Post a reply

Rub of the Green

Postby Roland

We all know what it is. In fact all of us who have played remember matches where the "rub of the green" has favoured our opponent in matches we've lost. I'm sure it's far easier to forget luck both for and against in matches we've won!

One thing that should be pointed out though when considering the luck involved in snooker is that the way commentators carry on, every player is "lucky" when they attempt a pot and don't leave anything on when that is far from the case. The infinite positions balls can land mean it's more unlucky to actually leave your opponent a chance when you miss than the other way around.

The classic example is missed red. When you miss a red you are playing for position on a colour, not a red. Therefore it's more fair to call someone "lucky" if they miss a colour and don't leave a red, seeing as they played for the white to land on a red. And naturally, when you miss a ball the white never lands up exactly where you intend it to land, so most chances left will invariably be more difficult than intended.

It happens in all sports. Fifa's attempts to counter luck of the draw by employing a linesman at each end of the pitch is still pretty pointless as there will still be many occasions where by "luck" isn't spotted. And by introducing judgement you are killing the essence of sport. It's what makes sport so exhilirating. If you took luck out of snooker, say by asking players to nominate pockets, it would take much of the fun out of it and in the end make it more boring to watch as it would encourage endless arguements about what a player intended. Also you couldn't legislate for luck which occurred outside a potted ball, say a flukey snooker, as well as not allowing a player to chance a shot he think could be a result of the shot he's playing even though he knows it's unlikely.

And besides, it's all a part of the mind games, giving the impression you played for something that you didn't by not apologising for something "lucky". Get inside your opponents head. That's more what sport is about - how you cope with the run of the ball rather than the run of the ball itself.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Eirebilly

I have never been an advocate of luck, i feel players in form make their own luck. The "rub of the green" may hurt but he who dares wins <cool>

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Tubberlad

Great stuff Sonny, you're the John Higgins of snooker posting, solid, an all-rounder and the best of the best at the moment <ok>

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Roland

I noticed, or rather was reminded about something tonight.

John Parrott. He was one of the absolute worst culprits in the history of the game for bemoaning the run of the ball. You could see it on his face every time he came to the table after his opponent missed and didn't leave him a sitter he was rolling his eyes and tutting and shaking his head... And then when he got some luck himself he carried on as if he was owed it. In tonights game Ding v Ebdon he was commentating. And you can hear it in his commentary. It's like he doesn't understand the point I made about missing a red and being more likely to leave nothing or a difficult chance than a sitter, especially when balls are flying around the table and until they stop you haven't a clue how they are going to end up.

For example, Ding went for a long pot but missed it and the white careered into the missed red and hit other reds and didn't leave Ebdon an easy chance. We all know when you play the game that these things happen all the time, yet the way he carried on you'd think Ding had won the lottery and owed Ebdon a grovelling apology!

Virgo is another who goes on about the rub of the green too much and reads too much into it. The stronger player is the one who can over-ride the run and stick to their gameplan without getting frustrated and letting it get to them.

Flukes are cool because they create something the players have to deal with and how they deal with it gives an insight into their temperament.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Roland

thetubberlad wrote:Great stuff Sonny, you're the John Higgins of snooker posting, solid, an all-rounder and the best of the best at the moment <ok>


:oops:

:santa:

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Tubberlad

Virgo is another who goes on about the rub of the green too much and reads too much into it. The stronger player is the one who can over-ride the run and stick to their gameplan without getting frustrated and letting it get to them.


The top players are the ones who can forget about these things going against them and put it at the back of their mind. Jimmy White never won the World Title for this reason.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Roland

Mark Selby has the ability to take a serious body blow - say blow an 80 point lead and lose a half hour battle in a frame he should have won, and then still have the ability to win the next frame. Not many can. Hendry, O'Sullivan, Davis - that sort of player can. You see it happen so often that the player who wins a frame he shouldn't have goes on to win the next in double quick time. Dealing with flukes that go against you requires the same part of your brain I think.

Having said that about Selby, he does have his breaking point and he was punched out in the Masters final when O'Sullivan stole the frame to go 9-8 and the same when Higgins got to 12-12 at the Crucible. But he'd taken some serious blows earlier in each match before giving his opponent the chance to dish out the final KO punch.

And I can count on 1 hand the number times I've heard O'Sullivan moan about tables, luck, kicks, bad bounces etc. It's really funny when you get some players moaning about the tables and how they struggle to get a 50 because this is bad and that is bad, and then in the next session O'Sullivan come along and knocks in 3 centuries!

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby MED

Sonny wrote:I noticed, or rather was reminded about something tonight.

John Parrott. He was one of the absolute worst culprits in the history of the game for bemoaning the run of the ball. You could see it on his face every time he came to the table after his opponent missed and didn't leave him a sitter he was rolling his eyes and tutting and shaking his head... And then when he got some luck himself he carried on as if he was owed it. In tonights game Ding v Ebdon he was commentating. And you can hear it in his commentary. It's like he doesn't understand the point I made about missing a red and being more likely to leave nothing or a difficult chance than a sitter, especially when balls are flying around the table and until they stop you haven't a clue how they are going to end up.

For example, Ding went for a long pot but missed it and the white careered into the missed red and hit other reds and didn't leave Ebdon an easy chance. We all know when you play the game that these things happen all the time, yet the way he carried on you'd think Ding had won the lottery and owed Ebdon a grovelling apology!

Virgo is another who goes on about the rub of the green too much and reads too much into it. The stronger player is the one who can over-ride the run and stick to their gameplan without getting frustrated and letting it get to them.

Flukes are cool because they create something the players have to deal with and how they deal with it gives an insight into their temperament.


well Eddie Charlton was as bad if not worst than John Parrott but you are right these things are sent to test us in life as in sport and what is apparent when someone is playing well they have most of the luck or more likely it looks like that because they are playing so well.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Seifer Almasy

eirebilly wrote:I have never been an advocate of luck, i feel players in form make their own luck. The "rub of the green" may hurt but he who dares wins <cool>


Not true at all. Wenbo dares all the time but he does not always win. Luck is a random chance event which will even up over 100 frames, but may never even up over 20 or so. That is well over 1 match.

That is the nature of luck and that isn't an opinion, it is a demonstratable scientific fact.

Also, a player that misses the pocket by larger margins when they miss will end up fluking more than someone who gets closer and jaws it. This is most apparent in amateur game. Since WSA does nothing to stop fluke pots, this increases luck, not decrease.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby MED

Since WSA does nothing to stop fluke pots


why should they stop flukes ?

Ive never even thought they should think about doing that.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Eirebilly

That is the nature of luck and that isn't an opinion, it is a demonstratable scientific fact.

___________________

How on earth is luck a demonstratable scientific fact? the closet scientific fact that i can relate this to is the Chaos theorie.

What i do notice is that when a player dares, and is in confident form, the "luck" tends to follow them. Thats not a scientific fact its just my opinion.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Seifer Almasy

eirebilly wrote:That is the nature of luck and that isn't an opinion, it is a demonstratable scientific fact.

___________________

How on earth is luck a demonstratable scientific fact? the closet scientific fact that i can relate this to is the Chaos theorie.

What i do notice is that when a player dares, and is in confident form, the "luck" tends to follow them. Thats not a scientific fact its just my opinion.


How is it a demonstratable scientific fact?

Throw 1000 die, and count up the number of sixes thrown. It will be nearly 1 in 6. Throw 1 million die, and count em, it will be almost exactly 1 in 6.

It is a fact.

Same with snooker. Count up 1000 misses and see how many go safe, and it will be equal to the other.

The crucial factor here is, it takes LOTS of frames or die throws before it evens out. In a best of 9, this can never happen. It did not even out with Ronnie vs Higgins at all.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Eirebilly

Seifer;

Great for the dice Seifer but in snooker you have more thansix possible outcomes. Its too random. Dice theorie may be proven but the snooker theorie will not. I just have an oppinion and once again you fail to understand what the word oppinion is.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Eirebilly

I would also like to know why you would want flukes removed from the game Seifer. How would you do that, would you have the ref replace all the balls and give a penalty for someone having a bit of luck?

I have seen your favourite Ronnie also fluke on occasions, is that then bad for you or do you twist it around and say that Ronnie means them?

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Seifer Almasy

eirebilly wrote:I would also like to know why you would want flukes removed from the game Seifer. How would you do that, would you have the ref replace all the balls and give a penalty for someone having a bit of luck?

I have seen your favourite Ronnie also fluke on occasions, is that then bad for you or do you twist it around and say that Ronnie means them?


No, I am just as against it when ronnie does (which seems to be rarer because he gets it nearer to pocket when he misses, hence balls do not fly around)

But I am against ANYONE fluking. I made rules that could easily be applied, and I have tried and tested them in a proper frame. It works.

Balls do not need to be replaced. Either you pot the intended ball, or you don't. If you have nominated a pot and it doesnt go into the pocket in the intended way (if the shot choice is obvious, no nomination is required), then that is a foul. 8 points for fluking a red (this is to stop a fluked red costing the other player 8 points which would leave them needing a snooker), and then same as usual with the colours.

It can work, and it works quite effectively.

There are many reasonsd why the fluke pot rule does not work and ruins snooker. If you pull off an amazing safety shot, and then your opponent has no way out, he can just hit and hope. This is against the idea of skill.

There is no way to erradicate luck, but snooker does nothing to minimise it, and it should.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Seifer Almasy

Here they are, subject to some minor mods:


1. A player is required to pot the ball-on in the manner he intended. This means that when requested by the referee or when the shot is unobvious (none direct shots, such as plants and shots off a cushion are always taken to be unobvious), the player has a duty to
a. nominate the pocket which the ball-on is to be potted
b. nominate any method by which he will pot the ball-on, whether it be a plant, swerve, off-cushions or any other none obvious potting method.
c. If the ball-on goes into a nominated pocket by any other means than what was nominated it is considered a fluke pot. The shot must be played as was intended.

2. If the ball-on is potted into the nominated pocket in the nominated way, all other considerations are discarded. This means:
a. if another ball is pocketed in the same shot, it is not added to the players score but the player is not penalised

i. in the case of a red ball it is left pocketed
ii. in the case of a coloured ball it is respotted

The exception to this rule is pocketing the cue ball which is punished by a standard foul.

3. The player coming to the table (after the opponent has played a fluke pot) can choose to play on from the current position or let his opponent play on from the current position. If the player coming to the table is snookered after his opponent has a fluke pot in relation to rule 1 and 2 it is a free ball.

4. If a player is deemed to have broken these rules, the penalty is based on the fluke pot penalty (see 5.)

5. Penalties for fluke potting the balls: yellow, green and brown incur a 4 point penalty, blue is 5 points, pink is 6 points, black is 7 points and Red is 8 points.

These rules do not just stop a fluke pot. They address some anomalies which may arise:

Red ball is fluke potted and so does not come out again, meaning the opponent has lost a valuable 8 points they needed and now require a snooker. Solved by making a fluked red cost 8 penalty points.

Bad luck. When going into packs or potting a ball on in the legal manner it is possible to knock another ball into a pocket. Usually totally unforseeable. Solved by making it so that all other considerations do not matter as long as the nominated ball is potted into the nominated pocket in the nominated way.

Please bare in mind that illegally playing balls is punished by the usual rules. The Fluke Pot rules only come into it, if a ball has been POTTED in an illegal way.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Eirebilly

Seifer;

Looks like you have worked hard on that but wont it slow he whole game down? It certainly wouldnt work in any of the shot clock matches you put forward as i am sure that under a time constraint more flukes would happen.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Wildey

holy cow that totally rules out shot clock's

so in effect a player must go over to a tv screen and use the dennis taylor telestrator explain exactly how he intends on potting the ball before taking the shot <laugh>

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Roland

It's ridiculous and thankfully it'll never happen

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Seifer Almasy

Sonny wrote:It's ridiculous and thankfully it'll never happen


It isn't ridiculous at all, the idea of diluting this sport with luck is. As an 8 ball player, you must really hate that nominating rule.

You must get way too much luck in your matches, and there are real players (cueball, break of 145) who agree with me. it isn't just me vs everyone ;)

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Seifer Almasy

eirebilly wrote:Seifer;

Looks like you have worked hard on that but wont it slow he whole game down? It certainly wouldnt work in any of the shot clock matches you put forward as i am sure that under a time constraint more flukes would happen.


Actually it would work in shot clock. It is very easy... I am a crap snooker player atm, and shot time is less than 15 seconds, same with cousins. We manage to play these rules within that time.

Remember there is no replacing of balls asking a person to play the shot again and a player does not need to nominate obvious shots, esp break building ones, such as staying on black ball. Try it yourself ina match with someone. Fluke pots do not even happen that often, but when they do, they can ruin the game.

The things you cannot stop are:

Fluke snookers (nominating would be too much time and messing)
Fluke position

So obviously, high amounts of luck would exist, but at least missing the intended shot would be punished and stopped, rather than allowing a crap shot to be let off. Can you imagine this in darts? A pro missing the double and then it still being counted??

It is this I do not understand with Oneballs oppositon. He is quite happy for a crap shot to be rewarded...and I am not. it is fundamentally wrong.
Last edited by Seifer Almasy on 10 Oct 2009, edited 3 times in total.

Re: Rub of the Green

Postby Wildey

Seifer island hatah wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Seifer;

Looks like you have worked hard on that but wont it slow he whole game down? It certainly wouldnt work in any of the shot clock matches you put forward as i am sure that under a time constraint more flukes would happen.


Actually it would work in shot clock. It is very easy... I am a crap snooker player atm, and shot time is less than 15 seconds, same with cousins. We manage to play these rules within that time.

Remember there is no replacing of balls asking a person to play the shot again. Try it yourself ina match with someone. Fluke pots do not even happen that often, but when they do, they can ruin the game.


OMG he has actually played using these rules and he can do all that faffing about in 15 seconds a shot all i can say no wander he is a crap snooker player.