Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Cliff Thorburn vs Alex Higgins - Cue extension incident

2»

Comments

  • #32
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,562 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    There’s not much argument. The rule is clear. A player - when snookered on a colour - must declare what ball he intends to hit. If he doesn’t, the ref will call foul and award 7 points to his opponent. Crystal clear.

    The problem with your position is you are retrospectively judging a near 40 year old clip by modern officiating protocol and completely missing the context.

    That situation could almost certainly not happen these days. No referee would simply let Thorburn get down and play the shot without checking to see what colour he is nominating. Hence the incident with ronnie and terry camilleri i referenced above. The refs will remind the player if needs be, they won’t just stand idly by, waiting to shout FOUL as soon as the shot is taken. It’s not how the game works.

    I’m not 100% on this but i would still be fairly certain that this protocol was developed and initiated by referees in response to incidents like the thorburn one and that’s how it evolved over the years, to ensure those kind of arguments don’t break out anymore. It’s not just the players responsibility, ref has a role to play too.

    I agree here.....referees are there at times to prod and guide....and remind...


  • #33
    Genghis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,953 ✭✭✭Genghis


    I love how this one video of an incident 40 years ago brings about a discussion longer than some tournaments ;)

    To take a slightly different tack, you could argue to remove the rule altogether would not diminish the game.

    You don't nominate a specific red ball, why should you need to nominate a specific colour?

    Any serious player mentally nominates a ball that he judges is the best shot choice to either continue a break or put the table safe. If they fail to make that shot, there is a natural advantage given to the opponent.

    I wonder why the rule came about in the first place?


  • #34
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Because I'd guess, it's like most rules in snooker. They're not really needed 99.9% of the time, but it's the 0.01% of cases you need to legislate for. Say, for example, in the Thorburn clip, the yellow and green were close together, then it becomes pretty obvious why a player would have to make a declaration. I'd assume it was out of disputes arising from such situations that the rule and application of it evolved the way it has. It's about creating as much clarity around the game as you can I suppose. If only there was a way they could achieve absolute clarity for the miss rule!


  • #35
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Refs will generally try to help a player so it’s probably more of a courtesy thing for them. During the players Championship a while back i remember terry camilleri rushing in over ronnie asking him to nominate when it was fairly clear ronnie was only sizing up the table. Don’t remember if that was the case back in the day though.

    I think if your just considering a shot and in doing so you actually need to get down to mock play the shot, you should still nominate instead of leaving it up to the ref to guess whether you intend to play the shot or not. In that incident that's what Ronnie did, he wasn't just lining up the angle, he was getting a feel for his body position on the shot as it was a bit awkward and ultimately decided against it.

    Ronnie got quite snarky with the ref because he asked him to nominate and I think that's what influenced what followed. I thought he was going to play the shot and you JP felt he was just looking at it. But why should anyone have to make a guess as to what the players intention is? I think nominating even if your not certain you'll play the shot at all is the way to easily deal with these particular situations to avoid confusion. In fact I'm fairly certain I have seen players take this approach in the past. Not so much a rule as common sense. Obviously you can nomination a color, change your mind, and nominate again as many times as you like.


  • #36
    Genghis
    Registered Users Posts: 2,953 ✭✭✭Genghis


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Because I'd guess, it's like most rules in snooker. They're not really needed 99.9% of the time, but it's the 0.01% of cases you need to legislate for. Say, for example, in the Thorburn clip, the yellow and green were close together, then it becomes pretty obvious why a player would have to make a declaration. I'd assume it was out of disputes arising from such situations that the rule and application of it evolved the way it has.

    Yes, but I am saying if the rule was revoked, Cliff could legally hit any colour (as if it was any red on a red shot) and there's no dispute, no need to declare, no misunderstanding, no foul.

    Am just curious, I can't work out the benefit of the rule.

    The miss rule I would say I agree with more, but it no doubt is the one that gets the most attention for sure!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Genghis wrote: »
    Yes, but I am saying if the rule was revoked, Cliff could legally hit any colour (as if it was any red on a red shot) and there's no dispute, no need to declare, no misunderstanding, no foul.

    Am just curious, I can't work out the benefit of the rule.

    The miss rule I would say I agree with more, but it no doubt is the one that gets the most attention for sure!

    Ah ok, apologies, i didnt fully grasp the point being made. I see where you're coming from alright. I suppose the answer might be that you have to play a specific colour any shot (after potting a red) so the same simply applies in a snooker situation and you're asked to nominate to avoid confusion. Let's say you were playing a simple yellow but miscued and hit the green instead. That's a clear foul, right? You can only play one specific colour (you don't need to declare it because it's obvious what colour you're playing) so it seems logical to have the same procedure when a player is snookered. You could argue it doesn't take that much skill to get out of a snooker when you could be aiming to hit three or four target balls.


  • #38
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I think if your just considering a shot and in doing so you actually need to get down to mock play the shot, you should still nominate instead of leaving it up to the ref to guess whether you intend to play the shot or not. In that incident that's what Ronnie did, he wasn't just lining up the angle, he was getting a feel for his body position on the shot as it was a bit awkward and ultimately decided against it.

    Ronnie got quite snarky with the ref because he asked him to nominate and I think that's what influenced what followed. I thought he was going to play the shot and you JP felt he was just looking at it. But why should anyone have to make a guess as to what the players intention is? I think nominating even if your not certain you'll play the shot at all is the way to easily deal with these particular situations to avoid confusion. In fact I'm fairly certain I have seen players take this approach in the past. Not so much a rule as common sense. Obviously you can nomination a color, change your mind, and nominate again as many times as you like.

    I wouldnt make too much of the incident to be honest. Ronnie doesnt like Camilleri so that was always going to rile him up that bit more, but it wasn't that bad really. I just thought the relevant point was that the ref immediately jumped in when he thought the player was going to play the shot. That's what refs will do but if ronnie had just went ahead and played it without declaring then it's an automatic seven point foul and no discussion about it. And you're right, sometimes players will nominate even when there's no definite need, just to be on safe side and it's definitely a good habit to be in for sure.


Advertisement