Sky Shoot Out

I know this isn't meant as a serious ranker, just a bit of fun, something to watch over a weekend with a beer. But I was wondering what people thought of this format. What with the shot-clocks, no time-outs, no more then 12-minutes a frame, and they'll stop format. Do you think this will be entertaining, or not so much?

I'm just interested in what people think of it, as a new idea.

I'm undecided, and will decide once I've watched it

The frames will be poor quality but it should be interesting. Very different indeed.

It's clearly not for the purists, and it's clearly not designed for any "serious" snooker tournament.
However having watched both "OneForSeven" and "Speed Snooker" in various formats, I have always seen a very good response from the audience AND the players. The fact that the players don't really take it so seriously means that you see many of them expressing themselves and interacting much more than in traditional events. It is my opinion that having some fun events, alongside with the traditional events, is something snooker needs, if only to refresh its image and show the world the diversity of "characters" who are in the game but rarely actually "seen".

case_master wrote:I'm undecided, and will decide once I've watched it

The frames will be poor quality but it should be interesting. Very different indeed.

yes thats my stand point aswell.

we just dont know do we its ok saying it will be fun but it could quite easily be cringe-worthy vomiting.

im not a fan of these girls walking out with flags with dart players i find that a bit naff.

a good point from someone on TSF

"frames to take a maximum of 12 minutes"
So does the highest score win if not finished off ?? whoevers leading could just play safe every shot to "bank" the win - wouldn't be good

wildJONESEYE wrote:a good point from someone on TSF

"frames to take a maximum of 12 minutes"
So does the highest score win if not finished off ?? whoevers leading could just play safe every shot to "bank" the win - wouldn't be good

theres nothing in the rules saying you got to pot a ball in 20 seconds that could mean tip tap in to the pack to waste time lol

I think it´s good. Snooker professionals loves (at least they should...) the game, no matter what format or where it is played. It´s about been enthuastic about the magical game. Of course everyone gets bored at times but still. And money is good and they see their buddies there.

It´s not all about "who´s the greatest" or garbage like that. It´s about playing the game they love

wildJONESEYE wrote:a good point from someone on TSF

"frames to take a maximum of 12 minutes"
So does the highest score win if not finished off ?? whoevers leading could just play safe every shot to "bank" the win - wouldn't be good

The same thought occured to me earlier, when wondering how say a Peter Ebdon would adapt.

Personally, I think the quality could be quite low. Either too much plebbing about, or people trying too hard to pot things they'll take every ridiculous shot on. I am in the camp of watching it at least the first year to see what it is like. But I also fear not good. Hopefully in January I can come on and say I was wrong, it was brilliant.

In the OneForSeven the quality wasn't low. But it was mainly exhibition snooker. In the final, no frame reached the 21 minutes limit, by a big margin. From the top of my head the longest frame must have been 14 minutes something in Cardiff (but really I should check). The "ball in hand" rule in case of a fould strongly contributed to that.

anyway im open to it as a fun thing see how it goes ..

no matter how you see it theres more snooker on TV so that cant be bad can it ?

wildJONESEYE wrote:anyway im open to it as a fun thing see how it goes ..

no matter how you see it theres more snooker on TV so that cant be bad can it ?

It can't be a bad thing. But it could be an indifferent thing, that is neither good nor bad. If they put two people playing a game of "snooker", when there was only a black on the table, and whoever pot it won the frame, how many of us would watch it? Very few I suspect. And it would make no difference to how many people watched rankers.

Obviously that's a silly example. But I just can't see how the snooker side of this is going to be good. I can see it being very low quality snooker-wise. And, I can't see it bringing in loads of new fans to the game. Hopefully though, it'll be as Monique suggested, and it'll give us a chance to see the player's real personalities shining through in an informal setting, which might be a nice difference. I can't see myself enjoying it personally, but as you said wild, it is snooker on the telly. I'll watch some of it, and hopefully I'll come on and be saying; "I was wrong, that was fantastic."