14.1 Format

[BayGene]

Yesterday's situation at Comet Billiards pointed out the perennial problem of straight pool matches: overlong matches bollixing up the entire schedule, leading to a wee hours, or in this case, aborted final. Time clocks, when imposed, sometimes seem to degrade play while almost never solving the problem.
The solution?
Ironically it was seem in this same room with Pat Fleming's wonderful format for his round robin tournament:
-race to 60
-high runs continue past the winning shot
Someone might object that in a double elimination a top player might get struck by lightning twice. Sounds exciting to me!
We lovers of 14.1 are fanatical defenders of our discipline; however, even we have are hard time explaining the attractions of a four hour exchange of five ball runs.
Let's extend Pat's formula to tournament play!

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Yesterday's situation at Comet Billiards pointed out the perennial problem of straight pool matches: overlong matches bollixing up the entire schedule, leading to a wee hours, or in this case, aborted final. Time clocks, when imposed, sometimes seem to degrade play while almost never solving the problem.
The solution?
Ironically it was seem in this same room with Pat Fleming's wonderful format for his round robin tournament:
-race to 60
-high runs continue past the winning shot
Someone might object that in a double elimination a top player might get struck by lightning twice. Sounds exciting to me!
We lovers of 14.1 are fanatical defenders of our discipline; however, even we have are hard time explaining the attractions of a four hour exchange of five ball runs.
Let's extend Pat's formula to tournament play!

Although I do believe different formats should be explored, I don't believe a format-change will necessarily correct the problem. Believe me, I don't like saying this but it's the truth - No shot clock, no time limits, no short games. You want to correct the problem, you start kicking out slow players. Tom Walter is a great guy and a great pool player but he has to speed up his play. It's not fair to everyone else.

 

[3andstop]

I've always said that a chess clock would be a viable alternative to a shot clock. Rather than giving a player 45 seconds to shoot each shot, allow them a set time to finish the match.

For example, each player has one hour to finish the match, making the matches 2hrs in total. When a player finishes his or her inning, they hit the chess clock and start their opponents time running.

You are free to use your time, while it's running, anyway you see fit, just don't run over the total time you have for you match or your flag goes up.

I also suggested that the first flag violation could be a 15 pt. foul and opponent get BIH rather than an instant match loss. Then 10 minutes could be added to the chess clock and the next resulting overtime is a loss.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I've always said that a chess clock would be a viable alternative to a shot clock. Rather than giving a player 45 seconds to shoot each shot, allow them a set time to finish the match.

For example, each player has one hour to finish the match, making the matches 2hrs in total. When a player finishes his or her inning, they hit the chess clock and start their opponents time running.

You are free to use your time, while it's running, anyway you see fit, just don't run over the total time you have for you match or your flag goes up.

I also suggested that the first flag violation could be a 15 pt. foul and opponent get BIH rather than an instant match loss. Then 10 minutes could be added to the chess clock and the next resulting overtime is a loss.

Then you start having clock arguments and having to supply tons of clocks for games.

In Chess, they actually play 5 minute games. There is an assumption that mistakes will be made. Nobody wants mistakes in pool. They just don't want matches to end when somebody dies.

 

[3andstop]

Just an idea, but how many chess clocks would you need? 16? It's not like they are a ton of money and what argument could there be? If you forget to hit the clock after your shot ... tough luck, you time is still running, simple as that.

I just think it makes more sense than limiting someone to 45 seconds per shot when some positions demand more thought than that and most shots don't demand half that much time.

Each player is responsible for managing his or her time, and if you forget to hit the clock you have forgotten to manage your time.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Just an idea, but how many chess clocks would you need? 16? It's not like they are a ton of money and what argument could there be? If you forget to hit the clock after your shot ... tough luck, you time is still running, simple as that.

I just think it makes more sense than limiting someone to 45 seconds per shot when some positions demand more thought than that and most shots don't demand half that much time.

Each player is responsible for managing his or her time, and if you forget to hit the clock you have forgotten to manage your time.

That would all depend on the size of the event. You can see what I wrote here:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1946632&postcount=44

There are plenty of ways to manage time. All you really have to do is tell the players to manage themselves. Once slow players are isolated, you tell them they're out of the event if they have another marathon match.

 

[3andstop]

There are plenty of ways to manage time. All you really have to do is tell the players to manage themselves. Once slow players are isolated, you tell them they're out of the event if they have another marathon match.

I understand, but telling someone they are too slow is a very arbitrary statement as a foundation to bar them from playing.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I understand, but telling someone they are too slow is a very arbitrary statement as a foundation to bar them from playing.

Is it? What are the options? Rooms such as Amsterdam Billiards simply refuse to have as many events now because they're afraid it will inhibit their ability to rent out tables to paying customers. In the end, we're all penalized.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Very Mixed feelings...

I don't know of any player that likes to be told they have to play differently from their style or not play at all. It is too much like 'either conform or go some place else and play'

Shot clocks and match time limits take the players out of control of their own destiny and require them to conform to the majority.

So the future tournaments will be formatted to eliminate 'slow players'?
Reasonable 'time limits' will be set by a panel of players? or Room owners? or rules committees? or promoters? or TV

 

[Rich93]

I've always said that a chess clock would be a viable alternative to a shot clock. Rather than giving a player 45 seconds to shoot each shot, allow them a set time to finish the match.

For example, each player has one hour to finish the match, making the matches 2hrs in total. When a player finishes his or her inning, they hit the chess clock and start their opponents time running.

You are free to use your time, while it's running, anyway you see fit, just don't run over the total time you have for you match or your flag goes up.

I also suggested that the first flag violation could be a 15 pt. foul and opponent get BIH rather than an instant match loss. Then 10 minutes could be added to the chess clock and the next resulting overtime is a loss.

Interesting idea but still flawed, IMO. The poorer player might make the winner use up valuable time with safeties, and the winner must then pocket 150 balls in what's left of his hour, while the loser might have a lot of time left on his clock.

I think there's no perfect solution, but a 45 second shot clock with one 90 second period allowed per rack is reasonably simple and would speed up the game without changing strategy too much.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I don't know of any player that likes to be told they have to play differently from their style or not play at all. It is too much like 'either conform or go some place else and play'

Shot clocks and match time limits take the players out of control of their own destiny and require them to conform to the majority.

So the future tournaments will be formatted to eliminate 'slow players'?
Reasonable 'time limits' will be set by a panel of players? or Room owners? or rules committees? or promoters? or TV

Tom, while I would like to agree with you, I can't. One day, pool is going to have to address slow play. There are fewer and fewer venues to host events now and the economy has impacted pool in more ways than one. We still want our competitions but concessions are going to have to be made in order to maintain performance expectations while minimizing the amount of time needed to extract the best performers.

 

[unknownpro]

The chess clock idea, which I have posted about before, is imo the solution to this problem until someone proves it won't work. There needs to be plenty of room around the tables so you don't have to wait on anyone.

 

[topcat1953]

Everyone that plays straight pool knows that unless you are running the game out, the exchanges and strategies take time to execute. 100 pts, 125 pts, 150 pts whatever. The powers to be that organize the tournaments are experienced enough to know this. In this events case, the players were all asked to report Friday night for a player's meeting and begin play Saturday morning. A fast game of 150 would be 1 1/2 hours. On average, they go 3 hours +. The Tournament officials in this case could have shortened the whole event by playing one round on Friday. Walter and the other shooters deserve whatever amount of time they need. No one's #%cthing about Lipsky studying shots at 5 minutes a piece at midnight. And they shouldn't. He needed the time to make his decisions and did a good job of it. There is nothing wrong with the game or how it is played. The event coordinaters or producers need to format the events to begin and end at an appropriate time. They have all the wisdom at their disposal of what works. This was a very good event for the first of it's kind and I hope it continues. The Qualifiers were great and there should be more. It brings back a bit of the traditional spirit of the days when there were more of these kinds of tournaments.

 

[AtLarge]

... shooters deserve whatever amount of time they need. ... There is nothing wrong with the game or how it is played.

No -- some people, at some times, just play slower than should be allowed. As we saw yesterday, it can have a serious adverse effect on everyone else left in the tournament.

You used the phrase "whatever amount of time they need." In most cases, they don't really need such long amounts of time, they just think they do. In fact, it often interferes with their own play.

 

[driven]

I've always said that a chess clock would be a viable alternative to a shot clock. Rather than giving a player 45 seconds to shoot each shot, allow them a set time to finish the match.

For example, each player has one hour to finish the match, making the matches 2hrs in total. When a player finishes his or her inning, they hit the chess clock and start their opponents time running.

You are free to use your time, while it's running, anyway you see fit, just don't run over the total time you have for you match or your flag goes up.

I also suggested that the first flag violation could be a 15 pt. foul and opponent get BIH rather than an instant match loss. Then 10 minutes could be added to the chess clock and the next resulting overtime is a loss.

I can't think of a better format. maybe 30 mins. longer would be ok.
Use your time as you like. Perfect. some shots take longer than others. Time runs out, game over. period.
steven

 

[AtLarge]

... For example, each player has one hour to finish the match, making the matches 2hrs in total. When a player finishes his or her inning, they hit the chess clock and start their opponents time running. ...

Help me understand what you are saying. Suppose you play atrociously slowly, and after 59 minutes and 59 seconds on your clock, you have scored 6 points. I play at a much faster pace, but my clock expires (60 minutes) when I am at 147 in a game to 150. You win by forfeit?

 

[stevekur1]

Although some would say its unfair and they want to get the most for there money, Single Elim would of solved alot too. This way everyone brings out there best game, without the cushion of a losers side match.

This way everyone plays sudden death style !!

Just An Idea!
Steve

 

[ForumGhost516]

I ran a straight pool league this year for 20 weeks and every week the same complaint came in about one gentleman in particular playing incredibly slowly. I think in all honesty a player should not have to conform to time constraints to play his or her game. Now if it is obvious that they are doing this for sharking purposes than fine get them out but if someone like Tommy Walters plays slow than so be it this should have been thought about before the tournament even took place.

In my honest opinion play should have resumed on Monday morning at Comet for the finals and in my opinion Mr Dan louis seems like a great guy I personally dont know him but why is it Steve Lipsky's fault if he had a plane to catch.

I know this has been talked about but when it comes to straight pool I honestly think that at a championship level whether it be at the NCS or at the Worlds in a few weeks there should not be a shot clock and if the matches are slow then tough titties.

just my .02

 

[Bob Jewett]

Help me understand what you are saying. Suppose you play atrociously slowly, and after 59 minutes and 59 seconds on your clock, you have scored 6 points. I play at a much faster pace, but my clock expires (60 minutes) when I am at 147 in a game to 150. You win by forfeit?

If you play at a brisk pace, you will not be in time trouble, since the amount of time is set by what fairly slow players need. Maybe 1.5 hours for 150 points. That's 36 seconds per ball, which is plenty of time on average even for deliberate players.

But if you ever find yourself in such a situation, call a safe, shoot straight at the 7 with maximum side spin, and go punch the clock putting your opponent back on time. One second later, you win.

 

[AtLarge]

... But if you ever find yourself in such a situation, call a safe, shoot straight at the 7 with maximum side spin, and go punch the clock putting your opponent back on time. One second later, you win.

OK, you found a flaw in my almost ridiculous example. But the point was that one of the players in my example was far, far slower than the other, but the slower guy gets the win. That would be possible, wouldn't it, even if the time allowance for 150 points is fairly liberal? I guess the response would be that both players were too slow, so the loser (by forfeit) has no real complaint.