I like the snooker method....
...you can only concede a game when it is YOUR turn at the table.
...solves a lot of problems
Ronnie does this a lot. He throws frames away that he is more than capable of winning because he doesn't want to get into a drawn out safety battle. Where as a Mark Selby or a Peter Ebdon will give it a shot if they need 2 or 3 snookers. Getting 5 snooker against a top player with say only the colours and a couple of reds left is near impossible. It's like trying to get 5 snookers on a pool table with just the 8 and 9 left. Too much room, and too many ways to get out of it for the top guys.The snooker players also concede when they theoretically have a chance to win -- say needing 5 snookers.
I think forfeiting the next rack is a better solution.... Maybe they should employ player fines in pool to stop people automatically giving up the money ball.
I think forfeiting the next rack is a better solution.
If the guy ran all the balls (or most of them) and has the last one that's easy, then I concede because I don't want that win if he "miscues" or "strange things happen"..... Yes, a win is a win, I get that... But I want a rack that I worked on, not one that fell into my lap....
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Grady once told me he witnessed a guy miss the final ball for $5,000. It was 6" from the side pocket, between the two side pockets, straight in and the cue ball was back about a foot.
I've seen people concede the final ball a couple times on easy shots and then when they get on the final ball rake it without asking.
In tournaments around here a conceded nine ball also concedes the following game. That tends to cut back on concessions except for the final nine of the match.