Ssb - slow news day

[Odrl]

i thought we've through this line of logic? most normal shots can be thought out and executed w/in 25 secs, there is no excuse for a professional to take any longer than that. and, assuming the major components of speed are knowledge and execution, then the player who can do it better than the other player w/in a prescribed time limit, should be the worthy winner. if there are difficult shots or escapes, then they can call a limited number of time-outs to deal with them.

What I was trying to say was that the serve in tennis is a routine scenario, with very little decision-making involved, while snooker shots vary in difficulty and complexity. That's why you say "most" shots can be played in 25 seconds, whereas in tennis you could say "all" serves should be played in 30 seconds.

Not that I disagree of course, most normal shots can indeed be played in 25 seconds, and they are. Most players do play most of their shots in 25 seconds and only have a higher average shot time because a few shots here and there require more thought or extra equipment.

Saying there is no excuse for a professional to take more than 25 seconds over a shot does seem harsh though. Every player I can think of routinely goes over 25 seconds on shots when not playing under the shot-clock. Even the ones who are never criticized for slow play. On the other hand, every player who has ever played under the 25-second shot-clock has routinely found themselves rushed, often in situations where no viewer would have begrudged them an extra few seconds. It's just not a good idea. :smile:

But anyway, let's drop it, otherwise I'll just start repeating myself. :smile:

even chess has strict time limit rules.

almost all major professional sports have strict time limit rules - and snooker should be no exception - from a fair play or commercial perspective. now, the authorities can choose to continue to use the antiquated, ambiguous rules in place now - it just means snooker will remain a quasi-professional 'gentleman's game' and therefore not attract the audience or sponsorship it needs to grow into a major professional sport. look at the ptcs - they are never full - even in the finals between maguire and lisowski - the room was roughly half full. do you ever see big audiences at lawn bowl tournaments? the snooker authorities have by and large wasted 30 years and ran the franchise into the ground - now is the time for change.

I'm not sure I would agree with most of this either... I don't see how a shot-clock would boost snooker commercially. Some sports are fast paced and some are slow paced, and when a sport is around for a hundred of years, the rules kind of sort themselves out. There has just never been any need to speed up snooker, not when most players played at Ebdon's pace, and even less now when most players are considerably faster.

I don't think a sport automatically looks more professional with time limit rules either. Time limits are there for a reason and they affect the way a sport is played, they're not just there for the "image". Even in football, whose popularity is not in question, there is a similar concept on corner kicks or throw ins. There is no time limit, just the referee who steps in if the players waste time. So it's hardly some sort of outdated concept specific to snooker. :wink:

I'm not sure what your point regarding the PTC was exactly... I don't think it's the lack of a shot-clock that brings attendances down. It's more likely the lack of prestige and the somewhat generic nature of the events. If you want to criticize attendances, I think the Wuxi Classic is a better target. Although the lack of a shot-clock is probably not the problem there either. :wink:

The thing is, snooker is essentially a very slow-paced game. Even when someone plays very fast, the balls will always be still for most of the time, and only move for those five seconds after a player hits the cue ball. And the less noise the audience makes, the greater the atmosphere. So it kind of goes against what sport is supposed to be... It's always going to appeal to a minority of people, the kind of people who consider these attributes a strength rather than a weakness. Take them away and you risk losing that established fan base, a fan base that has repeatedly resisted the introduction of a shot-clock and the shortening of tournaments in the past.

And for what? If you try to make it more fluent and fast-paced, you put it in direct competition with sports that are fast-paced by nature, and naturally appeal to people who like fast-paced entertainment. Snooker would end up as just another sport, artificially sped up to appeal to people who have no predisposition to like it in the first place. :wink:

[Looki]

there are set time limit rules in tennis already.

30 sec limit to serve. 2 min injury time, but has to be verified by on-court physician.

actually, almost all (major professional) sports have strict time limit rules to ensure a fair playing field. possibly the only exception is golf which has a discretionary time limit rule like snooker.

if the authorities decide that snooker remains a "gentleman's game" w/o a revamp of the rules and introduction of new technologies to help regulate the game then it will won't advance to become a major professional sport. rightly so that many players complain (or desist in joining) a sport in which the playing field is not even and the rules ambiguous.

it's definitely not helpful that the biggest drawcard in the history of the game thinks the above and is outspoken to the point where he wants to start his own tour. of course that is unlikely to happen but take the case of F-1 - the authorities were forced to revamp the rules when many of the teams felt the playing field was uneven - and threatened to break off from the main tour.

I know there are time limits in tennis and various other sports. So what?

I think you're mixing things. Ronnie's moaning has nothing to do with the actual rules of the game or shot clocks or whatever. It's about money. And Ronnie (or Judd) is not the game. He, like anyone else, can have his say but he's not to decide about the rules.

[arbitrage]

I know there are time limits in tennis and various other sports. So what?

I think you're mixing things. Ronnie's moaning has nothing to do with the actual rules of the game or shot clocks or whatever. It's about money. And Ronnie (or Judd) is not the game. He, like anyone else, can have his say but he's not to decide about the rules.

really?

http://blogs.bettor.com/Ronnie-OSull...onship-a147886

http://blogs.bettor.com/Ronnie-OSull...onship-a147915

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oth...-players-.html


...and for the final time, time limits are in other sports to ensure fair play.

[nrage]

...and for the final time, time limits are in other sports to ensure fair play.

What is unfair about a player taking a little more time. If a player cannot handle an opponent slowing the pace of their game down, then they have no right to call themselves a "professional". When they're on the table they can play at their own pace, why does the opponents pace of play affect them at all? I'll tell you why, because they're letting it affect them. All they have to do is stop caring, and instead meditate/relax/chill out when the opponent is pottering around and when the chance does come, as it inevitably will, win the frame in one visit, rinse and repeat.

Ronnie has historically had such a problem with slow play because he has had no control over his head/thoughts/etc. Note that he had no trouble with Ebdon in the last WC, he pretty much ignored the slow play and took his frames as they came.

Snooker is a discipline, it is all about keeping your head, concentration and lasting the distance. It's a marathon, not a sprint. You could argue the slow players are in fact playing the real game of snooker. If you want fast games play/watch pool.

[bricktip]

What is unfair about a player taking a little more time. If a player cannot handle an opponent slowing the pace of their game down, then they have no right to call themselves a "professional". When they're on the table they can play at their own pace, why does the opponents pace of play affect them at all? I'll tell you why, because they're letting it affect them. All they have to do is stop caring, and instead meditate/relax/chill out when the opponent is pottering around and when the chance does come, as it inevitably will, win the frame in one visit, rinse and repeat.

Ronnie has historically had such a problem with slow play because he has had no control over his head/thoughts/etc. Note that he had no trouble with Ebdon in the last WC, he pretty much ignored the slow play and took his frames as they came.

Snooker is a discipline, it is all about keeping your head, concentration and lasting the distance. It's a marathon, not a sprint. You could argue the slow players are in fact playing the real game of snooker. If you want fast games play/watch pool.

Agree with all that

[Souwester]

What nobody has mentioned so far, is that 'slower' players can just as easily be put off by playing a lightning quick opponent...

[arbitrage]

What is unfair about a player taking a little more time. If a player cannot handle an opponent slowing the pace of their game down, then they have no right to call themselves a "professional". When they're on the table they can play at their own pace, why does the opponents pace of play affect them at all? I'll tell you why, because they're letting it affect them. All they have to do is stop caring, and instead meditate/relax/chill out when the opponent is pottering around and when the chance does come, as it inevitably will, win the frame in one visit, rinse and repeat.

Ronnie has historically had such a problem with slow play because he has had no control over his head/thoughts/etc. Note that he had no trouble with Ebdon in the last WC, he pretty much ignored the slow play and took his frames as they came.

Snooker is a discipline, it is all about keeping your head, concentration and lasting the distance. It's a marathon, not a sprint. You could argue the slow players are in fact playing the real game of snooker. If you want fast games play/watch pool.

so by your logic, no sports need time limit rules? as stated, almost all major professional sports have time limit rules.

[nrage]

so by your logic, no sports need time limit rules? as stated, almost all major professional sports have time limit rules.

What you've just done there is commit several logical fallacies.

First off, my statements above do not imply anything about other sports, so your assertion that I'm saying that is incorrect.

Next, just because some sports/games have time limit rules does not imply all should.

[Looki]

really?

http://blogs.bettor.com/Ronnie-OSull...onship-a147886

http://blogs.bettor.com/Ronnie-OSull...onship-a147915

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oth...-players-.html


...and for the final time, time limits are in other sports to ensure fair play.

For the final time Ronnie O'Sullivan is not snooker. He doesn't define the rules.

And that he's not playing on tour atm has nothing to do with the rules but the money. Period. Also his idea about his own tour has nothing to do with playing speed, it's about "interesting" players or do you rate Ali Carter as a slow player?

[arbitrage]

you were the one who said ronnie was not moaning about slow play, i have presented you evidence to the contrary. and it's not just ronnie who thinks so.

for the final time, i have already stated that 25 secs is a more than reasonable time in which to execute a shot. this is not about who, ali carter, peter ebdon etc. that time limit is to ensure fair play, it doesn't matter who.

[arbitrage]

so by your logic, no sports need time limit rules? as stated, almost all major professional sports have time limit rules.

#1 there was a question mark there which means i was asking you a question, not making a statement. it would seem the logical fallacy is not mine.

#2 i did not say some. i said ALMOST ALL major professional sports have time limit rules. the rules are there for a reason - to ensure fair play

#3 tennis was played traditionally with balls of wool and up to the 1930s with long pants, no time limits. before the introduction of the tie break in 1973, games could literally go on forever. so why did they make changes to the rules of tennis? and according to the rules pre-professional era, if an opponent took 30 min for a serve and games lasted 37 deuces (which is the official world record), and roger federer can't cope with that - it's his problem?

time limit rules are there for almost all major sports now because of the evolution of these sports into modern, professional sports and of course to ensure fair play. just because snooker has been run into the ground for the past 30 years and lost a major part of it's audience and popularity during this time partly due to it's archaic rules and playing format - there is no reason to remain in stasis

[Looki]

you were the one who said ronnie was not moaning about slow play, i have presented you evidence to the contrary. and it's not just ronnie who thinks so.

for the final time, i have already stated that 25 secs is a more than reasonable time in which to execute a shot. this is not about who, ali carter, peter ebdon etc. that time limit is to ensure fair play, it doesn't matter who.

I wasn't saying Ronnie is not moaning about the slow play, I was saying Ronnie planning a tour and not playing atm wasn't about slow play but the money. Read my posts properly, ok? I don't need contrary evidence on something I wasn't saying.

Anyway, this discussion isn't going anywhere. Feel free to have your opinion and I'll have mine.

[The Statman]

#3 tennis was played traditionally with balls of wool and up to the 1930s with long pants, no time limits. before the introduction of the tie break in 1973, games could literally go on forever. so why did they make changes to the rules of tennis? and according to the rules pre-professional era, if an opponent took 30 min for a serve and games lasted 37 deuces (which is the official world record), and roger federer can't cope with that - it's his problem?

time limit rules are there for almost all major sports now because of the evolution of these sports into modern, professional sports and of course to ensure fair play. just because snooker has been run into the ground for the past 30 years and lost a major part of it's audience and popularity during this time partly due to it's archaic rules and playing format - there is no reason to remain in stasis

Has it? I don't see much evidence for that to be honest.

So tennis has a 30-second time limit for serves. So what? That is a position in the game when the setup of the playing area is the same every time. The analogy with the serve in tennis is comparable only to the break-off shot in snooker - a shot taken in the same position every time - whereupon any time consideration between the two sports does not compare. In tennis, the ball is always moving and the player can therefore not spend any more time considering his shot than the pace of the ball dictates; in snooker the balls come to rest between every shot and the player has an situation to contend with which requires thought.

I agree that most shots can be taken in 25 seconds or so, but some players think more quickly and certainly some players are down on the shot for longer than others. In what way is it fair to penalise such players because they tread the wrong side of a time limit based on somebody's perceived level of acceptability?

What if the player is snookered? What if the player needs the long rest or spider? What if the clock is not reset exactly on time after each shot (it is certainly very hit-and-miss in the Premier League)? What if (as is true at present) there is insufficient manpower to provide a referee and scorer for all matches?

Ronnie O'Sullivan won the 2008 World Championship, in my opinion, playing some of the most flawless snooker I've ever seen over the sustained period of the event. What stood out, for me, was the fact that whenever he ran out of position, he didn't just play a safety towards baulk but he walked to the baulk end, studied the leave from all points of the baulk cushion, and played a very precise shot which, as often as not, his opponent couldn't counter. This creates openings and, to my mind, is the purest form of snooker in all its intricacies - the telling safety and then the ability to clear the table when the inevitable opening then came. Likewise his effortless gentle caressing of the pack and delicate cannons, played to perfection, are not actually effortless; they require effort which takes time.

Incidentally, there is no shot clock in chess. There is a limit on an entire game but it is the player's prerogative to decide how much time he gives to an individual shot. That is why I would propose, if there really has to be a time consideration, I would prefer to see a limit on average shot time, to be something in the region of 25-30 seconds. If a player's average shot time exceeds the agreed limit at the end of any frame, he will forfeit a frame. The average for both players could easily be on permanent display on the scoreboard and he would be able to see for himself how close he is to the limit. He can then play accordingly if faced with a particularly awkward situation and, if he has brought himself close to the limit, he will have to be quick!

[arbitrage]

isn't there a documentary titled "WHEN snooker ruled the world".. implying that it is history? look at the media coverage - bbc only broadcasts a few tournaments per annum. eurosport uses snooker as fillers on the weekend only when it has free time - they sometimes even bounce the announced snooker events in favor of ad-hoc events.

look at attendances and ticket receipts. i don't have the numbers per annum but they can't be great - particularly before barry took over. the only saving grace is that they were able to crack a huge new market in china - and that arguably was a fluke, not because of their great management.

your proposed average time system might work. i guess the point for me is how to change the rules so that 1) positive play / skill is rewarded (there is no skill in deliberate slow play to harass your opponent) and 2) mainstream viewers will find the format exciting enough to buy tickets or subscribe to the programming. couple that with some savvy marketing and promotion like PLS and maybe public interest in snooker will come alive again.

[Looki]

isn't there a documentary titled "WHEN snooker ruled the world".. implying that it is history? look at the media coverage - bbc only broadcasts a few tournaments per annum. eurosport uses snooker as fillers on the weekend only when it has free time - they sometimes even bounce the announced snooker events in favor of ad-hoc events.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Eurosport has a wide snooker broadcasting. Not only "a filler" or "when it has free". Maybe you should base your arguments on things you know something about? Or do you lie on purpose?