2022 World Snooker Championship (Apr 16th - May 2nd)

Boro Nut said:
All balls 'on' are potable in any stroke. That's why you can pot any number of reds when reds are 'on' and score them all, and why you can pot both the nominated (free) ball and the snookered ball 'on' in a stroke, as they are both 'on'. Potting any ball that is not 'on' in a stroke is always a foul. It's pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that response.
 
Williams put on a great show, adds to the list of deciding frame semi finals.
Almost one the greatest comebacks.
He did equal one of the oldest records, 16 centuries in the tournament held by Stephen Hendry.
Hendry watching all of his once thought impossible to beat, equal one's topple.
1 more to go... And, now that Ronnie has made the final. #7 is on.

John Higgins, always admired his talent and ability to clear up under massive pressure.
But, justice was served this time as man he did get the run of the ball the whole match.
No wonder Ronnie was visibly frustrated with those sarcastic smiles.
His pot % was under 90%, 1 century. Very un John like.
Ronnie kept his cool, unlike John, never seen him slam his cue like that before.

Well, I thought Judd would be fresh as a daisy. Not after that decider.
He goes into the final with what he describes as a free shot, as he still is not super confident.
Ronnie won't show any mercy.

I have a pool tournament today, but after that I have a free schedule including Monday off to wake up to watch this final live.
Great to see new Snooker fans on this thread, you started watching at the right time.

Still going with Ronnie for the win, some very interesting history now between these two with lost finals on both sides.
The World Final I always dreamed about.....
18-16 Ronnie.
 
The record for 1 championship is 108 centuries, set last year.
2022, currently on 103 total.

I think Ronnie and Judd will manage 6 between them.

What a tournament this has been.
 
How does pool go about getting non-pool related sponsors?

1651357377267.png
 
Bob Jewett said:
There are several problems with the rules of snooker, but they are they way they are and they are unlikely to change much soon. That's good. Unlike pool, the rules of snooker are stable and that establishes tradition.

The last significant change to snooker rules I know of was for when the foul-and-a-miss rule applied and that was within the last ten years. Here are the changes that happened in 2021, all of them minor.

View attachment 639760
Click to expand...
Yep, agreed.
I should have been clearer on my previous reply.
What I meant was, no major changes to the core rules of the game for decades.
Still same ball colors, foul of potting a color and knocking in a red etc.
The core of the game is solid, stable and time proven now.

The minor changes are more tweaks, and have helped IMO.

I also wish pool was the same, but check out any thread on here (a new one every other week) and there is one thing in common. Nobody agrees what the main game should be.
At the core, different table sizes, different pocket shapes (square cut, round), different cloth, different ball sizes and more rule variations then I care to learn.
That is about as off topic as I will get, don't want to see this thread trying to solve pool again.. Take number 485,833.
 
Interviewer to Mark Williams regarding Judd Trump's prospects: "Do you think he can go on and win this title now, from what you've seen on the other side of the table?"

Mark Williams: "I've been asked some stupid questions in my time, but that's up there. Of course he can win it; there's no question."
 
Boro Nut said:
All balls 'on' are potable in any stroke. That's why you can pot any number of reds when reds are 'on' and score them all, and why you can pot both the nominated (free) ball and the snookered ball 'on' in a stroke, as they are both 'on'. Potting any ball that is not 'on' in a stroke is always a foul. It's pretty simple.
Click to expand...
You did more stating the rule than giving the logic for the rule, and the logic for the rule was the question. If you think there is good logic for the rule then spell out that logic. If there is some really good logic for it it hasn't occurred to me yet nor has anybody given it yet.
Boro Nut said:
No it was lack of foresight. The first thing I was ever taught was "They only go where you hit them". You might not know why or how you hit them there, but that's not bad luck. The laws of physics hold true in any venue.
Click to expand...
Who cares if a red goes on a pack breakout as long as you made the shot you were going for? Just spot it. You and I both know that when breaking up balls, that exactly where they all go is in many cases almost entirely luck and chance and completely beyond the players control. By having this seemingly silly rule you are allowing luck and chance to play a role they don't need to play as it did in the Ronnie breakout shot I posted. It would have been better to just spot the red and Ronnie continues shooting. He made his shot (the blue) and there is no need to be penalized for luck/chance that he can't control and that doesn't matter anyway. Again, so what that a red went, who cares, just spot it and player continues shooting.

Breaking up the reds is a massive part of snooker. I want to see what happens in a case like the Ronnie video I posted earlier be controlled by skill and only skill and so the only thing that should matter on that shot is whether or not he made the blue, not some superfluous luck stuff that didn't matter. With the current rules the pure chance/luck of whether or not one of the pack of reds you were breaking up after making the blue ends up going into a pocket or not is what is controlling whether you shoot again or not. Let me say that again, pure luck and chance are controlling who gets to shoot the next shot rather than skill.

The skill of making the blue should be what determines who gets to shoot the next shot, not whether or not he got lucky or unlucky about a broken out red also finding a pocket. Snooker should be above such silliness.
 
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
You did more stating the rule than giving the logic for the rule, and the logic for the rule was the question. If you think there is good logic for the rule then spell out that logic. If there is some really good logic for it it hasn't occurred to me yet nor has anybody given it yet.

Who cares if a red goes on a pack breakout as long as you made the shot you were going for? Just spot it. You and I both know that when breaking up balls, that exactly where they all go is partially luck and chance and completely beyond the players control. By having this seemingly silly rule you are allowing luck and chance to play a role they don't need to play as it did in the Ronnie breakout shot I posted. It would have been better to just spot the red and Ronnie continues shooting. He made his shot (the 5 ball) and there is no need to be penalized for luck/chance that he can't control and that doesn't matter anyway. Again, so what that a red went, who cares, just spot it and player continues shooting. I want to see what happens be controlled by skill (whether he made the 5 ball he was shooting at or not), not by the pure chance/luck of whether or not one of the reds you were breaking up ends up going into a pocket.
Click to expand...
5 ball ??????
 
stunshotDAVE said:
5 ball ??????
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was actually editing that while you were typing that. Certain numbers and colors always correspond to each other and are interchangeable in a pool player's mind. This is why it will never be acceptable for the five ball in pool to be purple. It has been deeply ingrained in everyone for over a century that purple corresponds only to the number 4 and is the number 4.
 
CanadianGuy said:
agree with Ronnie 100% on the ridiculous duration of this tourney, 17 days is insane
Click to expand...

I like the long races.

Not sure how they could schedule it any differently so it takes less time.

Maybe they could lower the field to 16 or 24 players?
 
BeiberLvr said:
I like the long races.

Not sure how they could schedule it any differently so it takes less time.

Maybe they could lower the field to 16 or 24 players?
Click to expand...
Agreed though I wouldn’t change a thing. Given how many repeat winners this tournament has, and that each of them are amongst the all time greatest, this event does a great job of sussing out the best player in the world rather consistently.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
You did more stating the rule than giving the logic for the rule, and the logic for the rule was the question. If you think there is good logic for the rule then spell out that logic. If there is some really good logic for it it hasn't occurred to me yet nor has anybody given it yet.

Who cares if a red goes on a pack breakout as long as you made the shot you were going for? Just spot it. You and I both know that when breaking up balls, that exactly where they all go is in many cases almost entirely luck and chance and completely beyond the players control. By having this seemingly silly rule you are allowing luck and chance to play a role they don't need to play as it did in the Ronnie breakout shot I posted. It would have been better to just spot the red and Ronnie continues shooting. He made his shot (the blue) and there is no need to be penalized for luck/chance that he can't control and that doesn't matter anyway. Again, so what that a red went, who cares, just spot it and player continues shooting.

Breaking up the reds is a massive part of snooker. I want to see what happens in a case like the Ronnie video I posted earlier be controlled by skill and only skill and so the only thing that should matter on that shot is whether or not he made the blue, not some superfluous luck stuff that didn't matter. With the current rules the pure chance/luck of whether or not one of the pack of reds you were breaking up after making the blue ends up going into a pocket or not is what is controlling whether you shoot again or not. Let me say that again, pure luck and chance are controlling who gets to shoot the next shot rather than skill.

The skill of making the blue should be what determines who gets to shoot the next shot, not whether or not he got lucky or unlucky about a broken out red also finding a pocket. Snooker should be above such silliness.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree with this at all.
..So if you break a cluster playing 8-ball, and the 8-ball drops, you shouldn’t lose?
If your opponent needs one ball at one pocket, and you need several…and you make a ball in both pockets, you shouldn’t lose?

When it’s your shot, you should be responsible for the consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top