UK Champ. 2009 - Semi-final Discussion

[João]

the thing that puzzles me is when ronnie wins he is a genius but if he loses its that his head isnt in the right place

im not saying all his fans are like this because monique is first to praise ronnies opponents but alot of ronnies fans are really sore losers

I don't remember a match where Ronnie was deservedly beaten. It's always:

A) He didn't show up
B) His head wasn't right
C) He was desinterested
D) The opponent played slow and bored him

It's getting old and boring.

[ja.]

the episode where ronnie touched the black deserves a bit of a discussion

[superaussie]

the episode where ronnie touched the blach deserves a bit of a discussion

blatant gamesmanship from ronnie

jan did himself no favours as well both to blame

[very.tee]

That was bizzare with the whole miss sequence and foul situation

But it looks like.... argh! Ron hasn't pulled one back yet...

[spike]

John looks visibly upset and understandably considering what happened..

[João]

Fouling on purpose and getting away with it. Simply pathetic.

[Wim]

the thing that puzzles me is when ronnie wins he is a genius but if he loses its that his head isnt in the right place

im not saying all his fans are like this because monique is first to praise ronnies opponents but alot of ronnies fans are really sore losers

look who is saying this

[steedee]

wether he did it on purpose or not is immaterial.

verhaas got it wrong. had he got it right it would not have made a difference.

that said i doubt he did it on purpose

[Alex0paul]

Fouling on purpose and getting away with it. Simply pathetic.

The only way I would think he had done it on purpose is the way he immediatly sat down, knowing the rule. However I do doubt he did it on purpose.

A very strange rule though.

[lk8]

wtf happened there? I thought if a foul was commited while in the miss stage, it shouldn't interupt the foul sequence and the balls moved should be replaced if requested by the striker and Ronnie can be asked to play from the replace position without affecting the miss sequence? otherwise there will never be foul & miss if the striker just goes over and move a ball with his hand?

[ja.]

wether he did it on purpose or not is immaterial.

verhaas got it wrong. had he got it right it would not have made a difference.

that said i doubt he did it on purpose

indeed i guess technically it wasnt a miss but verhaas should of called one.

[Templeton Peck]

The rule clearly says the player has to the best of his ability, try and hit the ball on. In other words it only outlaws deliberate missing i.e. playing the shot in such a way that it reduces teh chance of hitting a ball on. If Ronnie fouled by accident then he hasn't infringed the miss rule because he was trying to the best of his ability to hit the ball on. Jan Verhaas was correct in not calling a miss. What he got wrong though was in moving the white afterwards which he shouldn't have done if a miss wasn't called.

[April madness]

indeed i guess technically it wasnt a miss but verhaas should of called one.

even if, technically, rule book says the opposite thing? (saying that, I don't know what the rule book says. It's similar now with the discussion of whether player should continue from D when his opponent didn't let cue ball fall into pocket or from the place the ball roll after contact with hand)

[Wim]

The rule clearly says the player has to the best of his ability, try and hit the ball on. In other words it only outlaws deliberate missing i.e. playing the shot in such a way that it reduces teh chance of hitting a ball on. If Ronnie fouled by accident then he hasn't infringed the miss rule because he was trying to the best of his ability to hit the ball on. Jan Verhaas was correct in not calling a miss. What he got wrong though was in moving the white afterwards which he shouldn't have done if a miss wasn't called.

Seems quite logic indeed how you explain this Templeton Peck

[miscuehamburg]

OMG, this stupid incidence has obviously upset John a great deal