tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post92685939350887920..comments2024-02-03T12:04:16.336+00:00Comments on SNOOKER SCENE BLOG: RANKINGS RIDDLEDave Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08037719321756898982noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post-51615597235194876772008-04-08T11:20:00.000+01:002008-04-08T11:20:00.000+01:00Thanks ChrisMartin is extremely helpful with any q...Thanks Chris<BR/><BR/>Martin is extremely helpful with any queries, as indeed are all of World Snooker's tournament staffDave Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08037719321756898982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post-39754531540672153692008-04-07T19:01:00.000+01:002008-04-07T19:01:00.000+01:00Yes hadn't noticed it myeslf this year but last ye...Yes hadn't noticed it myeslf this year but last year the schedule was similarly ambiguously written. It suggested that a 'seed' coming 3rd or 4th got more points than a 'qualifier' coming 3rd or 4th which is obvioulsy spurious.<BR/><BR/>On emailing the WSA about it I received a telephone call, within about 20 minutes, from no less than Martin Clark, clarifying the position, which is as you have assumed to be correct.<BR/><BR/>Chris DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post-84120402831172258992008-04-01T14:16:00.000+01:002008-04-01T14:16:00.000+01:00I have the answer - it was worded wrongly on the p...I have the answer - it was worded wrongly on the points schedule<BR/><BR/>They should be careful about this because there could be an almighty ruck if players believe they - or other players - have been given the wrong pointsDave Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08037719321756898982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post-52278280109101643272008-04-01T12:59:00.000+01:002008-04-01T12:59:00.000+01:00there's been hot debat about this point on the GCS...there's been hot debat about this point on the GCS forum - I allocated those players the points specified, regardless of the word "seeded" - and actually if anything, it would be the "seeded" players who got fewer points if they didn't achieve their "seeded" position in the event... all in all I am rapidly giving up the will to live!!! JW - GCSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post-54126483360848917092008-03-31T20:06:00.000+01:002008-03-31T20:06:00.000+01:00Thanks for this interesting post Dave.Clearly thos...Thanks for this interesting post Dave.<BR/>Clearly those finishing 5th or 6th would recieve 719 if seeded and twice that 1438 if a losing qualifier. finishing 5th or 6th is the equivalent of 'losing' in that round. Thus seeded loser points only apply to finishing 5th/6th Finishing 3rd or 4th awards a higher points tarry as the reward for doing well in that round. <BR/>The simplest solution to end all the confusion would be to scrap round robins and provide a proper matchplay tournament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29605452.post-6389590358340996852008-03-31T18:36:00.000+01:002008-03-31T18:36:00.000+01:00I don’t think that those players get less points, ...I don’t think that those players get less points, the word seeded there is wrong, in my opinion. They should have a benefit for being better than a seeded player in that round robin stage.<BR/><BR/>That said, the document isn’t clear about this and states “16 qualifiers from Round Robin Stage 1: 1438” regardless of any rank in the second seed.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can remember the points for place 3 and 4 were awarded to qualified players last season as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com