Post a reply

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Casey

Excellent piece Sonny.

I don’t think the rules of the game should be changed because one player (Ebdon) is always far too slow. The referees know what he is about now and should start to clamp down on him immediately.

Another thing you mentioned that could be changed is players playing on with no hope of winning the frame. I think when more than 16 penalty points are needed the opposing player should not be allowed back to the table.
Take frame 1 in Ebdon v Dott. Peter needed I think near 20 points in snookers, he potted two or 3 balls, didn’t get position and played a few safety shots, it dragged the frame out an extra 5 – 7 mins. No need for it at all.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

Yes that's a problem for me, when players play on and drag the frame out when it's obvious they're not going to get the required number of snookers. It's also used as a rhythm knocker which I think is one thing the faster players hate the most.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Skullman

But sometimes it does happen. Didn't Selby get 5 snookers against Hendry in 2011? And how many snookers did Hallett get against Parrott back in 1991 Masters?

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

3 is not 5 though. That's why I plucked 5 out of the air. I think Selby got 4 against Hendry that time. 5 rarely ever happens. The other point is that by ending the frame after the next visit it stops the other player needlessly clearing up when they've already won.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Witz78

when you throw the free ball into the mix though, plus possibilities of getting 6 or 7 foul points off the pink or black into the mix too depending upon the table layout, then you can see how a 5 x standard 4 points foul rule wouldnt be justifiable.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Casey

I still think 17 penalty points and above is excessive. The audience rarely want to see it and it doesn't help with the TV schedule.

I understand that a player on the receiving end might want a few shots to get used to the table, but if player A has frozen him out and won the frame with player B having no chance of winning the it then player B shouldn't be allowed back to the table. He didn't earn it and player A deserves that advantage.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Wildey

in commentary today Hendon mentioned a player in qualifying a few years ago got 10 snookers lol

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby PLtheRef

A very interesting piece.

Sonny hit the nail on the head quite firmly when he said that Snooker is very different to the other cue sports which do implement the shot clock. Nine-ball pool uses the Shot-Clock but its also notable that a best of 9 rack pool match will last around the same length as protracted frame of snooker. That is including the fact that 9-ball pool will include safety battles. None of which last for more than a few minutes.

A few years ago I went to watch the 8-ball World Masters in Blackpool which was being filmed the same time as the WEBPF World Championships. - In that case a shot clock was set at one minute with a seperate time referee (which in this case could be the marker) calling out '30 seconds' at the half way point in the frame.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby vodkadiet

Mike Hallett got 5 snookers on the yellow to beat John Parrott in the Semis of The Masters in 1988. If these rules were brought in Parrott would have been in the final.

As For Dott, he was the slowest, most negative of the top players in the late 90s.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby vodkadiet

Other examples of players getting numerous snookers. Billy Snaddon got 4 snookers on the brown against Dene O'Kane in the final frame of a match, and Cliff Thorburn was 7-0 down and 74-0 down with 4 reds left in the final of The Goya International, won the frame and won 12-10.

Alex Higgins regularly carried on when needing 12 or 13 snookers.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

What I suggested (and it's only a suggestion throwing the idea out there) is that it doesn't happen in the frame where the player playing on for snookers loses the match. I also suggested that the player playing for snookers be allowed to declare once or twice or three times depending on the length of match that they intend to play on for snookers in that particular frame. There would have to be some leeway.

Anyway, this is straying from the point somewhat which is that the article is about shot clocks and why they are a bad idea and why for example Snooker Island would shut down for good if they brought them into tournament play. I'm not joking either. I wouldn't support the game I love and have spent so much of my life obsessing over being ruined by paranoia that some people find it boring because they don't understand how difficult it is and how good the players playing it are so to appease them it needs to be raped for those with a short attention span.

I think Dotty is misguided to be fair. I think if he'd faced and beaten a different player in the 2006 final he wouldn't be as fixated as to even suggest it.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby vodkadiet

What about non tv matches? If no one is watching a match will anyone care if someone takes 3 minutes a shot, or plays on for 8 snookers?

Aussie Robbie Foldvari was far slower than Ebdon but he never made the tv stages so it didn't matter.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

What about early rounds with lots of matches going on? Either pips going on all over the shop or referees all around the players going "10 seconds" and players thinking it refers to them when it doesn't.

The whole thing about slow play is total paranoia due solely down to idiots who write about snooker once a year for various newspapers and idiot editors of tv news programmes who think diving is a sport and snooker isn't so should be included in news items.

As Jason Ferguson said to me at the Crucible, snooker is the fastest growing sport in the world. It's getting stupidly popular in non-UK countries and they're finding it hard to meet the demand. It's only here in the UK that hammer media outlets make out there's a problem when there isn't. Certain players using terms like "Killing the game" doesn't help either!

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby PLtheRef

If a shot clock had to come in then the 8 ball pool version would probably work best. With a clear clock and timer operated by the marker who is recording each stroke. That said, is it necessary? Not really.

I don't think you can set limits for the number of snookers you can go for. That just makes the game just as artificial as a shot clock does. And it's not alleviated by waiving the limit when loss of a frame would mean the match too.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Skullman

And the problem with most of the UK media is that they're so ignorant of the sport that they know nothing except the BBC tournaments at best. I think the fact that they're fixated on Ronnie and Judd is partly due to sheer laziness and not making an attempt to find out about other players as research involves effort and changing their views.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Skullman

PS I'm not sure why snooker has to appeal to everybody. Some things such as occasion long bouts of safety play and thinking a minute+ on shots are inherent parts of the game, and if someone can't cope with that, maybe snooker's not for them. As Dott said , even Ronnie has to do it sometimes.

The fans gained by adding a shot clock would be similar to the type of fan who likes Ronnie and not snooker itself, or worst case scenario like those knobheads at Power Snooker who booed whenever someone played a safety.

Anyway, why add a rule when there's only a handful of players who play that style? Can't think of anyone it would affect except Ebdon and maybe Rory McLeod.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

PLtheRef wrote:If a shot clock had to come in then the 8 ball pool version would probably work best. With a clear clock and timer operated by the marker who is recording each stroke. That said, is it necessary? Not really.


Not "not really". Absolutely not.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby vodkadiet

Skullman wrote:PS I'm not sure why snooker has to appeal to everybody. Some things such as occasion long bouts of safety play and thinking a minute+ on shots are inherent parts of the game, and if someone can't cope with that, maybe snooker's not for them. As Dott said , even Ronnie has to do it sometimes.

The fans gained by adding a shot clock would be similar to the type of fan who likes Ronnie and not snooker itself, or worst case scenario like those knobheads at Power Snooker who booed whenever someone played a safety.

Anyway, why add a rule when there's only a handful of players who play that style? Can't think of anyone it would affect except Ebdon and maybe Rory McLeod.


What about Rod Lawler?

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby vodkadiet

I used to place a sex addict for money at Mile End snooker centre years ago and he would often come up from his shot to tell me about the latest shag he had had the previous night, or a few days earlier. He would often talk about it for about 5 minutes at a time. Should he have had a shot clock?

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

Maguire said that Poomjaeng was as slow as Ebdon and you could see from watching that he did take a lot of time over certain shots but anyone watching that match who thinks it needed a shot clock needs their head testing. Maguire to his credit was not complaining, he was merely pointing out that it's Poomer's natural style of play. Does anyone really think getting him to hurry up would benefit the game? Poomjaeng is the new saviour of snooker in terms of being the one to kick this whole shot clock debate into touch.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby SnookerFan

Yeah, shot clocks are stupid. Put them in exhibition events like Premier League and Sky Seniors, if ya must. But the words "shot clock" and "ranking event" shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Anybody using the words "shot clock" and "world championship" should be shot.
Last edited by SnookerFan on 25 Apr 2013, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Skullman

vodkadiet wrote:
Skullman wrote:PS I'm not sure why snooker has to appeal to everybody. Some things such as occasion long bouts of safety play and thinking a minute+ on shots are inherent parts of the game, and if someone can't cope with that, maybe snooker's not for them. As Dott said , even Ronnie has to do it sometimes.

The fans gained by adding a shot clock would be similar to the type of fan who likes Ronnie and not snooker itself, or worst case scenario like those knobheads at Power Snooker who booed whenever someone played a safety.

Anyway, why add a rule when there's only a handful of players who play that style? Can't think of anyone it would affect except Ebdon and maybe Rory McLeod.


What about Rod Lawler?


Think that's Lawler's natural pace because he seems to slow down under pressure situations and think. With Ebdon and maybe Rory I think they're the only ones who intentionally slow down to affect their opponent's rhythm.

Re: The Case Against Shot Clocks In Snooker

Postby Roland

At the qualifiers Rod was always slow, like you say his natural pace, but on some shots he slowed right down and most of the time he missed the pot. I can't see why that would annoy an opponent. You could see he was hesitating because he was under it.