Slow play?

[Monique]

http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/200...-too-slow.html

HOW SLOW IS TOO SLOW?

Adrian Gunnell was last night warned for slow play in his match against Shaun Murphy.

Actually, the rules govern time wasting but it's the same difference.

I thought the referee, Leo Scullion, should have warned Gunnell during the interval rather than at the start of frame five. It seemed a strange moment to do it.

All of which begs the question: how slow is too slow?

Adrian is a methodical player. I've seen him play many times in the qualifiers and this is the pace he plays at. He is slower than most.

But is he too slow?

It's hard to say, not least because there's nothing written down in the rules stipulating the time that should be taken over shots.

Interestingly, having been warned by Scullion, Gunnell did not speed up at all. He maintained the same pace. The ref had the option to dock him a frame but did not do so.

Nor should he have. Gunnell plays at the pace he plays at. He's not a Ronnie O'Sullivan or Tony Drago but was not trying to drag the game down deliberately.

One thing I do know is this: Gunnell's match against Steve Davis could be a real grind.

Scrap that.

It WILL be a real grind.

Just my opinion: there is no reason for a player being warned or punished for "slow play" unless this pace is clearly out of his normal rythm and the ref has reasons to think it's unsportsmanship conduct to deliberately put off his opponent. Drawing the line between what is or isn't admissible is of course very difficult and I'm afraid can't be written in rules ...

Refs on this board... the floor is yours!

[wildJONESEYE]

http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/200...-too-slow.html


Just my opinion: there is no reason for a player being warned or punished for "slow play" unless this pace is clearly out of his normal rythm and the ref has reasons to think it's unsportsmanship conduct to deliberately put off his opponent. Drawing the line between what is or isn't admissible is of course very difficult and I'm afraid can't be written in rules ...

Refs on this board... the floor is yours!

i didnt see that at the time i was watching King v Parrott a better match in my opinion anyway......

its a tough 1 but referees has to take in to consideration gunnell not experianmced on TV playing the World no 3 and former world champion. so he had to look at every shot carefully and make sure he was playing the right shot under presure of knowing if he messes up Murphy might clear up very fast.

you cant have a blanket rule because circanstances of the players and match should be taken in to consideration.

[Qubit]

He was playing slowly its true, and perhaps from a viewer point of view its not the best. However, i dont think he was too slow, he was for the most part giving due consideration to shots that were important - something which perhaps some other players might learn from.

I get sick and tired of some people whinging about slow play interupting their 'flow' etc etc. Just because someone doesnt play at the pace you play at doesnt mean they are wrong and you are right. Ive seen many players take the wrong shot because the were too hasty.

[spike]

I too was watching the king v Parrott match. This was one or if not Gunnell's biggest match of his career so playing against such an established player as Shaun Murphy and also being on tv you cant really blame him for giving due care and consideration to each and every shot. As long as it wasn't blatantly obvious he was trying in anyway break his opponents rythum in then i dont have a problem with that.

[The Statman]

It is a difficult one for a referee to call. He will certainly have regard to the natural pace of the player concerned.

He may also be wary that, if he warns a player for slow play, it could kick him in the teeth if the player then faces more shots which require a great deal of thought than he had previously been facing.

At the end of the day the Rules make no judgement as to what is fair or unfair, and as acknowledged above they could hardly make a blanket statement on this. We have all seen players, who are usually faster than average, find themselves in situations where they study a shot for a couple of minutes.

Not seeing the early part of the match, it is difficult to comment but, at the end of the day, the referee is the sole judge of fair play and the sole person in charge of ensuring that the game is played to the Rules. That bit is stated!

[Fist of Fury]

It is too hard in the normal game to decide what is or what is not time wasting. A simple shot that should require 20 seconfs but takes 40, is time wasting. On otjher hand, a difficuklt shot ot safety can be upwards of 2 minutes and not be.

Shot clocks in some tournaments please...

[The Statman]

It is too hard in the normal game to decide what is or what is not time wasting. A simple shot that should require 20 seconfs but takes 40, is time wasting. On otjher hand, a difficuklt shot ot safety can be upwards of 2 minutes and not be.

Shot clocks in some tournaments please...

I don't think there is a need for a shot clock, as there will, as you imply, occasionally be situations which genuinely require a great deal of thought. But there could certainly be rules to limit a player to an average shot time of 30 (or whatever) seconds over the match. It could be displayed in the arena with the knowledge that if your pace was found to exceed 30 seconds a shot at the end of any one frame, you would have a forfeit if it happened again.

As with all technological arguments, there is the issue of whether the wherewithal is available at all tables.

The advantage of the overall average calculation is that it can probably be programmed to work from the scoreboards currently in use ib all WSA events. The marker switches between each shot when the other player comes to the table, and it has a frame time running, accurate to the second.

One can see a bit of fine tuning of this rule, say if you are warned and the next frame you break off and the opponent clears, giving you no chance to address the issue!

But it could work and it would not disadvantage the situation where a lot of thought is required for a particular shot – which happens to everyone now and then.

[scottley]

I think the comment that the ref should of maybe warned the player of slow play in the interval is a fair point, also did'nt Leo Scullion tell someone too put a phone or camera away as Gunnell was down on a shot? i thought that was very wrong, it did'nt affect the shot.... but still.

[The Statman]

I think the comment that the ref should of maybe warned the player of slow play in the interval is a fair point, also did'nt Leo Scullion tell someone too put a phone or camera away as Gunnell was down on a shot? i thought that was very wrong, it did'nt affect the shot.... but still.

I did see that – although Gunnell was hardly on the shot when he said it. Then seeing that Gunnell had indeed got down on the shot he immediately took the opportunity to apologise and also again ask for quite. He did appear to be addressing a particular member of the audience rather than a general announcement, so perhaps more defensible.

[poolqjunkie]

Did the ref also warn Shaun Murphy? Would it be considered biased of the ref (who is supposed to be objective) if he did not?

Also, is it true that if he was warned again he would lose the frame, heard something like that from the commentator.

[Fist of Fury]

I don't think there is a need for a shot clock, as there will, as you imply, occasionally be situations which genuinely require a great deal of thought. But there could certainly be rules to limit a player to an average shot time of 30 (or whatever) seconds over the match. It could be displayed in the arena with the knowledge that if your pace was found to exceed 30 seconds a shot at the end of any one frame, you would have a forfeit if it happened again.

As with all technological arguments, there is the issue of whether the wherewithal is available at all tables.

The advantage of the overall average calculation is that it can probably be programmed to work from the scoreboards currently in use ib all WSA events. The marker switches between each shot when the other player comes to the table, and it has a frame time running, accurate to the second.

One can see a bit of fine tuning of this rule, say if you are warned and the next frame you break off and the opponent clears, giving you no chance to address the issue!

But it could work and it would not disadvantage the situation where a lot of thought is required for a particular shot – which happens to everyone now and then.

actually you are right and I think that could work

[Odrl]

I think in this particular match, the referee made a mistake to warn Gunnell. I saw the entire match, and in all three shots that took over 2 minutes, there was a reason for that. He did play slowly in general, but that was more to do with himself, keeping his concentration, than playing mind games with Murphy.

And even if he was intentionally slow, surely the rule is there to limit the degree of "slowness", not its intent.

As for the shot clock, or average shot time limit, nonsense! The referee is there to decide in each specific situation. If someone goes over the line, he gets the warning.

[cueman]

I think the game needs to take a leaf out of 8 ball pool and introduce a time limit for all shots. I honestly think if players knew that a rule was in place they would all benefit in the long run.

Last season for instance I made a number of comments about Selby playing slow and using gamesmanship and thankfully he sped up his play this season and looks all the better for it.

When players think too long and take time it only adds to the pressure and usually slow games are in the majority of cases very poor or below standard average. It would also benefit the audience as a paying crowd they are entitled to watch a game played at a good speed and not a borefest that many matches seem to be these days.

[Rane]

Unfortunately I only saw the last part and didn´t think of Gunnel beeing too slow in those frames. He was very nervous in the end, but still played on.

[kafka]

I don't understand all this.
The special thing about snooker is that there is more then just potting balls. The tactical battle, the high mental strongness players have to show is the most exciting part of this game. When it comes to high drama it is not the reason of quick play. I just say 1985. Would this had happend if there was a time clock?
Don't get me wrong, a quick break can be beautiful, too. But still.
Mental power is one of the skills a snooker player should has had. And if somebody slow a match down because his opponent couldn't cope with it he has every right to do it. It is not sympatico but it is part of the game.
It is simply a weakness if a player would have no patience. Like not feeling well with the rest, or have trouble with the middle pockets.
You can do something if you are suffering from ADHS. That is also a tip for the spectators who are bored while watching a slow game. Or they can go and watch pool. There is quick potting. But...uh. Where you can watch pool on TV? So why is there no pool on TV when it is so much more exciting?