Snooker World Championships

(14-08-2020 18:13 )Tractor boy Wrote:  The most bizarre frame of snooker I have ever witnessed in 35 years watching the game.
And has there ever been more points scored in one frame, 103 points to 83

Totally normal for 2020.

(14-08-2020 17:45 )Stemmw Wrote:  

(14-08-2020 17:44 )HannahsPet Wrote:  never seen the winner look so upset by winning

He probably knows Selby is gonna beat him with a session to spare in the final

In all seriousness that is my fear actually if we assume Selby beats O'Sullivan.
I think McGill has a steady, controlled style of game that would have been more suited to playing Selby.
My fear is that Selby would grind Wilson into the floor and stifle the match.

The only hope now is that Ronnie can overturn his deficit to Selby and create an open and close final against Wilson.
But much as I hope Ronnie pulls it off my gut tells me Selby will win both the match and the tournament.

I can't help feeling rather deflated right now at being doomed to an inevitable end .
Please let me be wrong.
I really really really WANT to be wrong!!

(14-08-2020 18:15 )snookered Wrote:  

(14-08-2020 17:45 )Stemmw Wrote:  

(14-08-2020 17:44 )HannahsPet Wrote:  never seen the winner look so upset by winning

He probably knows Selby is gonna beat him with a session to spare in the final

In all seriousness that is my fear actually if we assume Selby beats O'Sullivan.

For me it was more of a hope than a fear.

After all the misses in a row, why was it that the referee decided not to call the last foul in that sequence by McGill a miss? I couldn't work out why Kieren had to play a shot instead of putting it back again, so I rewound the tv and realised that the ref didn't say "miss". Did he just feel sorry for him.

(14-08-2020 18:22 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  After all the misses in a row, why was it that the referee decided not to call the last foul in that sequence by McGill a miss? I couldn't work out why Kieren had to play a shot instead of putting it back again, so I rewound the tv and realised that the ref didn't say "miss". Did he just feel sorry for him.

Once your opponent needs snookers, you can't put him back in.

(14-08-2020 18:22 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  After all the misses in a row, why was it that the referee decided not to call the last foul in that sequence by McGill a miss? I couldn't work out why Kieren had to play a shot instead of putting it back again, so I rewound the tv and realised that the ref didn't say "miss". Did he just feel sorry for him.

McGill was at a snookers required stage after that foul, can't call a miss then.

(14-08-2020 18:22 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  After all the misses in a row, why was it that the referee decided not to call the last foul in that sequence by McGill a miss? I couldn't work out why Kieren had to play a shot instead of putting it back again, so I rewound the tv and realised that the ref didn't say "miss". Did he just feel sorry for him.

The referee does have discretion to stop calling "miss" before the snookers required stage. It's rare though and it depends on the difficulty of the snooker, whether there is an easier shot available to play, how close to getting out of the snooker the player is and the number of previous attempts made to get out of said snooker.

One thing I have never got the answer to.

Here is one such possible scenario.
Frame is down to the last four colours.
Player A commits a foul shot and leaves Player B snookered on the ball in play i.e the brown. However Player B is not snookered on the brown by another ball.
Player B is actually snookered by a jaw of the middle pocket.

Is it a free ball?
If not why not?
Were a free ball allowed Player B might pot the blue assuming it was on its spot and clear up.
If a free ball is not granted surely a frame winning opportunity is unfairly denied.

You would expect the winner of Selby v O'Sullivan to win the title

(14-08-2020 19:02 )snookered Wrote:  One thing I have never got the answer to.

Here is one such possible scenario.
Frame is down to the last four colours.
Player A commits a foul shot and leaves Player B snookered on the ball in play i.e the brown. However Player B is not snookered on the brown by another ball.
Player B is actually snookered by a jaw of the middle pocket.

Is it a free ball?
If not why not?
Were a free ball allowed Player B might pot the blue assuming it was on its spot and clear up.
If a free ball is not granted surely a frame winning opportunity is unfairly denied.

Think you should tweet that question to John Parrott. Excellent question in fact, googled it but couldn't find an answer. I would guess yes it's a free ball, still snookered from a foul shot so it would make sense.