VIDEO: Loss of frame or poor play? Ronnie vs Mark

[scottley]

Not really! Just watch the following frame: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSrreQ94EPE

What a player!

[Inoffthered]

I would say cowardly, not smarter, and again typical 8 ball pool tactics of using the rules to gain advantage rather than having the balls to take on the clearance.

Exactly! Completely agree on this one.. It's a professional game, you play to win.. but at what cost? Not having the balls to go for a clearance = no entertainment value for the crowd.. Some players seem to forget the reason why ppl turn up to watch! Anyone in the local club can plant fudge snooker after snooker! Very sad..

[Inoffthered]

I agree with this as the rule stands, but should the rule stand as it is? Playing one shot shouldn't result in 30 or 40 points in fouls imo, especially as the same rule applies whether the snooker was played deliberately or fluked.

Aye. Agreed!

[andy carson]

Exactly! Completely agree on this one.. It's a professional game, you play to win.. but at what cost? Not having the balls to go for a clearance = no entertainment value for the crowd.. Some players seem to forget the reason why ppl turn up to watch! Anyone in the local club can plant fudge snooker after snooker! Very sad..

ok lets make the pockets the size of water butts, the balls the size of marbles and snookers dont count.....

people turn up to watch snooker being played and that is what they were watching....

jesus as soon as something bad is posted about the over ego'ed god of snooker the forum goes mad!

[Inoffthered]

ok lets make the pockets the size of water butts, the balls the size of marbles and snookers dont count.....

Nope. Didn't suggest that at all.. you are comparing physical attributes to the style in which you play..

Cool story bro.

[andy carson]

Nope. Didn't suggest that at all.. you are comparing physical attributes to the style in which you play..

Cool story bro.

best you can come up with in reply then?

[Inoffthered]

best you can come up with in reply then?

Aye .

[The Statman]

... When there's only one ball on I think the rule needs to be altered so that 3 misses are the limit. A minimum of 12 points would be gained, and the player returning to the table would still have the choice of taking any potential free ball, playing the shot or putting his opponent back in.

So what is in the rules, then, to stop a player from making two very halfhearted attempts knowing it'll be put back, and on the third shot just tapping the white to the baulk cushion knowing it can't then be called?

[Ari_vatanen]

So what is in the rules, then, to stop a player from making two very halfhearted attempts knowing it'll be put back, and on the third shot just tapping the white to the baulk cushion knowing it can't then be called?

ungentlemanly conduct ?? or is HE exempt?? crap referee in my book !!

[magicman]

I still have to disagree. Top pros are good enough to miss by the tiniest margins 3 times in a row.

If this was true then what's stopping them hitting the ball by the tiniest margin 3 times in a row?

I've played top pro's over and over again and they are very good but they're not that good longbomber!

[magicman]

So what is in the rules, then, to stop a player from making two very halfhearted attempts knowing it'll be put back, and on the third shot just tapping the white to the baulk cushion knowing it can't then be called?

As the poster below says - ungentlemanly conduct. Proper snooker players call their own fouls anyway. They accurately replace cueball and object ball for misses etc. Any obvious non-attempt wouldn't go down well with the audience either would it? Most top players are honest, disciplined competitors and wouldn't do what you suggest. Even if they did there is provision in the rules for any non-attempt - the ref can replace the balls for another miss, even if snookers are required, if he deems the player hasn't made a genuine attempt.

The reason the miss rule needs revising is because as it currently stands, an exceptionally tough snooker can result in a player coming to the table 34 points ahead with 1 red on and after many genuine attempts to hit this final red find himself 38 points behind needing a snooker. How can this be considered fair by the laws of the game?

[vmax4steve]

The reason the miss rule needs revising is because as it currently stands, an exceptionally tough snooker can result in a player coming to the table 34 points ahead with 1 red on and after many genuine attempts to hit this final red find himself 38 points behind needing a snooker. How can this be considered fair by the laws of the game?

Agree with this completely. Back in the day snookers were only played for a tactical advantage or when a player needed more points than were available on the table in order to win the frame. With the miss rule that has changed to gaining twenty or so points from one single snooker even if the tactical advantage has been gained from the first initial foul, like the awarding of a free ball.
If you start messing with the rules you better make sure you cover all the loopholes that can be detrimental to the entertainment value of the sport you are selling to the public.
I don't watch pro snooker just to see who wins, I can go down the local club for that. I watch pro snooker to see the best at their best doing things that I can't and not to watch a referee replace balls all the bloody time for a player without the balls to take on a free ball and have a go.

And I don't care which player does it or to whom, I'm not just backing Ronnie here. The miss rule as it stands enables everyone to simply take the easy option, but not everyone does, some have belief and test themselves.

[Terry Davidson]

I hate the miss rule. I had a frame in the Ontario Open where I was snookered by 3 coloured balls near the brown spot with the 2 remaining reds down frozen to the top cushion with the blue touching one of them. I was almost frozen on the 3 colours and could only see about 1ft of the baulk cushion near the green pocket. I had some points, around 15 I think. The pink was in my way for a straight 2-cushion hit.

I tried a 3/4-cushion hit and came within about 2" of the reds and went past them. Foul and miss. However as the blue was covering the red my opponent had a free ball yellow with easy position on the black and could have broken out the reds or even gathered the 8 points and lay another good safety but probably not a snooker but I would be forced to open the reds.

He decided to keep taking the miss call and eventually he was 45 points ahead with the 2 reds. I was so pissed I conceded the frame. That was the only frame he won and he lost the match 3-1. The miss rule is changing the game as a player who is in trouble will purposely use it to gain the advantage rather than potting balls which is much harder than just saying 'please replace the white'.

The way the rule is presently written is fine even though it makes it a subjective call but the rule is being interpreted wrong due to the example referees see on TV, where it is the 'MUST HIT' rule. There are some snookers which are too difficult to hit and we didn't have a referee so we play the 'must hit' rule here.

Terry

[thelongbomber]

If this was true then what's stopping them hitting the ball by the tiniest margin 3 times in a row?

I've played top pro's over and over again and they are very good but they're not that good longbomber!

I have a 65 year old man in my club that has played the game for better part of 40 years and he could. In fact, I KNOW that even I could, and I'm just a wannabe.

[thelongbomber]

I hate the miss rule. I had a frame in the Ontario Open where I was snookered by 3 coloured balls near the brown spot with the 2 remaining reds down frozen to the top cushion with the blue touching one of them. I was almost frozen on the 3 colours and could only see about 1ft of the baulk cushion near the green pocket. I had some points, around 15 I think. The pink was in my way for a straight 2-cushion hit.

I tried a 3/4-cushion hit and came within about 2" of the reds and went past them. Foul and miss. However as the blue was covering the red my opponent had a free ball yellow with easy position on the black and could have broken out the reds or even gathered the 8 points and lay another good safety but probably not a snooker but I would be forced to open the reds.

He decided to keep taking the miss call and eventually he was 45 points ahead with the 2 reds. I was so pissed I conceded the frame. That was the only frame he won and he lost the match 3-1. The miss rule is changing the game as a player who is in trouble will purposely use it to gain the advantage rather than potting balls which is much harder than just saying 'please replace the white'.

The way the rule is presently written is fine even though it makes it a subjective call but the rule is being interpreted wrong due to the example referees see on TV, where it is the 'MUST HIT' rule. There are some snookers which are too difficult to hit and we didn't have a referee so we play the 'must hit' rule here.

Terry

Sounds like situation was far worse than the one Ronnie faced.