2017 World Snooker Championship

ArmaniJeanss

fryup wrote: »

is Selby world pool champ as well??

He won an 8ball world title about 10 years ago. Theres a lot of 'world pool champ' titles though, its a bit like boxing that way.

fryup

is that asian mate of his a pool champ of some sort?

KERSPLAT!

fryup wrote: »

is that asian mate of his a pool champ of some sort?

Yep

loyatemu

re: the foul and not-a-miss when JH hit the green with his cue... back in the day when I played a bit of snooker you could ask your opponent to play again after a foul (i.e. from wherever the white had ended up) - is that an amateur only rule, or has it been scrapped?

ArmaniJeanss

loyatemu wrote: »

re: the foul and not-a-miss when JH hit the green with his cue... back in the day when I played a bit of snooker you could ask your opponent to play again after a foul (i.e. from wherever the white had ended up) - is that an amateur only rule, or has it been scrapped?

No it's still a rule, was a few instances of it during the championship but it's a relatively rare occurrence and needs a specific set of circumstances for it to be the best course of action for the player.
It'd happen much more frequently without a miss rule which is why its more of a thing at 'amateur' or lower level.

fryup

i thought the white touched the black

glad it didn't effect Selby and play on his mind, sign of a true champion

Gaoth Laidir

loyatemu wrote: »

re: the foul and not-a-miss when JH hit the green with his cue... back in the day when I played a bit of snooker you could ask your opponent to play again after a foul (i.e. from wherever the white had ended up) - is that an amateur only rule, or has it been scrapped?

Someone did that the other day. Was it in the semi final? Asked the player to play again from where the white ended up. Can't remember who it was but noted that I hadn't seen it done in pro snooker for a while.

The Golden Miller

It's a fairly ridiculous that you can be snookered, then foul while attempting to escape wherby the white ends up hitting the red, so the ref doesn't call a miss and you can't be put back, just penalised with points to the other player. Once you incur the foul it shouldn't matter what happens for the remainder of the shot. I'd like to see the rulebook on that, as I don't believe the ref was correct in that circumstance, despite the red being hit after the foul. He should be put back

On the topic, can you put a player back after a miss, if they put themselves in the snooker to begin with by mistake? I'm pretty sure at one point you couldn't, but once again you now can. They meddle with the miss rule too much

Gaoth Laidir

Why is Ali Carter No. 125 in the rankings with £0 winnings?

http://www.worldsnooker.com/rankings/world-rankings/

Addle

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why is Ali Carter No. 125 in the rankings with £0 winnings?

http://www.worldsnooker.com/rankings/world-rankings/

Isn't he ill?

MillField

Brilliant final, really enjoyed it. Jesus, playing Selby must be a nightmare - absolutely nothing affects his temperament. Higgins can hold his head high but will be still have nightmares about Selbys 12 out of 14 frame run in the early session.

petes

Addle wrote: »

Isn't he ill?

Came back in the middle of the season I think

Exclamation Marc

Addle wrote: »

Isn't he ill?

That was a few years ago and I think he's generally been on the circuit since and healthy following the chemo.

He won the World Open in 2016 and he's had a QF, SF and final in ranking events in 2016 so why he's at £0 is probably an error as he was ranked top 15 recently enough and should have around 300k.

ArmaniJeanss

The Golden Miller wrote: »

On the topic, can you put a player back after a miss, if they put themselves in the snooker to begin with by mistake?

Yes, happened to Bingham in his second round match this year.
Potted a red and snookered himself on all colours, took him 3 'miss' attempts to hit a colour.

Holy Diver

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's a fairly ridiculous that you can be snookered, then foul while attempting to escape wherby the white ends up hitting the red, so the ref doesn't call a miss and you can't be put back, just penalised with points to the other player. Once you incur the foul it shouldn't matter what happens for the remainder of the shot. I'd like to see the rulebook on that, as I don't believe the ref was correct in that circumstance, despite the red being hit after the foul. He should be put back

On the topic, can you put a player back after a miss, if they put themselves in the snooker to begin with by mistake? I'm pretty sure at one point you couldn't, but once again you now can. They meddle with the miss rule too much

It's called the miss rule for a reason. It is for when cases where you miss the object ball.

zuutroy

It's kind of weird because if you take it to ridiculous lengths you could just move the snookering ball out of the way, play a good safety and have your opponent in trouble at the cost of 4 points.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

danganabu

zuutroy wrote: »

It's kind of weird because if you take it to ridiculous lengths you could just move the snookering ball out of the way, play a good safety and have your opponent in trouble at the cost of 4 points.

Deliberate foul would lead to the frame being awarded to your opponent.

The Golden Miller

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I understand the wording of the rules, and why a miss wasn't called. I just don't agree, nor do I think this particular case was covered by those rules you quoted. My point is the white hitting the red should have no bearing in that particular shot, as a separate foul was committed beforehand, when he struck the cueball and hit the green ball with his cue by mistake. I think the game should be pulled back to this point, with the final resting position of the cueball having no relevance. What happened here is akin to the advantage rule in football, once the opposing team does not receive an advantage, all subsequent play is null and void as the ball is brought back to the point where the original foul occurred i.e where Higgins fouled with the spider, the subsequent movement of the cueball should be void. It was a separate infringement, one that means the miss rule shouldn't even come into play here, as it should have been called a foul before the cueball finished it's travels. Higgins therefore should have been put back in the snooker

walshb

Jan called it right. Miss is a miss. When cue ball does not make contact with object ball. It's straightforward, although I do see where you could argue it. It would be difficult to show-prove where a player deliberately fouls whilst also not missing, hence why it's clear cut here in not awarding a miss.

loyatemu

you could interpret "to the best of his ability" as meaning not hitting the green with his cue - I'd agree that this needs to be made explicit in the rules. Higgins had already fouled the green by the time the cue ball made contact with the reds. He could have played a different shot that didn't involve using the spider but might have left Selby in a better position.

Martin567

walshb wrote: »

Jan called it right. Miss is a miss. When cue ball does not make contact with object ball. It's straightforward, although I do see where you could argue it. It would be difficult to show-prove where a player deliberately fouls whilst also not missing, hence why it's clear cut here in not awarding a miss.

I don't doubt that the ref called it correctly but it does seem to be a serious anomaly in the rules. The foul occurred when his cue touched the green so surely anything that happened after that should be irrelevant.


Imagine the following (extremely hypothetical!) situation;


There is one red left on the table and Selby requires one snooker. He gets a good snooker in behind the green. In attempting to escape, Higgins fouls the green but the cue ball carries on around the table and knocks in the final red. Will the red be replaced and, if so, where?


If the red is not replaced, Selby will be in a worse situation than he was before he forced the foul as there will now be eight points fewer remaining on the table.


Is there anything wrong with my logic above and, if not, does this not seem like a serious potential problem with the rules?

ArmaniJeanss

Martin567 wrote: »

I don't doubt that the ref called it correctly but it does seem to be a serious anomaly in the rules. The foul occurred when his cue touched the green so surely anything that happened after that should be irrelevant.


Imagine the following (extremely hypothetical!) situation;


There is one red left on the table and Selby requires one snooker. He gets a good snooker in behind the green. In attempting to escape, Higgins fouls the green but the cue ball carries on around the table and knocks in the final red. Will the red be replaced and, if so, where?


If the red is not replaced, Selby will be in a worse situation than he was before he forced the foul as there will now be eight points fewer remaining on the table.


Is there anything wrong with my logic above and, if not, does this not seem like a serious potential problem with the rules?

May be worth pointing out that a miss won't ever be called in this situation anyway, as a player needs snookers.
Your example would be fine I guess if there was say 33 points in it with a red left. You've fouled but now your opponent needs a snooker as only 27 left with 29 difference.

Martin567

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

May be worth pointing out that a miss won't ever be called in this situation anyway, as a player needs snookers.
Your example would be fine I guess if there was say 33 points in it with a red left. You've fouled but now your opponent needs a snooker as only 27 left with 29 difference.

That's fair enough, I didn't think of that.


Either way, does it seem right that a player could gain an advantage from a foul shot while the player who forces the foul is effectively penalised?

wonderfullife

Martin567 wrote: »

Imagine the following (extremely hypothetical!) situation;


Is there anything wrong with my logic above and, if not, does this not seem like a serious potential problem with the rules?

"Serious potential problem" = no.

These scenarios arise once in a blue moon because nearly every player is focused on potting balls and playing good safety, not looking to game the rules.

There's very rarely any benefit to playing a foul shot of any kind. Instances arise, of course, when it's better to try play a deliberate foul (in-off) to get the cue ball back to baulk and players might try play deliberate in-offs maybe a few times a season, but even then if you don't judge it right you jaw the white and leave it down the black ball area.

When that foul incident happened with Ronnie a few years back I believe they tightened or changed the rules but remember no matter what the rules actually say "in print", the ref has discretion too.

If Jan ver Haas thought there was shenanigans on any shot, he'd have used his discretion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lavinia

I don't care how much money JH got to lose this final just not to look at him on the 'throne' he does not deserve to be even close to..

Well done Selby

wonderfullife

Lavinia wrote: »

I don't care how much money JH got to lose this final just not to look at him on the 'throne' he does not deserve to be even close to..

Well done Selby

He got 160,000 for runner-up unless, of course, you're implying he built a 10-4 lead just to "throw" the match against the best player in the world on form for more than the £215,000 difference in prize money between winner and runner-up.

If it's the latter statement it would belong in a conspiracy theory forum.

ArmaniJeanss

wonderfullife wrote: »

He got 160,000 for runner-up unless, of course, you're implying he built a 10-4 lead just to "throw" the match against the best player in the world on form for more than the ?215,000 difference in prize money between winner and runner-up.

If it's the latter statement it would belong in a conspiracy theory forum.

As you say the difference between first and second was a hefty £215K (375, 160)
Do you know if the players ever agree to 'smooth' the payouts in this situation?
It happens in other sports.

Gaoth Laidir

danganabu wrote: »

Deliberate foul would lead to the frame being awarded to your opponent.

No.



https://youtu.be/AGMXh9otUBU