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

[thelongbomber]

Shouldn't Ronnie have lost the frame for playing into the green here? What is the official rule? Mark Selby has every right not to take a free ball as he wishes.

Issue starts at 1:35

[jrc750]

Ronnie was being a 1st class pratt there, nothing new i suppose
I think he should of been warned tho after his 1st hit at the green

[Odrl]

Collier should have called the miss even after snookers were required here, as it was a blatant non-attempt. :wink:

[scottley]

Another example of Mark getting under Ronnies skin.

[jrc750]

Another example of Mark getting under Ronnies skin.

How is that Selby's fault lol, some people ehh

[tedisbill]

Ronnie's protest here was over the miss being called. He thought the snooker was basically impossible to hit, so he was asking Paul Collier why it was a miss.

Ronnie started rolling into the green because he was making the point that there was no way he could ever escape anyway.

I'm not saying who was right or wrong, but that's the issue Ronnie had.

[thelongbomber]

I think ROS just got overheated by Mark not wanting to take a free ball. I would imagine ROS hates that Mark plays so negative at times, but ROS shouldn't be bothered by Mark's negative playing tactics. MOST snooker players would take the free ball, and then find another snooker on the yellow, but in Mark's defense, his choice was actually smarter as it's pretty hard to improve upon the snooker that was already laid.

[tedisbill]

I don't think anybody would have taken the free ball there. Absolutely pointless.

[cueman]

There is no doubt that he played into the green to give Selby an easy pot on a free ball to see if he would win the frame by potting a ball rather than using the miss rule to his advantage.

Its moments like this which is why the miss rule needs to be addressed in some way because I don't see how laying one snooker can result in someone winning a frame in points accumulated in a difficult situation such as this.

The honourable thing to do with the miss rule would be for all players to agree to a certain level of etiquette whereby they don't keep having the balls put back when their is a blatant pot on. The rule was not brought in to give a player an advantage, it was to stop the striker from gaining an advantage by missing the ball on and getting away with it. Well Ronnie missed but he didn't get away with it leaving a free ball situation and its that part he disagrees with and so do I.

[vmax4steve]

MOST snooker players would take the free ball, and then find another snooker on the yellow, but in Mark's defense, his choice was actually smarter as it's pretty hard to improve upon the snooker that was already laid.

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.

If the miss rule has to stay then how about changing it so that points are only awarded for the first initial foul stroke, then balls can be replaced, then after a second miss a free ball is awarded no matter what the situation of the balls are, then after a third miss cue ball in hand awarded.
This would stop the laying of snookers only to gain points for misses, this would encourage players to take on the free ball and continue the frame, this would encourage players to try harder to hit the ball on knowing that cue ball in hand would be the end result if they didn't.

[j6uk]

Ronnie was being a 1st class pratt there, nothing new i suppose
I think he should of been warned tho after his 1st hit at the green

rons in the entertainment industry, lets move on to the next frame, no problem, if that cant is incapable of taking a free bee.. but we know that you like looking at marx clomp about the table in pink wellies

[thelongbomber]

There is no doubt that he played into the green to give Selby an easy pot on a free ball to see if he would win the frame by potting a ball rather than using the miss rule to his advantage.

It IS to Mark's advantage by the very right that he played the snooker should earn the benefit

....accumulated in a difficult situation such as this.

It wasn't an impossible snooker. Hard yes, impossible no. Ronnie has played out of much more difficult positions. He could have gone 2/3 cushions twice across rather than trying to go one cushion.

It was to stop the striker from gaining an advantage by missing the ball on and getting away with it. Well Ronnie missed but he didn't get away with it leaving a free ball situation and its that part he disagrees with and so do I.

Exactly to stop ROS from continually missing. If a miss was NOT called, MS would be at a DISadvantage as getting from yellow to green is tough. And Ronnie DID initially get away with it. A free ball for most would be an advantage but MS would then still face the issue of how to get from green to yellow.

Anyways, point being, MS could have played more positive by taking a free ball at some point, and ROS could have played less negative, but actually trying to hit the yellow.

[magicman]

It IS to Mark's advantage by the very right that he played the snooker should earn the benefit

Original Source: VIDEO: Loss of frame or poor play? Ronnie vs Mark http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...#ixzz32HYEV1GK
- TSF - TheSnookerForum.co.uk
Follow us: @TheSnookerForum on Twitter | TheSnookerForum on Facebook

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.

It wasn't an impossible snooker. Hard yes, impossible no. Ronnie has played out of much more difficult positions. He could have gone 2/3 cushions twice across rather than trying to go one cushion.

Original Source: VIDEO: Loss of frame or poor play? Ronnie vs Mark http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...#ixzz32HYj58cE
- TSF - TheSnookerForum.co.uk
Follow us: @TheSnookerForum on Twitter | TheSnookerForum on Facebook

Again, I agree, he could have gone twice across. However, more patient players than Ronnie have lost the plot when at the end of a hard fought frame lasting 45 minutes, somebody gets gifted the entire frame.

I don't blame Selby at all in this scenario, but think it illustrates exactly what's wrong with the miss rule as it's currently applied. 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.

[kligu]

Another example of Mark getting under Ronnies skin.

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

[thelongbomber]

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.



Again, I agree, he could have gone twice across. However, more patient players than Ronnie have lost the plot when at the end of a hard fought frame lasting 45 minutes, somebody gets gifted the entire frame.

I don't blame Selby at all in this scenario, but think it illustrates exactly what's wrong with the miss rule as it's currently applied. 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.

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