No mid-sessions at the European Masters
Yay or nay?
-
SnookerFan - Posts: 150917
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
Dan-cat wrote:Can't get my head around this, don't they want to sell drinks at the venue? Must be a timing thing
HappyCamper wrote:It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Firstly, how could they define the mid-point of the match in minutes if they don't know how long the match is going to last?
Secondly, if the mid-session of the match is in minutes, that means most of the times they'd be take the break in the middle of a frame.
I'm hoping you're just trolling.
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Firstly, how could they define the mid-point of the match in minutes if they don't know how long the match is going to last?
Secondly, if the mid-session of the match is in minutes, that means most of the times they'd be take the break in the middle of a frame.
I'm hoping you're just trolling.
HappyCamper wrote:Don't be silly.
Can't say the x number of frames is the midpoint of the match either, as frame lengths vary too much.
Obviously the current frame would be finished once the time limit is breached. The next frame would start after the interval.
Cloud Strife wrote:There's also a case to made for having no intervals whatsoever in the Crucible final.
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:Don't be silly.
Can't say the x number of frames is the midpoint of the match either, as frame lengths vary too much.
Obviously the current frame would be finished once the time limit is breached. The next frame would start after the interval.
So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.
HappyCamper wrote:So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.
Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.
So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.
Holden Chinaski wrote:How many mid sessions are there in tennis? Snooker should copy that.
HappyCamper wrote:Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.
So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.
Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.
So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.
Seems pointless.
You're going to have to approximate in snooker either way, and having a break after four frames seems as good an approximation as any. Yes, in a best of eleven say, you could have anywhere between two frames and seven after the break. But there isn't anything about this that's problematic enough to change to a system where World Snooker* are effectively trying to guess how long matches are going to take in minutes.
* Or whatever they're called now.
Holden Chinaski wrote:I think there should be ring girls like they have in boxing.
Iranu wrote:I wouldn’t necessarily have an extra break after the second 2 hours, but having the interval after a period of time does make more sense than after a number of frames.
SnookerFan wrote:Iranu wrote:I wouldn’t necessarily have an extra break after the second 2 hours, but having the interval after a period of time does make more sense than after a number of frames.
In theory, but not sure it works in practice.
Say it's a best of 11, Ronnie could be 5-0 up in two hours then he comes back after the break and you have one frame left. Selby could be part way through the third frame in the same time. How is that really any different to now? You still have the risk that the pre-break and post-break sections of the match are uneven in length. You could still have a break after the two hours and come back and there's half an hour of play left or four hours left. So, in reality, it doesn't change anything.
Also, what if after 1 hour and 50 minutes of play, you start a frame and then it takes an hour to play? If you're not going to stop mid-frame, it would render the; "There's a break after two hours" thing fictitious and somewhat pointless.
It just seems too random a thing to implement. Having an amount of frames designated just makes it simpler.
Iranu wrote:You do make valid points. Perhaps there could be a grace period where if a frame finishes at say 1:45 or 1:50, that’s taken as the interval point. But I do agree that’s a bit messy.
I also think the interval should be after 5 or 6 frames in best of 11s. A 4/7 split seems a bit weird.