14.1 final on clock?

[BillinJersey]

I could be mistaken, but wasn't the final match between Ortmann and See supposed to have gone on the clock? It sure seemed like it lasted long enough. Doesn't matter now, but it could have changed things. It had a big effect on last years final, when both players (Engert/Hohmann) games were impacted by having to "rush" their shots. In particular, Hohmann had a couple of rare misses after the clock came into play. It was like watching 2 different matches. I don't own a copy of the 06 final, but as I recall, things got really stressful and Hohmann looked pretty ticked off. (Did anyone else notice that in his match with Kempter? as soon as Charlie announced that they'd be on the clock, Hohmann stood up and missed?)
In general, I'm not sure what I think of the whole clock thing..........
Bill

 

[Bob Jewett]

... In general, I'm not sure what I think of the whole clock thing.......... Bill

I don't remember if they put a clock on See/Ortmann, but if so there was no reason to, since no matches remained.

I think it's much better to avoid the clock. If a clock is used, it has to be more than a guy with a stop watch. In Europe, they have a clearly visible counter, so the timing guy doesn't have to worry about calling "TEN!" when the player is down on the shot. Also, there needs to be a way to suspend time if a ball has to be cleaned -- the players were asking to have the cue ball cleaned several times per match.

Harriman and Ortmann went on the clock in the semis, and I think it hurt the game without getting the players to shoot faster.

 

[BillinJersey]

Bob,
You're right about needing to improve the system. There was way too much beeping going on as the refs got used to the watches. (Don't they make the analog ones that you and I grew up with anymore?) At one point, Kempter confronted the ref about it cause it was distracting him. Of course, he was already fit to be tied over the "get ready for the Predator cue raffle" announcement which kind of blew everybody's mind. That led him to miscue so badly that the sound reminded me of when I play!
Bill

 

[cuetable]

Chess clock idea

Hi Bob:

As SJM pointed out earlier, the players have the responsibility to keep the matches short for the entire tournament to function and to keep the pace exciting for people to watch.

I remember you have mentioned about using a chess clock in a match. This might be an interesting way to solve the problem.

Instead of set a shot clock for every shot, set a time limit for both players. We can do this with a chess clock which will keep track of the total time each players spends in a match. If this works in 14.1, I can see it possibly working in other games as well.


Here is a draft example:

1, In a game of race to 150 pt, each player will be allowed to have 150 minutes of table time.

2, The chess clock A starts right after player A makes a break shot.

3, Player A comes back and sits down. Clock A pauses; clock B starts.

4, Player B will start running balls. After he makes the last shot on the table, both clock pauses.

5, The ref will rack the balls. Player B can check the rack. As soon as the ref put the triangle back. Clock B starts, player B will continue running balls.

6, If there is a discussion about the ruling, both clocks pauses.

7, Each player will be also be allow to have one or two 10 minutes restroom breaks. If the time spent exceeds 10 minutes, his clock starts.

8, If any player's time run out, he will be penalized somehow.

9, The clock can be operated by the score keeper.


It was very nice to see you last week. Did you have a good time?

 

[JoeW]

I like Cuetable's idea and would add a remote control to a chess clock. Each player controls the clock. When 150 minutes is up -- you loose. Each player can take as much time as is needed.

This would also be a neat way to practice or play with another so the player learned to play within the time limits.

It is also another way to handicap a game. Player A has X minutes player B has Y minutes.

 

[NYC cue dude]

i could be wrong, but i dont think so, but last years final was not on the clock. I believe u were thinking of the hohmann/eberle 4 hour plus semi-final fiasco.

i covered this topic rather intensively in a main forum thread a few days ago. I'll briefly state here, that a shot clock has no place in the game of straight pool. In the case of it's usage during these world championships, it's implementation was only for the benifit of the fans and their comfort with regards to scheduling. Ultimately, the organizers conciuosly placed the welfare of the fans before the integrity of the game. to me that is a travesty.

There is no other sport in the world that utilizes a clock in such an arbitrary manner, with no preset concrete guildlines needed to be met before it's usage.

In the case of the hohmann/kempter quarterfinal, the clock was brought in when each player needed only about 25 balls.

Furthermore, i am also of the belief that the game of 14.1 is a very contemplative game that requires more time allowances than the 30 second allotment that was given.

in the other thread someone had said it was necessary because of all the potential breaks a player could take, but that isn't an issue here, as the players were allowed only 1, 5 minute break per match.

hopefully in the future, the organizers of this event will see that choosing to preserve the integrity of the game and its tradition, are paramount to catering to the fans in an effort to conform to a self imposed time schedule.

rg

 

[selftaut]

I remember at The Roosavelt back in 1990? there was a 45 second shot clock on every shot right from the beginning, and I think 4 extentions allowed. The clock was visible to the players overhead at every table. It seemed to work fairly well to my recollection. But in my opinion a shot clock will take away from the game in the long run.

 

[sjm]

I'll briefly state here, that a shot clock has no place in the game of straight pool. In the case of it's usage during these world championships, it's implementation was only for the benifit of the fans and their comfort with regards to scheduling. Ultimately, the organizers conciuosly placed the welfare of the fans before the integrity of the game. to me that is a travesty.

I do not concur that the use of a shot clock in any way compromises the integrity of the game. I happen to think 30 seconds is an eternity to plan most shots in 14.1, and there are extensions permitted for those few shots requiring additional analysis, though I'd prefer one extension per player per rack, as is allowed in nine ball. Slow play at this year's 14.1 event, in my opinion, had as much to do with players that had lethargic pre-shot routines as players needing more time to make decisions. This is also true in nine ball, where players like Jeremy Jones and Danny Basavich preside over even the simplest shots for an eternity. I also feel that inadherence to the posted match schedule is as player unfriendly as it is fan unfriendly.

I hate to argue with straight pool's greatest benefactor, whom I'm lucky enough to count as a good friend, and for whom I have limitless respect, but we're not on the same page here. The shot clock, in my opinion, is UNDERUTILIZED in 14.1 competition.

 

[TheOne]

Im afraid I have to disagree with SJM here, the fact of the matetr is shot clocks spoil 14.1 matches, you only have to see one introduced to realize this.

In one of my matches I played an extreemly slow player who took an eternity to run 50 balls, he also had numerous long breaks. 1 hour 20mins into out match I need 2 racks and I'm at the table. Because our 10:30 match didn't start until midnight it was late and we got put on the clock because understandibly everyone wanted to go to bed.

This match was still UNDER the allowed time and near the end of the match. I probably had used about 30% of the total time of the match but I was the one who suffered initially.

I've always liked the idea of the chess clock although the last time I mentioned it somebody brought up a valid flaw, but for the life of me I can't remember lol!

Anyway whatever the solution lets hope it happens again next year, still a great event

 

[cuetable]

I've always liked the idea of the chess clock although the last time I mentioned it somebody brought up a valid flaw, but for the life of me I can't remember lol!

Let's all gather in a group brainstorm session, identify pros and cons with the chess clock idea first. We can feel a little bit more constructive facing this issue and hopefully present the idea together to the authorities. I have quickly listed some basic ideas, please feel free to add on any comments or suggestions you may have:

Pros:
1, To keep the match on schedule for the tournament to function
2, To easy off ref's duty of calling out shot clock alert constantly.
3, The amount of allowed table time is the same for both players.


Cons
1, Needs an operator (either the ref or the scorekeeper)
2, Needs to be approved/sanctioned by authorities.
3, Needs minor investment ($40 for each unit )

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I've always liked the idea of the chess clock although the last time I mentioned it somebody brought up a valid flaw, but for the life of me I can't remember lol!...

The main difference at pool (from chess) is that there are a lot of periods that should not be charged to either player, but it is possible to suspend the time on a chess clock.

A side benefit of the chess clock is that the exiting shooter has to return to his chair to flip the clock. There are some players who linger over each miss, moaning and leaning on the table, refusing to let the opponent up to shoot until the lament is over. Those idiots would be penalized by the clock.

I have heard of a sharp practice that was used in some TV tournaments of carom in Mexico. The time on the clock counted was the time until you played a shot. If your opponent got into time trouble, you could shoot your cue ball straight into an object ball with tremendous side spin stun with no chance at all to score. Your cue ball sits there spinning madly and eating up your opponent's time. To avoid this, the flip can't occur until the balls stop moving or it's a foul.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

A side benefit of the chess clock is that the exiting shooter has to return to his chair to flip the clock. There are some players who linger over each miss, moaning and leaning on the table, refusing to let the opponent up to shoot until the lament is over. Those idiots would be penalized by the clock.

This is not only a good point, it is absolutely hilarious.

I think the main thing you need to do is figure out what the penalty is for using up all your time. It certainly can't be loss of game; the only thing worse for the fans than a slow game would be one they invested a lot of time watching, only to see the winning player forfeit because he ran out of time.

I think some forms (all?) of speed chess allow for 5 seconds or so per move after you've lost all your time... I suggest adopting something like that. I think a good system would be something like this:

1. Each player starts with 25 seconds per ball raced to. So if the game is to 100, that would be about 42 minutes of shooting time (2500 seconds).

2. After his time has expired, he has 15 seconds per shot, as timed by a ref. Any failure to get a shot off within those 15 seconds will constitute a table foul, cueball remaining where it is.

Just a thought...

- Steve

 

[JoeW]

I like the idea that each player has to flip the switch because it makes the player leave the table. By the time player two gets to the table and scopes a shot it should have stopped spinning -- right?

The clock should be midway between each seat and the ref can suspend time as needed such as for racking. When no ref is present the player could suspend until the ref has been identified and brought to the table to watch a hit, etc. If the ref states that it was not necessary to call him/ her then its a foul.

Steve's idea makes sense, when your time is up you have 15 seconds per shot.

 

[sjm]

This is not only a good point, it is absolutely hilarious.

I think the main thing you need to do is figure out what the penalty is for using up all your time. It certainly can't be loss of game; the only thing worse for the fans than a slow game would be one they invested a lot of time watching, only to see the winning player forfeit because he ran out of time.

I think some forms (all?) of speed chess allow for 5 seconds or so per move after you've lost all your time... I suggest adopting something like that. I think a good system would be something like this:

1. Each player starts with 25 seconds per ball raced to. So if the game is to 100, that would be about 42 minutes of shooting time (2500 seconds).

2. After his time has expired, he has 15 seconds per shot, as timed by a ref. Any failure to get a shot off within those 15 seconds will constitute a table foul, cueball remaining where it is.

Just a thought...

- Steve

This is a great idea. It penalizes the slow player, not both players. I've heard the chess clock idea on the forum before, and I've loved it every time I've heard it.

 

[Roy Steffensen]

This is not only a good point, it is absolutely hilarious.

I think the main thing you need to do is figure out what the penalty is for using up all your time. It certainly can't be loss of game; the only thing worse for the fans than a slow game would be one they invested a lot of time watching, only to see the winning player forfeit because he ran out of time.

I think some forms (all?) of speed chess allow for 5 seconds or so per move after you've lost all your time... I suggest adopting something like that. I think a good system would be something like this:

1. Each player starts with 25 seconds per ball raced to. So if the game is to 100, that would be about 42 minutes of shooting time (2500 seconds).

2. After his time has expired, he has 15 seconds per shot, as timed by a ref. Any failure to get a shot off within those 15 seconds will constitute a table foul, cueball remaining where it is.

Just a thought...

- Steve

Great idea!!!

 

[3andstop]

Correct me please if I'm wrong, but I believe the idea of a chess clock incorporates the concept of not needing a ref to monitor the time.

I went to NJ to watch the matches and I was frankly upset to see this "on the clock" thing since it was my observation that there were not enough people to time all 8 tables. Again, correct me if I'm wrong about that.

In fact I was watching one match that they decided to put on the clock and shortly after they started that, another game on another table began to take a lot of time and it seemed they got a free pass from the clock since no one could time them. This seemed unfair to the players who were singled out initially.

I don't like the idea of a shot clock, but if there must be one, I suppose the chess clock is about the best bet since you are not confined to a specific time per shot.

I think the total time should be calculated very very liberally also to give the players the benefit of the closest thing to no extra time pressure.

I also think that after the total time calculation is determined, the director should evaluate the clocks on all active tables at the 1/2 and 3/4 total time mark and apprise the players of how they are doing in terms of staying on pace.

I would suggest something like a 15 ball foul for your flag coming up and then 15 additional minutes added to both players clocks, and then a second subsequent flag is loss of game.

I'm trying to think of the time clocks and penalties as being as insignificant a factor in play as possible since they do detract from the very essence of the depth of this game.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Why not just change the game?

2008 could be the begining of the new 14.1 format...

There will still be many opportunities for long runs and safety play..

JUST change it to ALL BALL FOULs and
Cue Ball in Hand ANYWHERE on the table.

Let those 'intentional' fouls be penalized like they do in other pocket billiards game.

Same as ONE POCKET.. want to speed up the game... Cue Ball in Hand on any foul.

See, that wasn't so bad... you just have to be willing to give something up for a faster game... or just go back to 9 ball.

 

[3andstop]

Really though, how much overall time are intentional fouls adding to a game of 14.1? I think it is insignificant relative to the impact it would have on the game's integrity. Actually, I think the added time they take is insignificant period!

If anything is taking extra time its the evaluating of positions. Its the envisioning of the maps, not a few fouls here and there.

Isn't it ironic we are trying to find ways to shortcut our enjoyment time.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Isn't it ironic we are trying to find ways to shortcut our enjoyment time.

You're preaching to the chior 3&stop...

It's the promoters, sponsers and tournament directors that can't schedule a 14.1 tournament with enough time to accomodate everyone involved

If you can't afford to run a tournament where the times for matches are more than enough for the slowest of players, then maybe it's time for the promoters to step aside and let someone else do it correctly.

64 players in a round robin format, cut to DE for the final 32 and then SE for the final 16? did anyone think there wasn't going to be any problems?

I would much rather see 8 venues with 8 players playing a round robin with the top two players going to another venue to play in two round robins and the top 4 from each group go to a HUGE VENUE that could hold a HUGE crowd and have the focus on those TOP 8 PLAYERS.

Is this just too simple? .... it use to work this way and with no shot clocks.