Snooker.. OMG.. WTF are they doing
- Thread starter Crixus00
- Start date
Just seems like theyve taken some cues to so speak from 9 ball pool with the new rules, time limit, certain amount of balls have to hit thre cushion etc.
Some of the rules sound retarded though, century break worth 50 bonus points?
Some of the rules sound retarded though, century break worth 50 bonus points?
Don't see the problem with this, just an extra tournament if people want to give it a bash, I assume it won't count towards world ranking points.
Either it will be a failure, in which case it will be thrown out and the naysayers get their way, or it will be a success, in which case, well, it's been successful
The only potential downside would be the fear that if too popular it could start edging it's way in, marginalising 'traditional' snooker and possibly causing a divide of sorts. A bit like some people thought the IPL would in cricket, although I don't really see that that has happened.
The proof of the pudding, as they say, will be in the eating. I'd imagine we'll get some kind of strange game at some point where a 'better' player loses despite playing better due to powerplays/20s penalties etc which will put a few people off, but if approached in the right way as a bit of fun, it could be entertaining. I'll certainly try watching it.
Please note I should add that my favourite player is Steve Davis and I actually enjoy watching tactical exchanges, so I still like 'normal' snooker, just I don't see the harm in a bit of variety. Just like I watch both Test Cricket and T20.
Either it will be a failure, in which case it will be thrown out and the naysayers get their way, or it will be a success, in which case, well, it's been successful
The only potential downside would be the fear that if too popular it could start edging it's way in, marginalising 'traditional' snooker and possibly causing a divide of sorts. A bit like some people thought the IPL would in cricket, although I don't really see that that has happened.
The proof of the pudding, as they say, will be in the eating. I'd imagine we'll get some kind of strange game at some point where a 'better' player loses despite playing better due to powerplays/20s penalties etc which will put a few people off, but if approached in the right way as a bit of fun, it could be entertaining. I'll certainly try watching it.
Please note I should add that my favourite player is Steve Davis and I actually enjoy watching tactical exchanges, so I still like 'normal' snooker, just I don't see the harm in a bit of variety. Just like I watch both Test Cricket and T20.
WTF is the point of this rule? You hit the century you have already won the frame??? Ignoring the 2 min double points window the max break assuming no one fouled from the break would be 99 so to get the century you have to have taken the double points anyway. The bonus 50 seems a pointless 'you can get more than 147' in this new exciting version.
I am a bit unconvinced but will watch the tourny & see if that changes my mind.
Presumably matches are won on points rather than frames. One of the issues with traditional snooker is that once you get past 73 points (assuming no fouls), anything else is just for kicks (unless of course you're 'on' for the high break prize or a 147). Points-based matches wouldn't have that problem.
Oh, and just because no-one has spotted it, a century break requires a powerplay. Without one, the maximum break would be 99 (9x1 + 1x2 + 1x3 + 1x4 + 1x5 + 1x6 + 10x7). That means they're probably going to be somewhat rare.
Oh, and just because no-one has spotted it, a century break requires a powerplay. Without one, the maximum break would be 99 (9x1 + 1x2 + 1x3 + 1x4 + 1x5 + 1x6 + 10x7). That means they're probably going to be somewhat rare.
Yeah but a powerplay just means that the middle red has been potted, which is fairly likely in big breaks (the exception being cases where it gets plucked off randomly without a break ensuing obviously). From that point on, every pot for the next 2 minutes counts double, and given the 20-second rule, that will include a minimum of at least 6 shots (so in the case of a continuous break, an extremely good chance of at least 4 colours being potted).
Now, obviously century breaks may well still be rarish, but it really all depends on what happens with that middle red. A fast player like ROS or Drago, if they get into position early in the game with a chance to really exploit the PP, could easily rack up a 100 break bearing in mind that say 6 blacks followed by 5 reds (11 balls in 120s) would give you 95pts on its own. Even if you don't chain a break onto the PP red, as mentioned above, we've got 6+ shots so unless there's a safety exchange there's a fair chance of at least a few bonus points should either player be able to start a break.
I think this will add a little bit of an extra tactical element to the game, in that you will be reluctant to pot the middle red unless you are fairly sure you can either get on a colour. Because if you have to end your break, you will be handing the table to your opponent with the PP still active. Also, it will change the game a little in terms of how many points you are leaving on the table, theoretically if a player was to do a total clearance within 2 mins of potting the middle red, they would get a 197 break. Very unlikely but the point is that the old days of simply worrying about how many points are the on table are warped a bit, you need to think more along the lines of realistically how many points can they get..... should I try to pot the PP red myself, and then timewaste for 20s etc. Probably not actually if we're dealing in points rather than frames!
Another (unrelated) thing to consider is that with 9 reds instead of 15 there will arguably be more chance of snookers I guess i.e. earlier in the game there will be fewer open reds than normal (although again the pool-style breakoff rule means that you'd expect less clustering... hard one to call until we see it in action).
In summation I'm actually quite keen to see this played and get a feel for how it works, whether players can mentally adjust to purely playing for points rather than worrying about the situation in that frame etc.
Last edited:
Can't see the issue. It's an extra tournament. It's not replacing traditional snooker. I would be completely opposed to it if they did decide to change the rules completely as I'm not a huge fan of this ''power snooker''. Snooker is a tactical game and pots need to be well thought out, players are normally thinking three pots in advance when potting. It's not a game to be rushed. It's not simply just positioning the white for the next ball like it is in pool. I love pool but that is a different game and snooker shouldn't try and become more like it, it is completely different.
I can imagine the time limit just causing a lot of faults, mis-cues and missed shots. Ronnie will thrive and probably win almost all the ''power snooker'' tournaments. His game suffers when he gets bored is made to wait around. This will abolish that issue so for Ronnie for tournament is ideal. For players like Davis and Ebdon it is the opposite.
I enjoy watching snooker finals extend to the early hours of the morning where the players are battling it out to the very end with the various safety exchanges etc It's exciting stuff as it's so unpredicatble. You don't know if the next frame you're about to watch will be seven minutes long and contain a 147, or if it's going to be an hour long full of safety battles and exhibition shots. Having all games set to a fixed thirty minutes isn't welcome.
I can imagine the time limit just causing a lot of faults, mis-cues and missed shots. Ronnie will thrive and probably win almost all the ''power snooker'' tournaments. His game suffers when he gets bored is made to wait around. This will abolish that issue so for Ronnie for tournament is ideal. For players like Davis and Ebdon it is the opposite.
I enjoy watching snooker finals extend to the early hours of the morning where the players are battling it out to the very end with the various safety exchanges etc It's exciting stuff as it's so unpredicatble. You don't know if the next frame you're about to watch will be seven minutes long and contain a 147, or if it's going to be an hour long full of safety battles and exhibition shots. Having all games set to a fixed thirty minutes isn't welcome.
