Snooker Shoot-Out Divides Opinion

Dividing opinion amongst players and fans alike, this year's Snooker Shoot-Out has made headlines in the snooker world mainly for the wrong reasons. 

Barry Hearn's decision to designate the shoot-out as a ranking event last year was met with much criticism, which was highly due to the fact that the shoot-out is little more than a glorified exhibition event. The rules differ to such an extent to the main game that if you casually tuned in you’d be mistaken to think that it was an episode of Big Break. The rules are as follows:

• Win one frame – which lasts no longer than 10 minutes.
• There is a shot clock – 15 seconds during the first five minutes of play and then 10 seconds for the last five minutes.
• Players must hit the cushion in every shot.
• A foul will result in ball-in-hand.
• A lag will decide who breaks-off.

Added to that is the audience are allowed to get involved - and I don’t mean on the baize – with something reminiscent of the crowd noise you’d expect to hear during the darts, although maybe with 90% less noise. Plus, like most ranking events on the snooker calendar, this tournament now has a packed 128 players, with poor-old ITV4 having to accommodate a total of 127 matches during the four-day event, staged in its new home of Watford. That estimates to an average of 21 hours of fully televised snooker without a ball being missed.

Half of the top 16 players have opted to miss the event including World No.1 Mark Selby and 5-time World Champion Ronnie O’Sullivan. But does this send out a negative message? Do the top players feel they are too privileged maybe to play an event like this? On the eve of the tournament Barry Hearn’s comment was resolute, “Still some sad people moaning about Shoot out. Get a life - it’s ONE event, it's fun and it gives players an extra chance to earn some cash”. One absent player – 2002 World Champion Peter Ebdon – had this to say about the newly instated ranking event, “Not played under professional Snooker rules. How can it possibly be a ranking event? I decided not to play because it has been awarded ranking event status. I played in it previously, as a fun, novelty event”.

Although much skill is required, a lot of luck rides on the outcome of a match. Since its inauguration in 2011, there have been six different winners of the event. The most recent was Finland’s Robin Hull, a veteran on the circuit who is yet to win a ranking title. So the new event status is a case in question. Does the format benefit a player lower down the ranking list? Will it encourage a more serious tone to the match? How will the eventual winner react to winning what could well be there first ranking event under unprofessional rules? The latter being a question that is quite difficult to fathom. But consider this – World No.125 David John has accumulated £1312 over a two-year period. Now with £30,000 on the line for the winner that is a serious amount of cash for somebody such as David John who is struggling to earn money from snooker. The win would propel him from a World ranking of 125 to at least 79, showing the smaller margins at the lower level of the game and how a major win would benefit them.

Barry Hearn’s incentive in my view is a clear one. He is trying to bring more money into the game and help develop players at the lower level of the spectrum. By introducing the ranking status and bringing in 128 players there is a huge chance for an under-developed player to make a name for themselves and some big money. There are flaws with the system and it is rightly criticised but nevertheless it’s a fun event with some added ranking spice to it. And who knows, it could be a major starting point for somebody's career.