Sometimes a shot clock is neccesary. It has it's place.
Archer got screwed
- Thread starter abbassi
- Start date
We use a chess clock that can be placed between the two player chairs in our 8-Ball tournaments. Each player has seven minutes per game (one minute per the player’s seven balls). The player is responsible for tripping their clock when they are finished and thus starting the other player’s clock. The clock has very little effect in over 200 matches unless you slow play or get in some sort of safety battle at the end of a game. Most games need less than 10 minutes not the game limit of 14 minutes. The one minute per ball allows time for the player to walk to and from the table at the end of his inning.
If this were a part of all tournaments there would be no time extensions, slow play is penalized for everyone. Most importantly it keeps the players on task and reduces the long conversations (at our home tournaments). Clean the table before the game and then live with any obstacles.
To me it makes sense to have a chess shot clock in any tournament. It would eliminate or reduce all sorts of problems and players have control over the amount of time they use. There are, or should be, only a few times during a match when a player might want to spend time studying a shot. The consistent use of a chess shot clock in all matches would go far towards improving the game in my opinion. It is more a matter of having it accepted by the sub-culture of pool.
Someone told me that baseball is the only major sport that is not timed. When you realize this baseball is more enjoyable. We need to agree that players can take as much time as they want or that there is a limited time allotted to each player.
A standardized approach to allotting time seems to have many uses including scheduling for tournaments and the media. I like the chess clock because it puts the player in control of his use of time. Another advantage to the chess clock is in the idea that our players know that we will be finished by 11:00 PM. They can schedule with the babysitter, go out for drinks, or start another tournament with a reasonably known end time. We have even had people who prefer to show up about 11:00 PM for the second round robin tournament.
It would not be difficult to determine the average time required in a 9-Ball tournament and then add 25% to arrive at a time limit.
Most chess clocks have a "pause" button for some acceptable disruption in the game.
If this were a part of all tournaments there would be no time extensions, slow play is penalized for everyone. Most importantly it keeps the players on task and reduces the long conversations (at our home tournaments). Clean the table before the game and then live with any obstacles.
To me it makes sense to have a chess shot clock in any tournament. It would eliminate or reduce all sorts of problems and players have control over the amount of time they use. There are, or should be, only a few times during a match when a player might want to spend time studying a shot. The consistent use of a chess shot clock in all matches would go far towards improving the game in my opinion. It is more a matter of having it accepted by the sub-culture of pool.
Someone told me that baseball is the only major sport that is not timed. When you realize this baseball is more enjoyable. We need to agree that players can take as much time as they want or that there is a limited time allotted to each player.
A standardized approach to allotting time seems to have many uses including scheduling for tournaments and the media. I like the chess clock because it puts the player in control of his use of time. Another advantage to the chess clock is in the idea that our players know that we will be finished by 11:00 PM. They can schedule with the babysitter, go out for drinks, or start another tournament with a reasonably known end time. We have even had people who prefer to show up about 11:00 PM for the second round robin tournament.
It would not be difficult to determine the average time required in a 9-Ball tournament and then add 25% to arrive at a time limit.
Most chess clocks have a "pause" button for some acceptable disruption in the game.
Last edited:
This make me think that TRex is a sore loser. If he had an issue with the pace of play why not ask an OFFICIAL to put them on the shot clock ?
Spectators are not officials, and that's a good thing.
Dave
As a player competing in a tournament, not only am I brushing off the railbirds, but I am completely ignoring them. They do not make the rules from the rail.
Great idea!!
In the US open finals I watched Ralf spend 5 mins figuring out how to play a safe on the 1 ball. When he finally shot he put the 1 in the jaws of the corner pocket with a clear path to the cue ball....ok
Then he spent 6mins 49 seconds analizing a simple kick shot. When he finally shot he missed the ball completly.
Should make for some great tv.
I gave up watching after that.
SOMEONE gets the point!!!
There is a big difference if the entire tournament is using a shot clock and thus you are using one, OR the tournament is not using a shot clock and your match is suddenly interrupted and put on a shot clock while other matches in the same tournament continue to play without one.
This was hugely wrong, according to all accounts watching the match they were not playing slow, both players were completely fine with the pace of each others play. It was people not involved in the match that interrupted it and caused both players added stress that they did not deserve in the slightest.
If a tournament wants to use a shot clock from the getgo fine, go ahead and use one. But when a TD takes it upon himself to call attention to one specific match as if to make a statement or a point and put that single isolated match on a shot clock that is wrong, it is disrespectful, and it is most certainly not fair to those players that are paying their money and spending their time to compete in that event.
NYC cue dude
Banned
Not sure if the Wong you're referring to is Michael or not. If so, this NY/NJ player would have to be in consideration to be amongst the slowest players in the country. His victory over Chohan would have to be considered a huge upset. It was only 2 years ago he was playing at B speed.
His "strange" reaction was simply his disregard for the comments. He has heard all these slow play comments for years. It doesn't phase him in the least.
As far as the shot clock goes, I have found that it is hardly ever used in the opening rounds, only to be implemented later. If the slow players were put on the clock earlier in the event, if needed, I'm sure they would play faster throughout the event.
It's a shame Johnny got thrown off his game, but he's a professional, and he in particular is no stranger to the clock.
Rg
His "strange" reaction was simply his disregard for the comments. He has heard all these slow play comments for years. It doesn't phase him in the least.
As far as the shot clock goes, I have found that it is hardly ever used in the opening rounds, only to be implemented later. If the slow players were put on the clock earlier in the event, if needed, I'm sure they would play faster throughout the event.
It's a shame Johnny got thrown off his game, but he's a professional, and he in particular is no stranger to the clock.
Rg
I'd guess that the speed of play has no significant correlation to the attendance at a pool tournament. To suggest otherwise is simply a debating tactic imo.
Dave
Geezus h effing christ. HE WASN"T PLAYING SLOW!!!!!
Will people stop commenting on how he played if they weren't frickin' there? It's tough enough trying to comment on what exactly happened without people brining in things that didn't happen.
Fred
It could effect the enjoyment/satisfaction of attending a tournament, and therefore effect future attendance.
If matches run long, there could be key matches that some are not able to watch if they either have to leave or cant stay up late enough. Did someone in this thread say Johnny was playing a match at 4am? If your a spectator, and one of the main reasons you went to the tournament was to watch Johnny and had to miss this match I could see someone not being happy. Or if the tournament runs long and someone cant stay to watch the finals because they have to be at work the next day.
From the players stand point, most dont care. From a promoters stand point, they better care if they want attendance to grow in future years.
Its a tough call. Most of us have played in enough tourney's to understand that these things happen. But we have also played in tournaments that were ran well and most of the matches went off reasonably close to their scheduled time.
I dont care for shot clocks, but I do think they could help if given a reasonable amount of time on the clock.
Woody
There is a simple measure that can work and it is not a shot clock. All you need is a time limit for a given match. A race to 9 should take around 90 minutes, for example. Should the time expire and no player has reached 9 games, then the match is over and the player with the most games wins. If there is a tie, then let them play a 1 game tiebreaker with a time limit of 15 minutes. Without a shot clock the players will not feel rushed, but they will be aware that the time limit is also a factor.
Thanks for that Fred.
My point is they were unfair to call the clock on him at that point of the match and tourney. The outcome of the tourney could have been a whole lot different.
I also did not like the warning they gave Donny Mills about soft breaks, and that too was when he had 9 wins or 8, but a crucial time. He had just run like 4 or 5 racks and the warning came. He did not make a ball on the next snap.
A big problem with this solution is the possibility that the guy who is ahead late in the match will go into "stall" mode the rest of the way.
I have a question for someone who was there... did the ref first give the players a warning that if they did not speed up play a shot clock would be imposed? If he did not, then I think both players have an argument.
This debate is pretty simple in my eyes.
1. Put an ave time per game that accumulates (for this example let's say it is 10 minutes)
2. Once the players are over the average by a half game (5 minutes), they get a warning. (this could happen in the first game, but remember they just get a warning. If the next game takes 4 minutes they are back on track)
3. If they get behind a full game (10 minutes) the shot clock is then imposed and remains in place until they are back on track or until the end of the match.
This way no match should ever be more than one full game behind the total average match time.
This debate is pretty simple in my eyes.
1. Put an ave time per game that accumulates (for this example let's say it is 10 minutes)
2. Once the players are over the average by a half game (5 minutes), they get a warning. (this could happen in the first game, but remember they just get a warning. If the next game takes 4 minutes they are back on track)
3. If they get behind a full game (10 minutes) the shot clock is then imposed and remains in place until they are back on track or until the end of the match.
This way no match should ever be more than one full game behind the total average match time.
Many tournaments have a shot clock that is not imposed until there is a problem. Usually there is some statement in the player's meeting about the number of games after 1 hour into the match must be at least 8 games or something like that. The shot clock will be imposed after the hour period if less than 8 games are played. Don't know if that happened at the Open this year or not.
Andy
Andy
Joe,
We used to time hundreds of matches on the Tiger Pool Tour. A race to 7 for our regional player abilities averaged 52 minutes. A race to 9 was 65 minutes.
Later rounds on Sunday might slow down some due to the intensity of the matches and money involved. Sometimes they speed up because the players are very skilled that far into the tournament.
Andy