Post a reply

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Prop

Iranu wrote:
Prop wrote:
Iranu wrote:I’m not saying there should be no miss rule, I’m just saying it’s currently way too harsh.


Usually it comes across as unfair when the ONLY option is a really difficult escape, and the referee fails to apply their discretion and NOT call a miss.

Other than that, do you get my point?

Well, sort of. It would depend on the situation, I’m not suggesting a blanket no-miss ruling. It needs to exist in some form.

In your example the three-miss rule is in effect anyway because of the loose red, right? I think it’s different if it fails to reach because a player could easily manipulate that and do it deliberately, which I think is why the miss was brought in in the first place. So I’d still consider that a miss.

I’m thinking more like snookers on the colours, when it’s a choice between “come off one cushion and probably leave the game on even if you hit it” or “come off three cushions and leave it safe.” I just find it a bit weird that a player can lose 20 points or whatever on the miss rule because they’ve chosen the latter. I mean I guess that’s the trade-off, lose 20 points rather than lose the frame. But still.

Also when a player comes off one cushion into the pack but hits the pink first and it’s considered a miss, I find that pretty silly.


In my example the red was only on half ball. I intentionally mentioned that to avoid complicating the discussion with the 3 miss rule <laugh>

Really there are so many ways of playing a shot in a such a way that it appears you’re trying to hit a ball (but really the intention is to get the white safe regardless of whether you actually hit it). That’s what was being exploited before the miss rule came in. It got to the point that getting out of a safety was just a bluff most of the time.

I think you’ve kind of answered the question yourself there. The 20 point penalty is a trade-off, but there must be a trade off. There must be some distinction made between the choice to turn down an easier available option to hit a ball on, in favour of taking a more difficult route to ensure a safer white. The important thing is the ‘difficult’ bit. If a player fails to solve that difficult puzzle (ie hit the ball on) then why should they effectively be rewarded as if they had?

As far as the ref is concerned, the onus is on a player to hit a ball on. That’s it. If they fail to hit a ball on, and the referee determines that the player turned down an easier means of hitting the ball on, the ref must ensure no advantage is gained from it.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Prop

And just to add, with your situation when it goes down to snookers on the colours, maybe a player has played an insanely good snooker, deserves everything he gets from it. How would that player feel if his opponent could just get down and play the escape in a way that in likelihood would never even hit the ball on, almost always get the white safe, and only give away 4 points?

Again, the value of that insane original safety shot would be completely stolen.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Prop

I don’t think there is a perfect solution. Every now and then a situation will arise that seems harsh, even when the ref applies the miss rule correctly and his/her discretion appropriately. But I think the rule is as good a solution as we’ll get.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Prop

Iranu wrote:Somehow I missed the half ball even though I read it again to check.


I edited it in when I realised it would confuse matters if it was a full ball situation. You must have read it pre-edit!

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Iranu

Prop wrote:I don’t think there is a perfect solution. Every now and then a situation will arise that seems harsh, even when the ref applies the miss rule correctly and his/her discretion appropriately. But I think the rule is as good a solution as we’ll get.

I mean this is the key thing but apparently refs can’t be relied on to do that, so something needs to be put in writing.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Prop

Iranu wrote:
Prop wrote:I don’t think there is a perfect solution. Every now and then a situation will arise that seems harsh, even when the ref applies the miss rule correctly and his/her discretion appropriately. But I think the rule is as good a solution as we’ll get.

I mean this is the key thing but apparently refs can’t be relied on to do that, so something needs to be put in writing.


I agree there. Maybe it comes down to a ref’s confidence in reading a particular situation. Because it can potentially be a huge call, but if it’s right it’s right.

I suppose if a ref plays the game, they will be more likely to recognise the difference between a player being in absolute trouble and only having one available shot as an escape, and a player choosing to turn down an easy shot in favour of a more difficult one that likely affords a much safer outcome regardless of hitting a ball on.

There are two decisions for the ref in this. One is determining the difference between the two situations above. The other (in terms of the situation where only one shot is available) is determining whether that shot in itself is really difficult (or even impossible).

I can only assume that maybe some refs just aren’t confident in making those decisions.
Last edited by Prop on 25 Nov 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby McManusFan

I kind of feel that the only thing that's iffy with the miss rule is the ref's judgement bit. I wouldn't mind it being that you MUST hit the ball on - if the opponent puts the player in an impossible snooker then they deserve to win the frame from it.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby badtemperedcyril

Iranu wrote:
badtemperedcyril wrote:Let the referee use some discretion with “miss” calls. Sometimes they still call a miss even when it almost impossible to hit! I think Paul Collier is the only one I ever see not call a miss on occasions.

I’ve seen a few do it.
Of the current referees, it’s very rare. Brendan Moore or Colin Humphries quite possibly.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Prop

badtemperedcyril wrote:The old Welsh geezer, John Pellow is it? Don’t see him that often on TV. He’s a good ref.


He was reffing the Zhao vs Yuan match yesterday.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc

With all due respect to many of the posters here, I greatly respect all your opinions, but.......you all seem to be missing (no pun intended) the two MAJOR flaws with the Foul and a Miss Rule. It is definitely the one Rule I would change. I hoped they would fix it with the Rules update in 2019 but in reality, they only managed to convolute it to an even greater degree than it already had been. Personally, I refuse to acknowledge the 2019 Rules and I still maintain the 2014 Rules posted in my club.

I will only quote a couple excerpts from previous posters where relevant. But first, the two MAJOR flaws are as follows:

1) A properly written ruleset to govern an activity will equally cover all facets of the game as much as possible. Obviously, some concessions must be made, but those concessions should also be clearly defined. I will only use snooker as an example but the same paradigm applies across all games/sports/whatever. So an example is the rule which states that a player must have at least one part of one foot touching the floor when a stroke is played. An exception to this rule is made for wheelchair players or perhaps other players who may have a special circumstance which may not allow them to strictly adhere to this Rule. But it is fair to say that in general, if a Rule is written into the Rules of Snooker, it should apply to every player in every circumstance. However, I say loudly and clearly without fear of contradiction, the Foul and a Miss Rule was written into the rule set very specifically for PROFESSIONAL players of the game and simply cannot be applied fairly and equitably across the board for casual, amateur players of the game. It is a travesty. I literally CANNOT play this game according to the rules that were written to govern it. It is impossible. The miss rule cannot be properly applied in a casual frame so myself and my opponent must come to an agreement as to how we will address a Foul and a Miss situation in an effort to follow the spirit of the Rule, since it is literally impossible for us to follow the Rule precisely as it is written. Again I repeat, a travesty.

2) The Rule as written REQUIRES the discretion of a dedicated Referee, again, as in a Professional version of the game. The Referee must make a judgement to the best of his or her ability, but let's face it, that judgement may be incorrect. Many previous posters have stated that in their opinions, the Referees probably should not be calling a Miss in many more circumstances than occurs currently. The Referee defaults to a call of Foul and a Miss and in the opinion of these posters then, these are cases of incorrect judgement by the Referee. Would it not be better if the Rule were to finally be CLEARLY defined such that the Referee judgement is NOT required? And in fact, the Referee is NOT even necessary to be present? This circles back to flaw # 1 above that the Rule, properly written can be applied whether there is a Referee or not, and also, whether the players are Professional or amateur or casual. ALL circumstances.

Now for a quote or two:

Prop wrote:...maybe a player has played an insanely good snooker, deserves everything he gets from it.

Sorry Prop, I have heard this argument before and it is non-sensical. Let's say Brown is on spot, Yellow and Green are just to the sides of Brown but a little back toward Baulk cushion. You pot a Red while bringing White back to Baulk and end up right behind this magic triangle with nothing to pot. So you just roll into these three Colours, laying an "insanely good snooker". You believe you deserve 20, 30, 40 points? Really? Or how about when someone snookers themselves, potting a Red in the corner and burying the White in the pack of Reds, damn near impossible to hit a Colour. Again, you deserve 20, 30, 40 points from this? Because your opponent laid an insanely good snooker on himself? Or let's say you really DID play some phenomenal snooker that no one has ever thought of before. Maybe now you think you really do deserve your 20 points because you were so great, not a mere 4 points. Well, maybe you are right. But by the same token then, maybe I deserve more than one point when I double a Red for a pot. It was a great shot, wasn't straightforward at all; gimme 2 points. If I double the Black, that should be good for 14. I think I will start TREBLING balls more often, maybe get me some more of these points being handed out so freely.

Of course, this is absurd. As is saying that you deserve anything at all from the simple act of laying a good snooker. When my kids could barely see over the edge of the table, I was teaching them, "What is the purpose of laying a snooker on your opponent?" No, it is NOT to get 4, or 8, or 12, or whatever points which may (or may not) come from a foul. The purpose of laying the snooker is to GAIN AN ADAVANTAGE. That advantage might come in the form of gaining penalty points. But it may be indirect....leaving the opponent in an uncomfortable position may well mean that he escapes the snooker but in the process leaves an opening to be exploited. And THAT would be an appropriate advantage. You don't DESERVE anything from a snooker anymore than I DESERVE more than the simple points from a pot, even if I play one of CarnagePoolTricks' shots for the greatest pot in the history of the game. If it was a Red, it is ONLY worth one point, no matter how many cushions or cannons it may have been played off.

The penalty points that the snookering player are awarded are NOT a REWARD to that player. Rather those points are a PUNISHMENT for the fouling player. The snookering player does not deserve anything other than whatever advantage may have been gained.

Prop wrote:...The 20 point penalty is a trade-off, but there must be a trade off. ...

As far as the ref is concerned, the onus is on a player to hit a ball on. That’s it. ...

Agreed, there MUST be a point at which there is a trade off, e.g., either I can do THIS and THAT will happen, or I can do THAT and THIS will happen. The trick is to look at the options and decide which decision is either the BEST or at least the LEAST DAMAGING outcome. More about this later.


Dragonfly wrote:Probably the miss rule. Where the balls can be replaced an infinite amount of times. Mark Williams suggested some time ago that it should be ball in hand after 3 attempts.

I think that's a good idea. I don't like seeing frames won from a player gaining 30 points or more from the one snooker.

This is easy to understand but far from perfect. It is basically saying that while sometimes 4 points is not enough of a penalty for a certain situation, triple that amount will always suffice. (Yes, I understand, maybe there could possibly be three Black fouls in a row, but in reality.......no.) And then, if you are a Pro and the other guy is also a pro......just let the other guy win with Ball in Hand. Hey, you had three chances; you should have been able to hit it. This is the closest suggestion so far to the elegant solution outlined below, but it could be better and you will see that below. The idea is not mine. I will recap it below in just a moment. It can be made to work perfectly for Pro or amateur, Referee or no.


Prop wrote:I don’t think there is a perfect solution. Every now and then a situation will arise that seems harsh, even when the ref applies the miss rule correctly and his/her discretion appropriately. But I think the rule is as good a solution as we’ll get.

Yea, maybe for the Pros that may be true. But it doesn't help me with my game. There are a hundred Professional players. There are (perhaps) tens of thousands of amateur players in the world, maybe more, I don't know. It would be nice if the governing Rules could actually apply to me and you as well as the Professionals.

There was a one-topic poster here a few years ago who developed an elegant solution which covered both of the bullet points above to perfection. His screen name was BiskitBoy. You can search out the full thread if you want but here is the gist of his idea:

1) Every miss is a Foul and a Miss, no Referee's judgement is required. In fact, no Referee is required. You fail to hit the Ball On at first impact, it is a Foul and a Miss. This even applies in the rare case of an "impossible snooker" with which nearly no one knows how to deal, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people reading this have never even heard that phrase before. Yes, it is certainly possible for a snooker to be literally IMPOSSIBLE. Not just very, very, very difficult; in fact, actually impossible to escape. With the BiskitBoy Rule, an impossible snooker is still called as a Foul and a Miss.

2) When FAAM occurs, the incoming player has the usual options: play it, pass it, or put it back. Very simple so far. Next step is the important change which nullifies the necessity of a Referee.

3) If the incoming player decides to "put it back", there is one more new step to be taken before further action and it is a decision from the fouling player, and that is that the fouling player may put it back and play again just like normal, or the fouling player can say no, pick up the cue ball, and the incoming player has ball in hand anywhere on the table with all the rest of the balls remaining where they are, i.e., the balls are NOT "put back", they remain in the position left by the fouling player.

4) This can go on indefinitely with the FAAM penalty points tallying up exactly as they do now, exactly the same rule that FAAM no longer applies when one of the players "requires snookers". The decision of step 3) is made with every cycle; the fouling player can give away Ball in Hand immediately after the first foul, or he can put it back another time or two before he gives Ball in Hand, or he can put it back all day long (or at least until snookers are required) and never give Ball in Hand.


That's it. It is quite simple but it is profound. There is no Referee involved. There is no subjective interpretation or judgement. So then........why would this work?

The answer is because Professionals and amateurs play the game completely different from each other, therefore, when faced with the same situations, each will come to their own separate decision. A Pro will almost never give away Ball in Hand anywhere. Unless actually impossible, he will put the White back and keep trying to minimize the penalty. Giving away Ball in Hand is nearly a death sentence for the frame. Except.................if a Pro is clever, there actually is a way to get some assurance that giving Ball in Hand away does NOT necessarily mean loss of frame. He will probably still lose, but maybe not. He will probably have a better chance than if he just keeps missing until snookers required. I will have to go to an example for this:

All colours on spots, one Red remaining, score is even, and Player A is snookered with the Red behind Black toward cushion and White is behind Brown toward the Baulk cushion. Very, very difficult. Player A tries a multi-cushion escape and manages to get the White near Black cushion so there is no Free Ball. FAAM, 4 points to Player B. Of course B says Put It Back. Player A does put it back but thinks a little bit......if he miraculously contacts Red, it will probably be open to a Black corner pocket, and a simple clearance from there with all colours on spots. If he continues to put it back, he will probably get to a point of requiring snookers and probably lose as well. What to do, what to do?.............

The light bulb of an idea goes off in his head and he plays toward the Yellow, knocking it safely to a cushion, out of easy play. Of course, another FAAM, but when Player B says, "Put it back," Player A says, "No, we will play the table as is, you can have Ball in Hand." (Full disclosure here.....since the Red is tight to Black, if Player B takes the Ball in Hand, he cannot accept a Free Ball and must play at the Red from in hand. Another option that Player B probably has in this case would be the Free Ball option, in which case he would have to play at the White as it sits, no Ball in Hand.)

Do you see what happened here? Scores were even. First foul, B is up by 4. Second foul, B is up by 8. With the Ball in Hand, A can easily score 8 points (16 points up) but now Yellow is tight to cushion and must be developed. Or A can play at a Free Ball and possibly score 16 (24 points up now, still not "snookers required") and the Yellow is still tied up on cushion. Fascinating strategies are possible! This is a rare, rare example of when a Pro would play to give away Ball in Hand but it was only premised on rolling that Yellow to the cushion. It would have been stupid for the Pro to give Ball in Hand from the first foul when all the colours were on spot. Exactly this sort of strategy would also be used in cases of impossible snookers, that is, play the shot in such a way that at least you get a ball or two into safe, unpottable positions.

Now, on the other hand, an amateur should not be too concerned about the opponent clearing the table with Ball in Hand. As a pretty low quality amateur who just plays against other low quality amateurs, I would usually just give away 4 points with the first foul and give my opponent Ball in Hand. Maybe they will score two to four balls, not earth shattering. If I keep putting it back, I might miss 10 times before I finally contact, if ever. That is far more penalty points than if I just gave the other guy Ball in Hand. Hey, I know his talent level.

You may note in the Professional example above there was what is now termed a "deliberate Miss"......playing directly at the Yellow when the Ball On was Red. Doesn't matter. Every Miss is treated exactly the same, simply follow steps 1), 2), 3), 4) laid out earlier. A regular Miss (or any foul that allows for the Miss option), an impossible snooker, a miscue where the White barely moves so touches nothing, a deliberate Miss......they are all exactly the same. Simply follow the four steps to address the situation.

This solution is genius. Again, I repeat it is not mine. I hope that one day someone that has some authority will also recognize the genius and simplicity of this.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby SnookerFan

At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and an orange ball worth 50 points is put onto the table.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, allowing a 197 break to be made. Could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame, so minimises the damage.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerFan wrote:At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and an orange ball worth 50 points is put onto the table.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, allowing a 197 break to be made. Could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame, so minimises the damage.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....


You are a silly and lovely man.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and an orange ball worth 50 points is put onto the table.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, allowing a 197 break to be made. Could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame, so minimises the damage.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....


You are a silly and lovely man.



Ahhh Snugglebottoms. :love:

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Holden Chinaski

At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and the dance cam is on the player at the table. The player now has to dance for one full minute.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and the dance cam is on the player at the table. The player now has to dance for one full minute.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....


buck off Holden.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby GeF

Holden Chinaski wrote:At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and the dance cam is on the player at the table. The player now has to dance for one full minute.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....

This rule only applies to McGill - Clarke matches.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby McManusFan

Iranu wrote:Can someone tl;dr Aces’ post?


It's the biskitboy rule. Every miss is a foul and a miss, but the snookered player has the option of giving ball in hand. It sounds pretty good to me.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc

McManusFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:Can someone tl;dr Aces’ post?


It's the biskitboy rule. Every miss is a foul and a miss, but the snookered player has the option of giving ball in hand. It sounds pretty good to me.



The important precursor to understand is that the problem with the current rule is twofold: 1) It is written specifically for the Professional game and is not properly applicable to the game at large, and 2) It requires a Referee and subjectivity........which is just stupid. I have honestly seen frames nearly come to fisticuffs over this god-awful, stupid Rule.

BiskitBoy is simple, clear, fair, and the same rule is easily applied to everyone, no matter the skill level. To understand it, it is necessary to go into significant detail.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby SnookerFan

GeF wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:At a random interval during every game, a klaxon sounds and the dance cam is on the player at the table. The player now has to dance for one full minute.

You never know when it'll appear. Could be halfway through making a max, could be during a tense deciding frame. Could be just after a player has broken off in the first frame.

Who knows? Only one way to find out....

This rule only applies to McGill - Clarke matches.


rofl

Maybe Mark Allen vs Reanne Evans matches too.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc

Dan-cat wrote:Ace on form as ever. I did actually read all of that, and we've discussed the Biskitboy gambit before.

I just don't see ball in hand ever being given in 15 red snooker.


You are probably correct. At the Professional level, Ball in Hand generally never would be given in a 15 Red snooker. But that decision is left to the fouling player, not you, not me, not the Referee. In MY frame, if I face a daunting FAAM and there are 15 Reds still on the table, I would not hesitate to give my opponent Ball in Hand. Currently, if my opponent insists on playing the Rule as it is written (which, I repeat, is literally not even possible given the limited knowledge of the Rules of most players), then I would be trying to escape, failing, and re-arranging the balls back to "where they were" for the next 15 minutes, then I will finally just concede when snookers are required at a 148 point deficit. That is just stupid. But that IS the current Rule. A Pro would not do that. He would keep attempting and very likely escape in several attempts after a few preliminary misses to get the feel of the shot required.

Nearly all of the extended Foul and a Miss sequences from Professionals is NOT because they are unable to make a contact. No, they accept the penalty of the Miss because they are trying to play the stroke in a very certain specific way. This one is famous, probably everyone has seen it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2h3EBzFiA

The point is that Higgins could have easily contacted Red very first try if he decided that was best. But as a Pro, it is worth giving away 4, 8, 12, whatever to get the precise result he wants. Now in THAT situation, a low level amateur would of course play at a simpler Red contact. But imagine (in non-refereed amateur play) that there is NO simpler contact available; I am faced with having to hit a nearly impossible contact. By the Rule the way it is written, clear as mud on a rainy day, all I actually need to do is try my best whether I contact or not and there is no Miss, no Rule infringement. But with no Referee, my non-Rules-educated opponent will just keep saying "put it back" and he will ignorantly believe that he is following the Rule to the letter, just like the Professionals. I can't help but say it again, the Rule as it is written is just stupid! A travesty.

My major gripe is that the current Rule is written for Professionals and for Professionals only. Amateurs in a casual club setting are forced to improvise some type of "house rule" to cover FAAM situations and it does not need to be that way. Under the BiskitBoy rule, the professional game would continue virtually transparently with events unfolding exactly as they already do right now. This does not force a change to the professional game because the professional player (not the referee) in very nearly every circumstance will decide to continue to "put it back" exactly as is done now. The difference this rule change would make would primarily affect the amateur game which currently must fend for itself and come up with some kind of compromise to cover FAAM situations.

The original topic of the post is What Rule Should Be Changed? and for decades, this Rule has been horribly, horribly written. It is the antithesis of a well written Rule. It should be clear; it is not. It should be objective; it is not. It should apply equally to all players and situations; it not only does not, but in fact, it CANNOT! Have I said this before? The way this Rule is written is just stupid.
Last edited by acesinc on 26 Nov 2021, edited 1 time in total.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby Wildey

Iranu wrote:I’d change the miss rule to take into account trying to leave the balls safe.

That is the only rule that needs looking at yea any player can hit balls but that's not the point of the game its about leaving the table in control, that rule as it is takes nothing like that in to consideration.

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby acesinc

Dan-cat wrote:Ace on form as ever. I did actually read all of that, and we've discussed the Biskitboy gambit before.

I just don't see ball in hand ever being given in 15 red snooker.


Perhaps to address your statement as directly as possible....It is not possible to know without trying, but my suspicion is that with the BiskitBoy rule in place, an avid viewer of Professional Snooker across an entire season would likely only witness a fouling player decide to give Ball in Hand a smattering of times, probably just once or twice; definitely no more than five times. That is across EVERY FRAME played across an entire professional season. In 99.9% of (professional) situations, gameplay would continue for all intents and purposes exactly as it does now.

But this change would be dramatic for casual, amateur, club snooker. It would allow us to actually play the game by the actual rules as they are written for the first time in decades. What a unique concept!

Re: If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby AlfGit

The rule I would change is 2.17(e), which says that the cue ball cannot be snookered by a cushion. I would simply get rid of it.

The effect of the rule is that after a foul, if the incoming player is jawed from all balls on, he will not be given a free-ball unless he would also be snookered if the rails were not there.

You might say that he always has the option of making the opponent shoot again, but on the occasions I have witnessed this personally, it has usually been the case that an edge of a ball is visible. If the cushion was a ball, it would be a free-ball, but it is not. Putting the opponent back in again does not cause him any difficulty because he can hit a ball. The incoming player has no compensation other than the penalty points, which does not seem fair. I have never known what the reasoning behind rule 2.17(e) could even be.


   

cron