by SnookerFan » 27 Jan 2023 Read
CaldoTheKid wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2023/01/26/jack-lisowski-wants-shot-clock-brought-in-to-combat-gamesmanship-he-faces-18169646/
Terrible idea.
Reeks of Neil Robertson's "I want the World Championship to be moved from The Crucible". Trying to changes the rules just to combat an area they struggle with.
-

SnookerFan
- Posts: 165426
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by McManusFan » 27 Jan 2023 Read
SnookerFan wrote:CaldoTheKid wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2023/01/26/jack-lisowski-wants-shot-clock-brought-in-to-combat-gamesmanship-he-faces-18169646/
Terrible idea.
Reeks of Neil Robertson's "I want the World Championship to be moved from The Crucible". Trying to changes the rules just to combat an area they struggle with.
I agree. I'm a bit disappointed in Jack there. If he's talking about the Mark Allen match, yes he played a bit slower than normal, and very negatively. But it isn't as if he was taking minutes on every shot.
If he can't deal with those sort of tactics mentally, then that's very much his problem, not snooker's.
-

McManusFan
- Posts: 9219
- Joined: 03 October 2018
- Snooker Idol: Alan McManus
- Highest Break: 8
-

Holden Chinaski
- Posts: 33408
- Joined: 26 July 2013
- Location: Belgium
- Snooker Idol: The Belgiums
- Walk-On: Hound Dog - Elvis
by Iranu » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Imagine having the beeping of a shot clock in every event. It would be interminable.
-

Iranu
- Posts: 44426
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by Empire State Human » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Would be especially fun in a multi table set up where the players are in a state of constant confusion about whose clock is beeping.
-

Empire State Human
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: 09 March 2019
- Snooker Idol: Trump Wu Akani MJW
- Highest Break: 2
by D4P » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
-

D4P
- Posts: 5813
- Joined: 26 December 2018
by Iranu » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
There’s a third option: referees being more assertive in warning players for slow play.
-

Iranu
- Posts: 44426
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by D4P » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Iranu wrote:D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
There’s a third option: referees being more assertive in warning players for slow play.
...which would involve referees keeping a shot clock.
-

D4P
- Posts: 5813
- Joined: 26 December 2018
by McManusFan » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:Iranu wrote:D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
There’s a third option: referees being more assertive in warning players for slow play.
...which would involve referees keeping a shot clock.
No it wouldn't.
-

McManusFan
- Posts: 9219
- Joined: 03 October 2018
- Snooker Idol: Alan McManus
- Highest Break: 8
by D4P » 27 Jan 2023 Read
McManusFan wrote:D4P wrote:Iranu wrote:D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
There’s a third option: referees being more assertive in warning players for slow play.
...which would involve referees keeping a shot clock.
No it wouldn't.
How can you measure "slow play" without keeping track of time...? Or rather,
why would you bother trying to measure slow play without at least incorporating time...?
Last edited by
D4P on 27 Jan 2023, edited 1 time in total.
-

D4P
- Posts: 5813
- Joined: 26 December 2018
by Iranu » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:Iranu wrote:D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
There’s a third option: referees being more assertive in warning players for slow play.
...which would involve referees keeping a shot clock.
... no it wouldn’t.
Selby taking 6 minutes on one shot has nothing to do with AST. It required the ref to step up in that moment only. Not after 20 seconds but a minute or two.
Allen slowed down against Jack but he wasn’t actually SLOW on average. He was 25 seconds a shot.
The bigger issue was his negative play which put colours on cushions and kept the reds tightly bunched. That has nothing to do with AST other than reducing the number of free flowing breaks.
-

Iranu
- Posts: 44426
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by D4P » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Iranu wrote:Selby taking 6 minutes on one shot has nothing to do with AST. It required the ref to step up in that moment only.
But how would a ref know that "a minute or two" had passed without keeping time? Why rely on refs to guess how much time has passed rather than actually measuring time with a clock?
For one thing, having an actual clock is a lot more "fair" because refs are likely to give more leeway to top players than to numpties...
-

D4P
- Posts: 5813
- Joined: 26 December 2018
by Iranu » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:Iranu wrote:Selby taking 6 minutes on one shot has nothing to do with AST. It required the ref to step up in that moment only.
But how would a ref know that "a minute or two" had passed without keeping time? Why rely on refs to guess how much time has passed rather than actually measuring time with a clock?
For one thing, having an actual clock is a lot more "fair" because refs are likely to give more leeway to top players than to numpties...
Keeping an eye on the time isn’t the same as using a shot clock ffs. Also, a ref is gonna know when a shot’s dragging on a bit without having to use a stopwatch.
My point is that it’s not ABOUT the specific time it’s taken.
There are instances where taking a couple of minutes is legitimate and instances where it’s not. If you think it’s one size fits all then you don’t understand snooker.
-

Iranu
- Posts: 44426
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by chengdufan » 27 Jan 2023 Read
It isn't guessing tbough. It's using professional judgement as to whether it's reasonable to take the time that is being taken. If the shot on is obvious, it should not take long. If there are many, or no, options, it will take a bit longer. The ref needs to have enough knowledge of the game to make a determination. It is not about a set number of seconds per shot
-

chengdufan
- Posts: 12729
- Joined: 08 July 2016
- Location: Chongqing
- Snooker Idol: Xiao Guodong
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: Europe - The Final Countdown
by HappyCamper » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
not really, the current situation is fine.
-

HappyCamper
- Posts: 21710
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Ding Junhui
- Walk-On: Fix Up Look Sharp by Dizzy Rascal
by SnookerFan » 27 Jan 2023 Read
The thing is, shot clocks may speed up the AST, and lessen the amount of time taken on a shot. But it doesn't necessarily encourage good play or exciting matches.
If a player is playing outside of their natural speed, they're more likely to mess shots up, or make the balls go awkward. It doesn't really reduce the chances of scrappy frames.
Why would you want to watch people running around like headless chickens in a game of skill like snooker?
-

SnookerFan
- Posts: 165426
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by The_Abbott » 27 Jan 2023 Read
-

The_Abbott
- Posts: 8260
- Joined: 03 May 2017
- Location: Monastery
- Snooker Idol: Retired Snooker Player
- Highest Break: 51
by D4P » 27 Jan 2023 Read
I would put a clock on the screen that players can look at that shows the frame score. Each player would have 2 minutes to play a shot, after which they would be assessed a 4-point foul and put back on the clock for 1 minute, after which they would be assessed an 8-point foul. There would be no annoying "countdown" sound like there is at the Shootout.
There's no good reason to take more than 2 minutes to play a shot. You will have figured out everything you need to figure out in the first 2 minutes, and extra thinking is just a waste of everyone's time that also punishes the player who is in their seat who successfully put their opponent in a difficult position but has to sit around and wait.
-

D4P
- Posts: 5813
- Joined: 26 December 2018
-

Prop
- Posts: 30852
- Joined: 16 December 2015
- Highest Break: 65
- Walk-On: Papua New Guinea - FSOL
by McManusFan » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:I would put a clock on the screen that players can look at that shows the frame score. Each player would have 2 minutes to play a shot, after which they would be assessed a 4-point foul and put back on the clock for 1 minute, after which they would be assessed an 8-point foul. There would be no annoying "countdown" sound like there is at the Shootout.
There's no good reason to take more than 2 minutes to play a shot. You will have figured out everything you need to figure out in the first 2 minutes, and extra thinking is just a waste of everyone's time that also punishes the player who is in their seat who successfully put their opponent in a difficult position but has to sit around and wait.
Completely disagree. Some safety shots can take a long time to work out. Limiting the shot time arbitrarily like this will ruin the drama of those long late night frames where it comes down to the colours. Relying on referees to use their professional judgement to look out for gamesmanship is a much more elegant solution.
-

McManusFan
- Posts: 9219
- Joined: 03 October 2018
- Snooker Idol: Alan McManus
- Highest Break: 8
by Johnny Bravo » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:I would put a clock on the screen that players can look at that shows the frame score. Each player would have 2 minutes to play a shot, after which they would be assessed a 4-point foul and put back on the clock for 1 minute, after which they would be assessed an 8-point foul. There would be no annoying "countdown" sound like there is at the Shootout.
There's no good reason to take more than 2 minutes to play a shot. You will have figured out everything you need to figure out in the first 2 minutes, and extra thinking is just a waste of everyone's time that also punishes the player who is in their seat who successfully put their opponent in a difficult position but has to sit around and wait.
20 seconds is more than enough for a shot. In the case a tricky situation arises, players should be allowed 1 or 2 extensions per game, with an extra 30 seconds.
-

Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7524
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by Johnny Bravo » 27 Jan 2023 Read
McManusFan wrote:Relying on referees to use their professional judgement to look out for gamesmanship is a much more elegant solution.
Problem is that refs don't have the balls to warn top players.
-

Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7524
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by Pink Ball » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Don't bring in a shot clock. I hate them. bucking hate them.
But referees should keep an eye out for someone being deliberately slow. Problem is, how many will have the balls?
If Alan Chamberlain didn't warn Peter Ebdon against Ronnie O'Sullivan in 2005, who's going to get a warning?
-

Pink Ball
- Posts: 23089
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: Those with nice faces
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by Johnny Bravo » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Don't bring in a shot clock. I hate them. bucking hate them.
But referees should keep an eye out for someone being deliberately slow. Problem is, how many will have the balls?
If Alan Chamberlain didn't warn Peter Ebdon against Ronnie O'Sullivan in 2005, who's going to get a warning?
And there inlies the problem, refs don't have the guts to warn top players, therefore a shot clock is needed.
Also, you must stop looking at things from your perspective, that of a purist, and look at it instead from the perspective of the paying public and audience, they are the ones that keep the game alive. Most don't like slow play, especially potential new audience.
Slow play is one of the reasons pool was dying at one stage, and that's why they installed a shot clock in many events.
-

Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7524
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by SteveJJ » 27 Jan 2023 Read
If players are actually slowing down to frustrate Jack then don't they run the risk of knocking themselves out of their own rhythm?
It all seems to me the whingeing of someone who wants a rule change in some events because he can't seem to win normally and wants the cards stacked more in his favour. For all the comments about how much of a help Ebdon will be for Jack in terms of mindset, this outburst to the press looks like that of a weak mentality.
-
SteveJJ
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 05 June 2012
- Highest Break: 50
by SnookerEd25 » 27 Jan 2023 Read
D4P wrote:Either you think players should be allowed to take 6 minutes to play a shot, or you essentially think there should be some kind of shot clock.
Not really, that’s like saying ‘either you support the death penalty, or you think murder should be legalised’
-

SnookerEd25
- Posts: 24704
- Joined: 10 October 2011
- Location: West London
- Snooker Idol: Cliff Wilson
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: Play with Fire (Rolling Stones)
by SnookerEd25 » 27 Jan 2023 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Don't bring in a shot clock. I hate them. bucking hate them.
But referees should keep an eye out for someone being deliberately slow. Problem is, how many will have the balls?
If Alan Chamberlain didn't warn Peter Ebdon against Ronnie O'Sullivan in 2005, who's going to get a warning?
Two high-profile players this week have claimed the sport is dying on it’s arsse. A shot-clock would be the final nail in the coffin
(though I must say I like ESH’s suggestion above

)
-

SnookerEd25
- Posts: 24704
- Joined: 10 October 2011
- Location: West London
- Snooker Idol: Cliff Wilson
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: Play with Fire (Rolling Stones)