustrating. This was, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Over a year later it seems that things haven't changed and some players express their dissatisfaction in a more public way. I don't want to throw the book at WSA because, maybe, there is little they can do about it. But what they definitely could do and should do is make clear they have listened and acknowledged the problem and keep the players up-to-date with what they try to do to solve it.
I totally disagree that players should just shut up and play. Problems can only be solved if they are expressed and authorities made aware of them.

Back on topic, I'm the one guilty to have brought the bums on seats topic, not in relationship with rules, but as an answer to sickpotter's opinion about the (lack of) value of entertainment. As a sportsman, I agree, the main goal should be to win. However no sport lives in a vacuum and from the point of view of authorities that organise it, the sponsors, the broadcasters and everyone that makes it possible, it is of the uttermost importance that the sport brings the entertainment that will attract the audience and ultimately the money and resources that will allow to support and develop it. So some promoters might be - and are - misguided in their perception of what should be done to make snooker more entertaining, but their intentions are perfectly logical and understandable.

I agree with you Monique.

And to others, stay on topic please. Rule changes to increase entertainment.

(off topic posts have been junkyarded)

Some well thought out posts here, and passionate arguments to maintain the beautiful game as it is, all fully understandable.

I'm gonna stick up for the "change the rules" corner though. The fact that "gimmick" snooker has been rammed down our throats in recent years (6 reds, shot clocks, ball in hand, strike a cushion, reduced frames etc) tells me that broadcasters and sponsors aren't happy with the sport as it is. And when broadcasters and sponsors aren't happy, Barry Hearn will do all he can to comply with them; "the customer is always right" as Hearn says (I'm going to quote Hearn a lot in this post), and by customer, he doesn't just mean the ticket buying public.

So when I see this alarming trend for gimmickry, as a snooker fan, I can react in one of 2 ways:

1.....get all traditionalist and express utter disgust at the sheer horror of anyone daring to touch the sport I love

2.....accept that it's the 21st century, that bigger sports than snooker have adjusted in the past, and at least come up with some workable suggestions that could make our sport more attractive, whilst causing the minimum of cosmetic adjustment

And make no mistake, Hearn, for all the good he has done so far, will still react to commercial pressures for change...."we are a commercial sport" as he's been known to utter more than once. I just hope that any rule changes he adopts in the future aren't some of the ghastly ones we've been subjected to by Power Snooker, Premier League, 6-reds etc.

For me, an element of snooker that makes it unattractive, is negative play. I'm not talking long bouts of safety, I'm not talking 2 minute "shot times" (both necessary aspects of snooker, and not always negative).......I mean the deliberate "dirtying up" of frames to gain an advantage. You all know what I'm talking about and you all know who the culprits are. A journeyman who falls 0-3 behind to an 18-year old rookie, is going to "spoil" the next frame, make it last as long as possible, and make the table a mess to halt his opponents momentum. THIS is the kind of scenario which requires a rule change. Nobody wants to see this on TV, it's tedious, and (this is the bit Hearn will pay attention to) it EATS INTO THE BROADCASTERS AIR TIME.

As I've said on various forums, I don't have the answers, but I've made a few suggestions which I think might work. Shot clock isn't one of them; I believe there's a place for shot clocks, but it should be a novelty rather than the norm. My best idea is the adopting of a "hit a cushion" scenario, which would immediately close off a lot of (negative) shot options, and by punishing those who don't hit a cushion, severely limit turgid safety exchanges. It would put an end to re-racks, and with a little tweaking, confine the absurdly grey area that is the miss rule to history.

"you can't expect no change, or the game will die, and players will have to get jobs"......when Hearn says this, it means it's going to happen, like it or not, and I'd rather there were some positive suggestions being thrown about than the laughable traditionalist outrage that surfaces every time progress is mentioned. I want the game to succeed; people on here have suggested I "go and watch another sport" (except less politely), and others probably think I want to see 128 O'Sullivan clones on the tour......(for the record I can't stand him).

So the way I see it, you're either in the "things get done this way because they've always been done this way" camp, or you're set to embrace the changes and be as excited about the future of snooker as I am.

Interesting post JIMO96. The ball hitting a rail shot is obviously taken from pool and in the world rules version of pool it definitely adds something. Obviously Sickpotter mentioned the ball hitting a cushion or "rail" in his initial post and I defended his stance but there's no getting away from the fact that if you really want to make snooker move along and for frames to be quicker, implementing this rule would speed the game along a lot quicker than any shot clock would and it would certainly remove the stalemate rolling into the pack scenarios.

Thinking about it as a serious rule change though, I can't see it being viable to bring it in as a general rule, only in those situations where players have had turns in rolling into the pack. In which case the only way I could see it being used fairly is in the scenario where no cushion has been hit for the previous 2 shots per player. This puts the onus on the player who first chooses to roll into the pack and it would only apply to those situations were there is a potential for stalemate.

one rule change i think which could and SHOULD be brought in is this

INCREASE the points on offer for a foul.

in this day and age of higher scoring, what is 4 points? doesnt mean anything really, just a token gesture. Id happily double it at least.

this would also discourage the stalemate of someone playing half a dozen or more attempts to play the perfecr safety escape when the points lost would rack up and play a far more significant part in the frame.

The thing is though negative play has been around for years, and was especially rife during the 'golden age' of 80s. Before implementing such a change, maybe we should find out why audiences have been decreasing or sponsors aren't coming.

It could just be that a change of venue is needed, like the UK Championships this year, or that the previous administration wasn't as competent as Hearn. I think that your ideas might have been needed before when snooker was at rock bottom, but the sport looks like it's on its way up, and the traditional game didn't have to change to achieve it.

How about introducing an AVERAGE shot clock event where your average shot time per frame must not exceed say 20 seconds. Bulk of players, even the slow ones when in among the balls are quick, so they would have some spare time in the bank to utilise in the safety exchanges.

Skullman wrote:The thing is though negative play has been around for years, and was especially rife during the 'golden age' of 80s. Before implementing such a change, maybe we should find out why audiences have been decreasing or sponsors aren't coming.

It could just be that a change of venue is needed, like the UK Championships this year, or that the previous administration wasn't as competent as Hearn. I think that your ideas might have been needed before when snooker was at rock bottom, but the sport looks like it's on its way up, and the traditional game didn't have to change to achieve it.

i know Sonny deleted the posts that he deemed off topic but ultimately i think the main gripe really is with "the system" rather than the on-table game itself. The stalemate in the new talent breaking through is probably the biggest gripe for me and many others. It just seems the slow deliberate players AKA the journeymen or grinders are dominating proceedings within the top 64.

Seems snookers turning into an old mans game and one geared up towards negative players, which if anything is snooker heading back full circle to the 80s.

Start of the 90s the tour is opened up.

A wave of new young talent floods onto the tour.

The old guard of the 80s is quickly wiped out

Fast forward 20 years and bulk of these 90s newboys are still around on main tour and are the "new" old guard.

I see the increasing of the size of tour, 2 year tour cards and flat qualifying system as being the catalyst that will spearhead a similar demise of the current old guard.

Sonny wrote:Thinking about it as a serious rule change though, I can't see it being viable to bring it in as a general rule, only in those situations where players have had turns in rolling into the pack. In which case the only way I could see it being used fairly is in the scenario where no cushion has been hit for the previous 2 shots per player. This puts the onus on the player who first chooses to roll into the pack and it would only apply to those situations were there is a potential for stalemate.

Now we're talking Sonny! That is not the worst idea I've ever heard. This tiny but simple adjustment could rejuvenate the game from a broadcasters perspective.

What would your penalty be if after 2 non "rail-strikes" by each player, the next shot fails to hit a rail?

Witz78 wrote:one rule change i think which could and SHOULD be brought in is this

INCREASE the points on offer for a foul.

in this day and age of higher scoring, what is 4 points? doesnt mean anything really, just a token gesture. Id happily double it at least.

this would also discourage the stalemate of someone playing half a dozen or more attempts to play the perfecr safety escape when the points lost would rack up and play a far more significant part in the frame.

Another worthwhile idea, but it throws up the likelihood of players playing on in a frame from, say, 60 behind on the colours. They'd only need 5 snookers if it's 8 points for a foul.

Witz78 wrote:How about introducing an AVERAGE shot clock event where your average shot time per frame must not exceed say 20 seconds. Bulk of players, even the slow ones when in among the balls are quick, so they would have some spare time in the bank to utilise in the safety exchanges.

And the penalty enforced by the ref when a player runs out of time would be......?

JIMO96 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:one rule change i think which could and SHOULD be brought in is this

INCREASE the points on offer for a foul.

in this day and age of higher scoring, what is 4 points? doesnt mean anything really, just a token gesture. Id happily double it at least.

this would also discourage the stalemate of someone playing half a dozen or more attempts to play the perfecr safety escape when the points lost would rack up and play a far more significant part in the frame.

Another worthwhile idea, but it throws up the likelihood of players playing on in a frame from, say, 60 behind on the colours. They'd only need 5 snookers if it's 8 points for a foul.

Although it may enforce more attractive play if players have to try and get total clearances/centuries every time they're in

Skullman wrote:The thing is though negative play has been around for years, and was especially rife during the 'golden age' of 80s. Before implementing such a change, maybe we should find out why audiences have been decreasing or sponsors aren't coming.

It could just be that a change of venue is needed, like the UK Championships this year, or that the previous administration wasn't as competent as Hearn. I think that your ideas might have been needed before when snooker was at rock bottom, but the sport looks like it's on its way up, and the traditional game didn't have to change to achieve it.

Yeah, finding out could take a lot of meetings and bouncing ideas off each other in Hearns boardroom....a study party maybe.

The sport does seem to be on it's way up, and I'm excited for it's future, but it seriously needs to be re-sold to sponsors or stagnation will take hold.

JIMO96 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:How about introducing an AVERAGE shot clock event where your average shot time per frame must not exceed say 20 seconds. Bulk of players, even the slow ones when in among the balls are quick, so they would have some spare time in the bank to utilise in the safety exchanges.

And the penalty enforced by the ref when a player runs out of time would be......?

come the end of the frame, if it transpired that a frame winning player had exceeded the 20 second average time, then for every second that they went over the 20 second a shot average, they would have x number of points deducted.

JIMO96 wrote:

Skullman wrote:The thing is though negative play has been around for years, and was especially rife during the 'golden age' of 80s. Before implementing such a change, maybe we should find out why audiences have been decreasing or sponsors aren't coming.

It could just be that a change of venue is needed, like the UK Championships this year, or that the previous administration wasn't as competent as Hearn. I think that your ideas might have been needed before when snooker was at rock bottom, but the sport looks like it's on its way up, and the traditional game didn't have to change to achieve it.

Yeah, finding out could take a lot of meetings and bouncing ideas off each other in Hearns boardroom....a study party maybe.

The sport does seem to be on it's way up, and I'm excited for it's future, but it seriously needs to be re-sold to sponsors or stagnation will take hold.

im looking at next seasons provisional calendar and whilst its full, it doesnt overly excite me.

2 new rankers in China added to calendar that we all know aboout.

Other than that its the same old rankers in the same old places and same old formats etc.

And then theres the usual complicated mess of qualifiers out of sync, endless PTCs, Premier League and Championship League games clogging up the calendar.

I hope in 3 or 4 years when snooker has reached where its going, the calendar is far more organised.

Should be just 3 years Witz. Hearn said the PTC's are here for 5 years (2 have been dropped for next season already, and I understand the prize money is going up as well). So I'd give it 3 more years for things to gradually take shape.

I know what you mean though, the out of sync qualifiers is ridiculous (almost 2 months between qualifiers and main event for the "International"). Plus we will still have the scenario of the World seedings declared BEFORE the China Open, which for me is a major WSA own goal.

Average shot time is a bull idea. Briefly because all players are different and the table situation often dictates the shot time taken and who is measuring average shot times anyway? That idea isn't worth any more attention than that, one sentence.

How would I penalise in the previous scenario? Ball in the D. Situation neutralised. Ball in hand is far too draconian for any scenario.

edit - and I didn't delete anything, I simply moved witz and GJ rabbiting on about Robbo and tennis to the junkyard

JIMO96 wrote:Should be just 3 years Witz. Hearn said the PTC's are here for 5 years (2 have been dropped for next season already, and I understand the prize money is going up as well). So I'd give it 3 more years for things to gradually take shape.

I know what you mean though, the out of sync qualifiers is ridiculous (almost 2 months between qualifiers and main event for the "International"). Plus we will still have the scenario of the World seedings declared BEFORE the China Open, which for me is a major WSA own goal.

I think the international events have qualifiers a few months before the main stages so that players can get visas and such sorted. But things like having Crucible seedings decided at the Welsh, and having qualifiers and main stages at different seeding cut offs need to be sorted.

Average shot time is a bull idea. - BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS

Briefly because all players are different and the table situation often dictates the shot time PERHAPS THE TABLE "SITUATION" WOULDNT HEAD TOWARDS A STALEMATE IF THERE WERE POTENTIAL PENALTIES

and who is measuring average shot times anyway? THE CLOCK ON THE SCREEN ? MIKE GANLEY ? TAKE YOUR PICK

That idea isn't worth any more attention than that, one sentence.

Average shot time a great idea - BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS

It's a non-starter Witz. Even Ronnie has had 30+ shot times after a couple of frames because he's been put in trouble at the start of a match. I'm not saying it because I think I know best and that my opinion counts more than anyone else or because I shout the loudest. I say it because as sure as day turns into night, it is completely unworkable and will never happen. It's a dead end. By all means debate it until the cows come home, but it's a non-starter and it will never happen.

Skullman wrote:

JIMO96 wrote:Should be just 3 years Witz. Hearn said the PTC's are here for 5 years (2 have been dropped for next season already, and I understand the prize money is going up as well). So I'd give it 3 more years for things to gradually take shape.

I know what you mean though, the out of sync qualifiers is ridiculous (almost 2 months between qualifiers and main event for the "International"). Plus we will still have the scenario of the World seedings declared BEFORE the China Open, which for me is a major WSA own goal.

I think the international events have qualifiers a few months before the main stages so that players can get visas and such sorted. But things like having Crucible seedings decided at the Welsh, and having qualifiers and main stages at different seeding cut offs need to be sorted.

yeh it just seems a chaotic shambles the tour calendar with events literally being slotted in left right and centre with no real planning or logic used.

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

JIMO96 wrote:Should be just 3 years Witz. Hearn said the PTC's are here for 5 years (2 have been dropped for next season already, and I understand the prize money is going up as well). So I'd give it 3 more years for things to gradually take shape.

I know what you mean though, the out of sync qualifiers is ridiculous (almost 2 months between qualifiers and main event for the "International"). Plus we will still have the scenario of the World seedings declared BEFORE the China Open, which for me is a major WSA own goal.

I think the international events have qualifiers a few months before the main stages so that players can get visas and such sorted. But things like having Crucible seedings decided at the Welsh, and having qualifiers and main stages at different seeding cut offs need to be sorted.

yeh it just seems a chaotic shambles the tour calendar with events literally being slotted in left right and centre with no real planning or logic used.

This is a transitional phase in the game. Also to be honest we aren't in the position to wait until broadcasters give us the perfect time for all tehse events. we have to take what we can get at the moment or it would still be six rankers a season problem.

How about a matches where aggregate points scored count.

that would mean the person potting the most balls and scoring the most points won.

ive heard a counter argument against set play used that someone could win despite winning less frames than the others. Yet no-one seems to bat an eyelid presently that somone can win a match despite scoring far fewer points than the loser.