Changes to the Changes?

Sonny wrote:The UK this year proved that in order to get those matches of true drama you need the opportunity for an overnight or between sessions lead which can then be overhauled as the winning line approaches.

My point in the Power Snooker write up was that snooker doesn't need gimmicks and Power Snooker should soak up all the shot clock, ball in hand, gimmicky things and snooker should remain as snooker but with varying formats from the fantastic best of 5 World Open which is a test of bottle through to the UK and Worlds which gives the players an opportunity to show what they can do (with a load of balls and a snooker cue).

to be honest the suggestion of reducing the length of the 2nd longest tournament is something that makes me genuinely angry. When you look back to times past they used to play first to a ridiculous amount of frames. But we all know when you are actually playing the game against someone in your local club it's easy to play first to 10 frames in an afternoon and that length gives you a chance to get into the match and guarantees you will get chances.

I think the Masters and best of 11 as opposed to the previous standard best of 9 is the shortest format possible where you can get some drama going on and get it done in a single session

Monique wrote:I even think best of 13 could be played in one session and without a MSI. But I also think that IF determining the best player is the sole purpose anything over best of 19 is overkill and totally unnecessary.
Also I would introduce a 35 seconds shot clock with ample provisions of time outs (5 per frames, no limits per match) unless a way is found to actually enforce what IS a rule in snooker - that taking an unduely amount of time over a shot is gamemanship and should be punished. No player needs more than 25 secs on average, none of them not even Mc Leod. So when Ebdon gets to 47 secs as he did in the last World Open it's clearly gamemanship and nothing else and the rules are clear about the fact that is not allowed, just don't say how they should be applied. Until that is made clear AND enforced I'll ask for a shot-clock as it exists in pool BTW.

Monique wrote:I agree that poolification of the game should be avoided, so no ball in hand for me, no scrapping of the miss rule neither. But untill a way is found to actually enforce the rules - and the fact that taking unduely long time over a shot is gamemanship is part of the rules - yes I'll ask for a shot clock. Not 20 seconds or not even 25 ... 35, 40 if needed and timeouts enough, but that what is a clearly an abuse on the rules is put to an end.

PLtheRef wrote:

Monique wrote:I agree that poolification of the game should be avoided, so no ball in hand for me, no scrapping of the miss rule neither. But untill a way is found to actually enforce the rules - and the fact that taking unduely long time over a shot is gamemanship is part of the rules - yes I'll ask for a shot clock. Not 20 seconds or not even 25 ... 35, 40 if needed and timeouts enough, but that what is a clearly an abuse on the rules is put to an end.

Now there is a problem here, something that can be avoided with the clock - but that puts a limit on player's ability - matches slip in standards when we limit the abilities of the players - its like getting rid of all of the rests etc, its not going to do anything to help the game - and though its interesting to see how players respond the game can be poolified with the and that is the rule is so difficult to apply at present, - The problem is as a referee when you warn a player for slow play then you are telling them that they are pint pulling. Now in a sport like snooker, its difficult for a player to be told off for pint pulling, especially when it is opinionated. What can be construed as gamesmanship by me, may be different to it from the likes of Jan, Eirian etc. At least with the Miss Rule there is a strict interpretation now.

TPtheirishstud wrote:I just can't contemplate a shorter Masters, UK Championship or World Championship...

I just can't contemplate a shorter Masters,

Sonny wrote:I think if you canvas opinion among the players they would all want to play more longer format events even if it means less events.

I agree with your sentiments about posters keeping their tempers. I think we all know who you're talking about. I crossed the line myself as well, I know that but I like to think I am balanced and to be honest the suggestion of reducing the length of the 2nd longest tournament is something that makes me genuinely angry. When you look back to times past they used to play first to a ridiculous amount of frames. But we all know when you are actually playing the game against someone in your local club it's easy to play first to 10 frames in an afternoon and that length gives you a chance to get into the match and guarantees you will get chances.

I think the Masters and best of 11 as opposed to the previous standard best of 9 is the shortest format possible where you can get some drama going on and get it done in a single session.

PLtheRef wrote:insulting members and calling them disgusting takes it too far - sorry.

PLtheRef wrote:which doesnt excuse insulting members?

Stand by your opinions, and defend them by all means, just dont insult members for daring to have a different opinion

MITCH JOHNSON THE POM SLAYER wrote:wild shows real passion for snooker while others dont

wild

Sonny wrote:Members have the right to give their opinions without feeling threatened by other members who disagree with them. This a debating forum and if we all agreed then there would be no point in it all. Once it starts to get personal, that's when the line is crossed.

Your Mother Loves Tubber wrote:

MITCH JOHNSON THE POM SLAYER wrote:wild shows real passion for snooker while others dont

wild

To be fair, while I disagree with some of the comments on here, I don't think aybody would have joined a snooker forum if they weren't passionate about the game of snooker.