Qualifying Round results

[elvaago]

There's a difference. If 2 and exactly 2 players are level, the head-to-head counts. But if 3 or more players are level, the frame difference counts. I don't see WHY they need to have different rules for a two-way or a more-way tie, but hey, it's snooker. A lot of rules are silly. Anyone remember the Miss rule? :-)

[austrian_girl]

LOL, elvaago! The miss rule... what a blunder!

[The Statman]

There's a difference. If 2 and exactly 2 players are level, the head-to-head counts. But if 3 or more players are level, the frame difference counts. I don't see WHY they need to have different rules for a two-way or a more-way tie, but hey, it's snooker. A lot of rules are silly. Anyone remember the Miss rule? :-)

Although to be fair to the Miss Rule, that is a good concept made slightly more complicated by its application on the pro circuit.

The round-robin thing, by contrast, is a stupid concept which doesn't need to be applied differently to be made stupid.

[elvaago]

I like the round robin concept myself. Darts, pool and football all use it quite well.

[The Statman]

I like the round robin concept myself. Darts, pool and football all use it quite well.

Sure. But a round-robin creates a very good chance for a tied position somewhere down the line, and that may well occur across the qualifying threshold. You need to have a robust and fair system.

However, every player presumably was presented with the tiebreak conditions before they took part, and it is at least the same for everyone. Sort of.

Perhaps I should have calrified that it is the concept of the tiebreak arrangements, rather than the round-robin itself, that seems silly.

[elvaago]

Best of 5 matches are very close to a lottery, though. They certainly must never shorten it. I'd even prefer best of 9s for this round robin format.

[austrian_girl]

I don't mind the round robin. It's a nice change from the usual knock out format but I would expect a professional organisation to compose a clear set of rules before the start of a competition.... oh well!!!

[snookersfun]

does that mean Drago is out and Davison in?

GROUP 1C
NR PLAYERS NAMES MP MW FW FL FD POS
1C1 Rod Lawler 7 3 14 16 -2 6
1C2 Jamie Cope 7 6 19 6 13 1
1C3 Rory McLeod 7 4 14 13 1 4
1C4 Tony Drago 7 4 16 16 0 5
1C5 Chris Melling 7 4 16 13 3 3
1C6 Paul S Davison 7 4 16 11 5 2
1C7 Mark Boyle 7 1 9 19 -10 7
1C8 Passakorn Suwannawat 7 1 10 20 -10 8

Jamie Cope 3-0 Passakorn Suwannawat
Tony Drago 1-3 Paul S Davison
Rod Lawler 2-3 Mark Boyle
Rory McLeod 0-3 Chris Melling

[The Statman]

Are Ali and Storey still slogging it out?

[snookersfun]

Are Ali and Storey still slogging it out?

???
Lawler and Boyle 2-2 still, but they won't influence anything, would they?

[April madness]

Boyle wins 3-2

[cap]

Now, I'm completely lost. What comes first, head-to-head or frame difference? Does anyone have another source of the rules other than from the UNRELIABLE worldsnooker website?

[Sarmu]

i think the rule is kinda stupid

if you play against your opponent who had 1 less match win then you and far worse frame different, and you loose, then your only hope is if some other player tie the match win...

so technically someone can affect the qualifier even they do not directly play with them

[April madness]

Looks like Parrot won McGlinchey 3-1, does that mean JP is through to the main tournament?

[snookersfun]

Roe and Trump through by my calculations (and globalsnooker; also Davison apears as 2nd there now)

GROUP 1D
NR PLAYERS NAMES MP MW FW FL FD POS
1D1 John Parrott 7 4 15 13 2 4
1D2 Drew Henry 7 2 11 18 -7 7
1D3 David Gilbert 7 3 13 13 0 6
1D4 David Roe 7 5 18 10 8 2
1D5 Judd Trump 7 6 19 6 13 1
1D6 Ian Preece 7 4 15 11 4 3
1D7 Dermot McGlinchey 7 3 11 18 -7 5
1D8 Jeff Cundy 7 1 7 20 -13 8

Drew Henry 3-1 Jeff Cundy (105 miss max)
David Roe 3-1 Ian Preece
John Parrott 3-1 Dermot McGlinchey
David B Gilbert 3-1 Judd Trump