2020 World Snooker Championship

Mysterypunter

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Eurosport?

Was watching on BBC, but could be Joe Johnson

DelBoy Trotter

Disappointing result for me in that match, would have preferred Williams to win it. A very entertaining evening of snooker though.

Chalk McHugh

Fantastic win. If Williams was to win that respotted black Ronnie would have been in mental turmoil. He played very well today overall. Think we just have to accept he will miss a few more clangers than he ever used to but if he can play well for the next few days he has a great chance of lifting a 6th World Championship. Up next, his arch nemesis and the glum-faced torturer.

bangkok

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Eurosport?

Bbc ronnie williams game

melon_collie

Ronni's spouting more sh1te in the post match interview.

AllForIt

That safety shot from Williams off the cushion first was the wrong shot for me at that point in the match. High odds it could go wrong and it did.

StupidLikeAFox

Ronnie is mad as a box of frogs

Skid X

Jan Verhaas bottled that completely


If it was a freeball, then give it and don't wait for O'Sullivan to advise you.

If it wasn't a freeball grow a pair and don't let O'Sullivan call the match.

DelBoy Trotter

Skid X wrote: »

Jan Verhaas bottled that completely


If it was a freeball, then give it and don't wait for O'Sullivan to advise you.

If it wasn't a freeball grow a pair and don't let O'Sullivan call the match.

Yeah I have to agree. He made the first call that it wasn’t a free ball, so stick with it and get on with the match

melon_collie

Hilarious interview with M Williams. Pretending to vomit after listening to Ronnie. So funny.

Chalk McHugh

Skid X wrote: »

Jan Verhaas bottled that completely


If it was a freeball, then give it and don't wait for O'Sullivan to advise you.

If it wasn't a freeball grow a pair and don't let O'Sullivan call the match.

I thought it was a free ball. Ronnie thought it was and was right to question the referee.

Skid X

Skid X wrote: »

Jan Verhaas bottled that completely


If it was a freeball, then give it and don't wait for O'Sullivan to advise you.

If it wasn't a freeball grow a pair and don't let O'Sullivan call the match.

A lot of the times a free ball is incredibly close a player will ask for it to be rechecked. Jan did this from a new viewpoint and realised his first impression was incorrect.

This has nothing to do with it being Ronnie. Jan has had no problem in the past standing his ground with Ronnie's opinions.

Joe_ Public

Skid X wrote: »

Jan Verhaas bottled that completely


If it was a freeball, then give it and don't wait for O'Sullivan to advise you.

If it wasn't a freeball grow a pair and don't let O'Sullivan call the match.

Did he say it wasnt a freeball first, then changed his mind after ronnie quizzed it? Thought thats what I heard anyway. Was obviously impossibly tight but if he did say no first think he should have stuck to that.

zuutroy

Have to say I can't imagine Verhaas of all people capitulating to anyone. Not unusual for a player to ask for a double check and the decision to be reversed.

walshb

What did Ronnie say in interview?

amens

I thought McGill Maflin might have finished too

raclle

Mysterypunter wrote: »

Was watching on BBC, but could be Joe Johnson

For an ex world champion he hasn't a f**king clue what shots the players are going for. I swear you couldn't make it up

gormdubhgorm

walshb wrote: »

What did Ronnie say in interview?

His cue action is sh1te and he can't hit any longish shots positional play saving him, told people back Selby to win outright. Wants Robertson's cue action.

Mysterypunter

raclle wrote: »

For an ex world champion he hasn't a f**king clue what shots the players are going for. I swear you couldn't make it up

Joe didn't play much position though, potted them from all angles, some cue action.

walshb

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

His cue action is sh1te and he can't hit any longish shots positional play saving him, told people back Selby to win outright. Wants Robertson's cue action.

An insufferable pr1ck. Always has been!

But wanted him to beat Williams, and want him to beat Selby!

AllForIt

I would still have fancied Ronnie to win the match had he lost that last frame after missing the blue. His composure if as as good as I've seen him in a long while. The only thing he's doing wrong is missing easy balls.

gormdubhgorm

Jan Verhaas is/was a legend! Proved again, in that Ronnie v Williams game. Plus no mention of fact Williams would have won the last frame if he did not call foul on himself.

Panrich

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

I thought it was a free ball. Ronnie thought it was and was right to question the referee.

He questioned it correctly originally and asked the referee to check. I thought it was a bit off to question the referees decision when it was obviously so close. You can argue that he was in the right and it was the correct decision but because it made such a material difference and it was so obviously close, it should not have been pushed like that by the player. Williams had just shown the spirit of how the game should be played a shot earlier.

The reaction afterwards of shaking his head like he didn't want it wasn't very convincing either. His sheepish look towards Williams after he cleared the balls was telling.

I'm always been a fan of Ronnie but that whole episode didn't sit well with me.

Mysterypunter

Another one for Maflin 12-10, was 54-0 behind in that one

Mervyn Skidmore

Sign of the times when a person is slated for changing their mind. Ver Has saw it as a free ball, so did O'Sullivan, and Williams didn't protest therefore I don't see the issue.

c.p.w.g.w

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Sign of the times when a person is slated for changing their mind. Ver Has saw it as a free ball, so did O'Sullivan, and Williams didn't protest therefore I don't see the issue.

If more folks admitted their mistakes, we'd be a much better place throughout society

gormdubhgorm

walshb wrote: »

An insufferable pr1ck. Always has been!

But wanted him to beat Williams, and want him to beat Selby!

I think Selby will strangle Ronnie mentally. He gets inside his head. Was shouting for Williams. In fairness to Ronnie he destroyed him in the run in.

Mysterypunter

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Sign of the times when a person is slated for changing their mind. Ver Has saw it as a free ball, so did O'Sullivan, and Williams didn't protest therefore I don't see the issue.

It's the hesitation I wouldn't like, he looked, said clearly it isn't a free ball, then looked again and said it is.

DelBoy Trotter

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Sign of the times when a person is slated for changing their mind. Ver Has saw it as a free ball, so did O'Sullivan, and Williams didn't protest therefore I don't see the issue.

The referee said it was no free ball, and when questioned changed his mind. That’s what annoyed me. He spent time looking at it from different angles from both ends of the table before making his decision. It wasn’t a quick fire decision, so stand by your original decision

raclle

But wasn't that before he placed the red balls? Maybe he should of done that before he made his decision but in the end correct call

Chalk McHugh

Panrich wrote: »

He questioned it correctly originally and asked the referee to check. I thought it was a bit off to question the referees decision when it was obviously so close. You can argue that he was in the right and it was the correct decision but because it made such a material difference and it was so obviously close, it should not have been pushed like that by the player. Williams had just shown the spirit of how the game should be played a shot earlier.

The reaction afterwards of shaking his head like he didn't want it wasn't very convincing either. His sheepish look towards Williams after he cleared the balls was telling.

I'm always been a fan of Ronnie but that whole episode didn't sit well with me.

But it was a free ball. The referee was initially wrong so any player in that position is entitled to ask for a second look. That's how i saw it anyway. And i don't defend Ronnie all the time. I called him out for blatantly cheating twice in last few years when others made excuses for it. But i dont see a problem with this. Jans Verhaas shouldn't have needed a second look to call it correctly.

Mervyn Skidmore

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

The referee said it was no free ball, and when questioned changed his mind. That’s what annoyed me. He spent time looking at it from different angles from both ends of the table before making his decision. It wasn’t a quick fire decision, so stand by your original decision

He had a closer look and then made a decision that it was a free ball. Why should he have stuck to a wrong decision?

Fair play to him for getting it right in the end, that's what counts.

Panrich

raclle wrote: »

But wasn't that before he placed the red balls? Maybe he should of done that before he made his decision but in the end correct call

No he called no free ball after placing the red balls and sizing them up for ages. Ronnie questioned it and he had another look and gave it.

Happy4all

Mysterypunter wrote: »

It's the hesitation I wouldn't like, he looked, said clearly it isn't a free ball, then looked again and said it is.

I would always trust the player's eye in situations like that. Mark Williams would have said something if he thought it was a wrong call.

Important thing, right decision in the end.

Joe_ Public

No one should be slating the ref for anything, nor is he in any shape or form infallible. We cant tell looking on whether it was freeball or not. But Verhaas spent 2 minutes looking at it both ends and decided it wasnt. Then he's asked to recheck and after another 15-20 seconds he comes to the conclusion it is. Maybe it was after all, but why he didnt then conclude it first time is what leaves the doubts. And thats understandable imo, it was obviously extremely tight.

zuutroy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think Selby will strangle Ronnie mentally. He gets inside his head. Was shouting for Williams. In fairness to Ronnie he destroyed him in the run in.

He's always said his biggest regret is being dragged into playing Selby's game in 2014. I don't think he'll be naive enough to make that mistake again and I have half a feeling that he'll play like a man with a point to prove.

zuutroy

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No one should be slating the ref for anything, nor is he in any shape or form infallible. We cant tell looking on whether it was freeball or not. But Verhaas spent 2 minutes looking at it both ends and decided it wasnt. Then he's asked to recheck and after another 15-20 seconds he comes to the conclusion it is. Maybe it was after all, but why he didnt then conclude it first time is what leaves the doubts. And thats understandable imo, it was obviously extremely tight.

He only changed his mind after having both guide balls in place and looking from the black end of the table which he hadn't done previously.

gormdubhgorm

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

He had a closer look and then made a decision that it was a free ball. Why should he have stuck to a wrong decision?

Fair play to him for getting it right in the end, that's what counts.

Yeah Jan did well there, did the right thing. Double checked took his time calm manner. Also stopped McGill and Clarke killing each other in previous round. I will say it again legend!

amens

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

But it was a free ball. The referee was initially wrong so any player in that position is entitled to ask for a second look. That's how i saw it anyway. And i don't defend Ronnie all the time. I called him out for blatantly cheating twice in last few years when others made excuses for it. But i dont see a problem with this. Jans Verhaas shouldn't have needed a second look to call it correctly.

How do you know? You're not there looking from different angles? It's the referee's decision. He put two reds on the table that formed a straight line with the cueball which means the cueball could hit the red next to the yellow full ball so no freeball.

gormdubhgorm

zuutroy wrote: »

He's always said his biggest regret is being dragged into playing Selby's game in 2014. I don't think he'll be naive enough to make that mistake again and I have half a feeling that he'll play like a man with a point to prove.

Maybe, I don't see it. Obviously, I think who ever wins that semi wins outright.

Arthur Daley

I think/kind of hope Ronnie does beat Selby now.

He has struggled to get past the early rounds since 2014 but once the big prize is up there with one big push required for a few days I think Ronnie will up his game and knuckle down. In the latter half of his career he was virtually unplayable on that single table at the Crucible. Only losing that one final to Selby.

gormdubhgorm

amens wrote: »

How do you know? You're not there looking from different angles? It's the referee's decision. He put two reds on the table that formed a straight line with the cueball which means the cueball could hit the red next to the yellow full ball so no freeball.

He even looked at from both sides of the table. Was really a quadruple check. One of those younger refs might have panicked in that scenario.

amens

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe, I don't see it. Obviously, I think who ever wins that semi wins outright.

Whoever survives 33 frames with Selby will be so exhausted that Wilson will have it easy.

DelBoy Trotter

zuutroy wrote: »

He only changed his mind after having both guide balls in place and looking from the black end of the table which he hadn't done previously.

He placed both guide balls on the table and looked from both ends of the table before making his original call of no free ball

amens

Ronnie is not an honest player. He tries to take any advantage he can get. A few years ago he hit the pack of reds with his cue after a shot and didn't declare a foul. He made such an exaggerated reaction later when shown the footage that it was unbelievable that he hadn't noticed it during the game.
He wanted it to be a freeball and didn't care if it really was or not.

radiata

I hope Selby destroys O' Sullivan

petes

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

He placed both guide balls on the table and looked from both ends of the table before making his original call of no free ball

No, he didn't. Jaysus, were people watching the same call as me or just changing it to suit their own call.

He had the balls placed and the used another ball, then used anoth ball to see were both sides available.

After an adjustment, I presume and think was called, it was then called as a free ball, correct decision.

lawrencesummers

Fair play to McGill making the semis.

Is it an advantage to a player like him that there is no crowd to contend with? That he doesn’t have the odd random reaction from fans watching the other table that can be off putting?

Is his victory a sign of things to come that underdogs won’t be overawed by the occasions because the fans are missing and the occasions are not as intimidating?

Mysterypunter

MacGill wins 13-10, I'd say Wilson will put him away easily enough

Mysterypunter

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Fair play to McGill making the semis.

Is it an advantage to a player like him that there is no crowd to contend with? That he doesn’t have the odd random reaction from fans watching the other table that can be off putting?

Is his victory a sign of things to come that underdogs won’t be overawed by the occasions because the fans are missing and the occasions are not as intimidating?

I'd say it's quiter, as there are small or nonexistent crowds at most of the tournaments, and the come on Ronnie shouts are not missed by anyone, always some loud cockney(is there any other type) screaming when he is 80 points in front.