Ssb - premier league returns

[FerruleFox]

Pretty good matches overall. The shot clock sort of preempts tension from building very much but if it really does bring in new viewers, so be it. 25 seconds should be plenty for anyone.

[Looki]

false logic - just because they didn't win, doesn't mean they didn't cope with conditions. in any case, as i've stated numerous times before, 25 secs is more than adequate for a shot, particularly for pros.

so you are ok with your opponent taking 45min per shot or maybe 2 hours per shot then?... and if you can't cope with that, it's your fault right? thanks for the 'you wore a short skirt, you invited it' argument - are you a fox news dedicated fan?

as is the case with most republican voters in the US, it is really pointless to argue with them as they would listen to rhetoric and vote against their own interests most of the time. all you have to do is look at the viewership / ticket sales data as evidence - snooker will suffer if shot clock rules are not introduced - and no amount of 19th century tea party rhetoric is going to change that.

So Ebdon and Selby and McLeod can cope with the conditions but Ronnie can't when someone is playing a bit slower against him. Maybe the worthy winner (you were blabbing about worthy winners elsewhere) is the one who cope with variety of conditions and playing styles from their opponents? Again: why the rules should be changed only to benefit a couple of players who can't adjust to some situations?

Nobody takes 45min per shot. And even if somebody would the referee would interfere. You're building straw men in every other message when someone disagrees with you and blame others of "false logic"... Please...

[Particle Physics]

So Ebdon and Selby and McLeod can cope with the conditions but Ronnie can't when someone is playing a bit slower against him. Maybe the worthy winner (you were blabbing about worthy winners elsewhere) is the one who cope with variety of conditions and playing styles from their opponents? Again: why the rules should be changed only to benefit a couple of players who can't adjust to some situations?

Nobody takes 45min per shot. And even if somebody would the referee would interfere. You're building straw men in every other message when someone disagrees with you and blame others of "false logic"... Please...

I agree with both you. The rules don't need changing in the majority of competitions but the ref does need to cattle prod one or two players who are clearly trying to wear their opponents down and bore the fans and viewers in the process. When Ebdon takes like two or three minutes to play a shot, that's about three times too long. If it's a really hard shot, snooker or tricky safety, no problem, but he's doing this during breaks as well, as are other players. Shot clocks are somewhat ugly and intrusive and we don't want a pool shootout on a snooker table thanks.

Here's an idea, the ref warns a player about the 'pace' of a frame. If he has to warn the player twice, the next time the player does it, the ref can award a foul of whatever colour the player is on, and his opponent is put back in to try and get the frame moving. What do you think?

[Neil Taperell]

Does Stephen Lee know it's £1,000 a frame?

Probably doesn't want to pay his 5% fine

[arbitrage]

So Ebdon and Selby and McLeod can cope with the conditions but Ronnie can't when someone is playing a bit slower against him. Maybe the worthy winner (you were blabbing about worthy winners elsewhere) is the one who cope with variety of conditions and playing styles from their opponents? Again: why the rules should be changed only to benefit a couple of players who can't adjust to some situations?

Nobody takes 45min per shot. And even if somebody would the referee would interfere. You're building straw men in every other message when someone disagrees with you and blame others of "false logic"... Please...

"Light travels faster than sound. That's why most people seem bright until you hear them speak." - Unknown Author

[Looki]

"Light travels faster than sound. That's why most people seem bright until you hear them speak." - Unknown Author

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.”
― Oscar Wilde

[nrage]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln

[SnookerFan]

Nothing to do with Barry Hearn Ronnie had the sulks nobody else

Correct.

Hearn can't let Ronnie get away with doing whatever he wants, just because he's Ronnie.

[arbitrage]

[QUOTE=Looki;662991]“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.”
― Oscar Wilde

"History shows that there is nothing so easy to enslave and nothing so hard to emancipate as ignorance, hence it becomes the double enemy of civilization. By its servility it is the prey of tyranny, and by its credulity it is the foe of enlightenment." ~Lemuel K. Washburn

this goes for all 'conservatives', 'traditionalists', 'purists' etc. who are unable to think progress and worse, stand in the way of others trying to make progress.

Therefore..... "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." ~William G. McAdoo .... "....and I'm not going to waste my time trying." ~ Arbitrage, Aug 20, 2012.

[nrage]

false logic - just because they didn't win, doesn't mean they didn't cope with conditions. in any case, as i've stated numerous times before, 25 secs is more than adequate for a shot, particularly for pros.

In ideal conditions perhaps, but everyone reacts differently to stress and pressure, and under pressure some players need to take a bit more time. In some cases the average shot time can climb to over 25 sec and why shouldn't it? After all the point of snooker is not to test if a player can perform to peak levels in < 25 sec on all shots all the time.

That's a different game/tournament (PL/shootout) and not snooker as a whole. Snooker is about mental and physical discipline over the long haul (historically) and shot clocks/limits are totally wrong for that. In short, we have competitions where speed/performance at speed is tested. There is no need/desire/reason to make all of snooker this way.

Also, trying to point at a single shot and saying "he took more time than he needed there" is so subjective, you cannot be sure what variables the player is considering, alternate shot choices, etc nor to what degree pressure is affecting them. In short, no one can really make this sort of judgement on another player with 100% accuracy, yet we expect referees to do so (see "Time Wasting") - it's no surprise they do so very rarely, if at all.

so you are ok with your opponent taking 45min per shot or maybe 2 hours per shot then?... and if you can't cope with that, it's your fault right? thanks for the 'you wore a short skirt, you invited it' argument - are you a fox news dedicated fan?

Strawman. There are already rules in place (see "Time Wasting") to prevent the (ridiculous) situation you're describing .. so what point are you trying to make here?

Is it perhaps that no-one wants to watch a match where a player takes 5min per-shot? If so, I agree, I reckon we'd all agree unless we were being facetious. But, with or without a shot clock of 25 sec, that's never going to happen. So, what problem are you really trying to solve?

Peter Ebdon using slow play to affect another player? Ok, but 1) that's not against the rules 2) there are rules already for if it gets out of hand (see "Time Wasting") and 3) a professional snooker player should be able to handle the allowable/allowed delays - they're professionals, plus 4) as it stands there are perhaps a small handful of players who play a bit slower than the rest - just going by averages this is exactly what you'd expect (implying no foul play at all).

Slow play being bad for the game? Ok, but 1) if that becomes an issue you can be the governing bodies/Hearn will do something about it.

So, that leaves us with what? Players complaining about it .. it's all media hype if you ask me, media hounds looking for something newsworthy and making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Looki]

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.”
― Oscar Wilde

"History shows that there is nothing so easy to enslave and nothing so hard to emancipate as ignorance, hence it becomes the double enemy of civilization. By its servility it is the prey of tyranny, and by its credulity it is the foe of enlightenment." ~Lemuel K. Washburn

this goes for all 'conservatives', 'traditionalists', 'purists' etc. who are unable to think progress and worse, stand in the way of others trying to make progress.

Therefore..... "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." ~William G. McAdoo .... "....and I'm not going to waste my time trying." ~ Arbitrage, Aug 20, 2012.

The problem is that you have failed to argue properly on behalf of any rule changes. All that you have is a couple of news paper articles and opinion from couple of players. In addition you have exaggerated the problem and thrown a couple of straw man -arguments. And of course when you noticed that's not good enough, you sunk to ad hominem -level. School book examples of false logic... If you have nothing else in your "armory" you indeed shouldn't waste anyone's time with your "reasoning".