Post a reply

If could change one rule what would it be?

Postby cueeye

Will start ball rolling so to speak, I would make it a foul to snooker behind a nominated colour after potting a red, as in official 6 red rules and cannot snooker behind free ball (unless pink & black remain). This would eliminate the trickling up to a colour and potentially receiving several misses called, players would have to be more inventive with the snooker.

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

Postby Prop

Retrospective fines and docking of ranking points for shithousery.

A Shithouse Committee would be established, to review matches. Any shithousery such as timewasting, deliberate distraction, ungentlemanly conduct, unjustified slow play, etc will be punishable.

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

Postby shanew48

Prop wrote:Retrospective fines and docking of ranking points for shithousery.

A Shithouse Committee would be established, to review matches. Any shithousery such as timewasting, deliberate distraction, ungentlemanly conduct, unjustified slow play, etc will be punishable.


You can't do that, Selby wouldn't be left with any winnings come the end of each tournament and would be docked so many points he would be out of the top 64, thinking about it, it wouldn't be the worst thing maybe.

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

Postby Prop

shanew48 wrote:
Prop wrote:Retrospective fines and docking of ranking points for shithousery.

A Shithouse Committee would be established, to review matches. Any shithousery such as timewasting, deliberate distraction, ungentlemanly conduct, unjustified slow play, etc will be punishable.


You can't do that, Selby wouldn't be left with any winnings come the end of each tournament and would be docked so many points he would be out of the top 64, thinking about it, it wouldn't be the worst thing maybe.


Now the penny drops ;-)

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

Postby TheRocket

not really a rule and nothing to do with the game itself but I would still get rid of the Triple Crown emblem and replace it with golden stars. One star for every World title. Much more stylish, just like Football national teams.

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

Postby Iranu

TheRocket wrote:not really a rule and nothing to do with the game itself but I would still get rid of the Triple Crown emblem and replace it with golden stars. One star for every World title. Much more stylish, just like Football national teams.

No, it’s all tacky. Get rid of the lot. It’s tacky in football, too.

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

Postby TheRocket

Iranu wrote:
TheRocket wrote:not really a rule and nothing to do with the game itself but I would still get rid of the Triple Crown emblem and replace it with golden stars. One star for every World title. Much more stylish, just like Football national teams.

No, it’s all tacky. Get rid of the lot. It’s tacky in football, too.


I dont think it is. Players who have had a lot of success in their career and won a lot of titles should be allowed to display (if they want to).

But thats why I think its nonsense that someone like Williams who won 3 Worlds, 2 UK's, 2 Masters wears the same emblem like Murphy who only won all three once. Either do it properly or get rid of it completely.

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

Postby Prop

cueeye wrote:By rules, actually meant playing rules as in the Rule Book. not comments about emblems and shot times etc


Yes, apologies. I was being a bit silly.

I’m not sure I’d really change anything. I mentioned a while ago the idea of a frame being won once an opponent needed X number of snookers, but on reflection it probably wouldn’t improve the game.

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

Postby McManusFan

The on table rules as they stand seem pretty good, with nothing particularly wrong. I know a lot of people don't like the miss rule, but it's never bothered me and seems pretty fair.

I'm not sure if this would be a good change, but what do people think about allowing jump shots?

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

Postby Dragonfly

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.

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

Postby GeF

Prop wrote:
cueeye wrote:By rules, actually meant playing rules as in the Rule Book. not comments about emblems and shot times etc


Yes, apologies. I was being a bit silly.

I’m not sure I’d really change anything. I mentioned a while ago the idea of a frame being won once an opponent needed X number of snookers, but on reflection it probably wouldn’t improve the game.

In France, in some competition at amateur level, a frame is won when a player is out of score by more than 13 points.

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

Postby Prop

GeF wrote:
Prop wrote:
cueeye wrote:By rules, actually meant playing rules as in the Rule Book. not comments about emblems and shot times etc


Yes, apologies. I was being a bit silly.

I’m not sure I’d really change anything. I mentioned a while ago the idea of a frame being won once an opponent needed X number of snookers, but on reflection it probably wouldn’t improve the game.

In France, in some competition at amateur level, a frame is won when a player is out of score by more than 13 points.


Interesting. I suppose 4 snookers is reasonable. It’s been done a few times though.

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

Postby Prop

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.


Yeah, you can’t abolish the miss rule itself, because it does serve a purpose in stopping a player gaining the upper hand by playing a phoney shot. But the flipside is when dozens of points are accrued by the other player. Put some sort of threshold on that and it’d probably make things fairer.

ETA: As discussed, if a ref applies discretion in the situation where the only escape is seemingly impossible, and foul points are being racked up, this would negate the requirement for any threshold. But a lot of refs don’t.
Last edited by Prop on 25 Nov 2021, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Iranu

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


Elaborate?

If I understand correctly, the miss is called in part because there is theoretically an easier way to hit the ball on, right?

But this never takes into account the fact that obviously the player is going to want to leave the table safe. It’s a bit pointless going for the easiest escape knowing that you'll likely leave the frame on and lose it anyway.

So if a player misses a ball by a millimetre because they’re trying to leave it safe, I don’t think it’s fair to call a miss every time because of course they want to leave it safe!

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

Postby Prop

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


Elaborate?

If I understand correctly, the miss is called in part because there is theoretically an easier way to hit the ball on, right?

But this never takes into account the fact that obviously the player is going to want to leave the table safe. It’s a bit pointless going for the easiest escape knowing that you'll likely leave the frame on and lose it anyway.

So if a player misses a ball by a millimetre because they’re trying to leave it safe, I don’t think it’s fair to call a miss every time because of course they want to leave it safe!


A ref is well within their right to not call a miss if the attempt is deemed close enough, and if there is no safer option on. We don’t see that happen enough in my opinion. Most refs just automatically call a miss regardless of circumstances.

But I feel like I’m still not sure what your point is. As far as I see it, a ref must call a miss if it’s deemed that the player is choosing a shot that potentially leaves things safe (and fails to hit a ball on), rather than choosing to play a shot that affords the easiest means of simply hitting a ball on.

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

Postby Iranu

Prop wrote:As far as I see it, a ref must call a miss if it’s deemed that the player is choosing a shot that potentially leaves things safe (and fails to hit a ball on), rather than choosing to play a shot that affords the easiest means of simply hitting a ball on.

Which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It’s punishing players for not wanting to give up the frame.

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

Postby Prop

Iranu wrote:
Prop wrote:As far as I see it, a ref must call a miss if it’s deemed that the player is choosing a shot that potentially leaves things safe (and fails to hit a ball on), rather than choosing to play a shot that affords the easiest means of simply hitting a ball on.

Which is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It’s punishing players for not wanting to give up the frame.


But then it would be massively devaluing the safety shot that created the situation in the first place. If a safety shot is so good that the opponent might potentially give up the frame, so be it.

If a player is snookered and the only option is a ridiculously difficult escape, and a player is in danger of giving away dozens of points even though they’re coming within millimetres of hitting the ball on, the ref should not keep calling misses. Because that’s just wrong. But most refs do not apply that discretion.

But it’s a different story if there is an easier ball to hit. If the player chooses not to go for the easier ball (which may well even be available full ball), then he/she should not gain an advantage by means of the ref not calling a miss. The ref should always call a miss in that situation.

Worth stressing, choosing the ‘easier ball on’ doesn’t always necessarily mean leaving the frame on. More realistically, it usually means the cueball is finishing in a less safe position than the difficult option.

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

Postby Prop

Example:

Player comes to the table in baulk, and in trouble. He/she can see one loose red in the middle of the table half ball. They’re snookered on all other reds (which is a tight pack of say 8 balls near pink spot). Unfortunately the loose red is a couple of inches from the middle bag, it’s not pottable, and playing safe off it is very risky. Possible in-off, all sorts of nasty outcomes.

Player decides instead to come off two cushions dead weight to land in the back of the pack, knowing they’ll leave absolutely nothing on, even if they don’t manage to hit the reds.

Under current rules, the ref must call a miss if a ball on is not struck. Player comes up short on his first - and next 4 attempts - before they actually manage to hit the back of the pack, and those 20 points in fouls reflect the value of the safety the opponent put him in in the first place.

Under your proposed rules (if I’ve got this right) player comes up short on his first attempt, foul but no miss is called, player takes their seat, and he/she has just got out of a very tricky situation by simply rolling the white into an area and not even hitting a ball on.

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

Postby Prop

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? And how would you amend the rule?
Last edited by Prop on 25 Nov 2021, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Prop

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.


My point exactly.

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

Postby Iranu

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.

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

Postby Iranu

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.