Champion of Champions '16

[OmaMiesta]

To complete the draw:

Group 1:
Robertson - Bingham
Ding - Carter

Group 2:
Selby - Liang
Allen - Fu

Group 3:
O'Sullivan - Hull
Gould - Davis

Group 4:
Murphy - Higgins
Trump - McGill

Well, one of these groups is not like the others...

Group 3 is by far the easiest with O'Sullivan the huge favorite here.
The other groups are alle very tough.

Rather strange that Ronnie always seems to get the easiest draws early in the tournaments

[PatBlock]

Rather strange that Ronnie always seems to get the easiest draws early in the tournaments

If you add up all their current ranking positions, the top half of the draw = 57 and Ronnie's half = 147, Nicely balanced then. :wink:

-

[Miig]

I like how Stephen used the old familiar phrase "this match deserves a decider" in a negative way adding how neither Ding or Carter should win comfortably.

[DeanH]

Champion of Champions '16

What disturbed Ding breaking off on this frame (7th)?

[PatBlock]

Really enjoying this one, getting more tense with every frame,:nevreness: Can Stu stay awake for another hour or so? Will ding give him any more gifted misses?.....

-

[PatBlock]

What disturbed Ding breaking off on this frame (7th)?

Sorry, went for a comfort break and missed the break off.

No gifts there, lovely 125 from Ding.

-

[PatBlock]

Haha, Ding the Machine! Love it.

-

[DeanH]

Champion of Champions '16

Bingham had one shot to have a chance to level but maybe jetlag affected his game. Really World Snooker you can't have an event finishing on a Saturday and another starting on Tuesday! Give the players a week between events

[Big Splash!]

Bingham had one shot to have a chance to level but maybe jetlag affected his game. Really World Snooker you can't have an event finishing on a Saturday and another starting on Tuesday! Give the players a week between events

They don't have to enter every event, they don't have to get on planes so often. His choice.

[DeanH]

BS, very true but the China international had a big purse to intice the players and Bingham had a place in this Coc that the players feel obliged to attend. I hear that Bingham is not going to Ireland to have a break to spend time with family and relax which is unusual for Bingham
I think WS could have spread the events and bit more with consideration to the players. Even F1 have breaks for the pit-crews in mind
The start of this season was a drought of events that if they had a forethought they could have spread the events better

[wemba]

Funny seeing Paul Collier unconsciously going to pick up the cue ball when Ronnie stopped it dropping in the pocket before stopping himself

Odd situation that.
The cue call stayed where it was and there was no red on.
If Collier had put the cueball back in the D, there was an easy pot waiting.
O'Sullivan was fouled anyway but by poking at the white in the way he did, he didn't leave a red on.

[vmax4steve]

Odd situation that.
The cue call stayed where it was and there was no red on.
If Collier had put the cueball back in the D, there was an easy pot waiting.
O'Sullivan was fouled anyway but by poking at the white in the way he did, he didn't leave a red on.

Need to change the rule to one that if a player fouls to prevent a foul then the foul that was prevented should hold sway.
That being said I don't think any player does it to gain advantage, just something we all do in the club either with our hand or cue and the other bloke simply places the cue ball in the D and gets on with it.

[DeanH]

Odd situation that.
The cue call stayed where it was and there was no red on.
If Collier had put the cueball back in the D, there was an easy pot waiting.
O'Sullivan was fouled anyway but by poking at the white in the way he did, he didn't leave a red on.

It was but at least it did not go further like the "Dott knuckle" situation
Below is an image immediately as the cue ball came to rest after it was hit by Ronnie's cue.

The cue call stayed where it was and there was no red on.

The last Red was still the "ball on" but what you mean (I think) is that there was no direct line from cue ball to the ball on. As you can see from where the cue ball came to rest, the Red is clearly seen from the cue ball BUT one extreme edge was obscured by the Blue hence the Free Ball option given to Gould.
Say, for example, the cue ball had NOT dropped into the pocket but sat in the jaws, the Red would still have been seen directly, AND the Free Ball option would still have been given.
Option, Gould did not have to but he took the option and gained more points to help win the frame

If Collier had put the cueball back in the D, there was an easy pot waiting.

Of course in the situation that actually happened, Collier was correct to not pick up the cue ball and offer it to Gould as Ball In Hand, as the cue ball had not left the bed of the table.
IF ROS had not knocked the cue ball and it had dropped into the pocket, then it would have been Ball In Hand and, as you say, there would have been an easier Red for Gould.

O'Sullivan was fouled anyway but by poking at the white in the way he did, he didn't leave a red on.

As above, he did leave a direct line to the ball on, purely by chance should be said. He would have fouled if the cue ball had gone into the pocket, he pre-empted this event by hitting the cue ball whilst still on the bed of the table, that is the foul. What could have happened is that he could have hit the cue ball in such a manner and into a position that could have severely disadvantaged Gould, so players should let events happens unhindered, and hence Collier did have a word with ROS to the affect of "don't hit the ball like that".


[QUOTE=wemba;907330]

[wemba]

Thanks Dean, for the response. Much appreciated!

Hypothetically, let's say ROS sees the white about to enter a pocket.
But instead of poking at it with his cue as he did, he moves the white with his hand (without it leaving the bed of the table) and places it hard along the black cushion with no reds on.

What would be the correct refereeing decision in that case?

[DeanH]

Thanks Dean, for the response. Much appreciated!

Hypothetically, let's say ROS sees the white about to enter a pocket.
But instead of poking at it with his cue as he did, he moves the white with his hand (without it leaving the bed of the table) and places it hard along the black cushion with no reds on.

What would be the correct refereeing decision in that case?

Same as the first part of the Dott-Knuckle incident
Foul, no Ball In Hand, leave cue ball where it lies, if snookered on the ball on, then Free Ball option in addition to the normal two options; play yourself from where it lies or put the offending player in to play from where it lies.
Also, in your scenario where the intent is clearly unfair, I think the referee should warn the player for "ungentlemanly conduct" and issue a warning, another warning and the frame will be awarded to the non-offending player.

"ball on" - there is always a "ball on", it is just whether you can play it directly or not (snookered or not), which I think you mean