Possible solution for shot clocks/slow play, from curling

Celtic

Celtic

AZB's own 8-ball jihadist
Silver Member
First off the traditional shot clock sucks.

At times in pool there is a clear out with relatively little thinking required and at these times shooting within a 30 second window is not an issue.

There are other times when you are off angle on a shot or lining up that 3 rail return kick safety and these shots as can be imagined take more time to accurately hit.

In Curling the issue of slow play is resolved via each time having a total time clock at the beginning of the game. AKA each team starts with 90 minutes, and when they are shooting that time ticks off.

This allows for the slower times in the match, and it allows for those times when there is not as much thinking required and one can shoot quicker to conserve the shot clock.

I would rather see each player given a 60 minute or 75 minute shot clock or whatever number can be worked out as reasonable for the game being played and the race and then the clock simply runs down for each player while they are at the table. These clocks can be in plain view and allows the players to see where they stand in time and they can work that out relative to the score to make sure they are on a good pace.

IF you run out of time? You lose the match, period. It is very simple and effective and the players don't have to constantly be worrying about 10 second warnings beeping off in their ear as they are down about to shoot a shot, they don't have to worry about extensions, they simply have a clock with all their time on it that they have to manage and in time they would know exactly what type of pace is needed to finish a match in the required time.
 
As mentioned before in another thread. Chess clocks would be simple solution. Each game/set has a predetermined time period. As soon as you miss you sit down and hit the plunger effectively stopping your time and making opponent timer go. This would also stop players who have missed from prolonged lingering. You don't get your bum in your seat you can't stop your time.

Now if you want to burn up 10 minutes on a tough decision well that's your issue.
 
Reminds me of speed chess.

However the concept of losing the match really sucks. At least with the standard shot clock you're just giving up ball in hand. But to lose entirely? That would ruin matches completely. No one wants to see that. It defeats the purposes of the shot clock in the first place, which was to make it better for the spectator.

And interesting idea, but not one that I support.
 
This is basically the chess clock solution and it has been debated on here at least a couple of times before.

A couple of questions needs to be answered.

First, what is the penalty for running out of time? If it is going to mean loss of match, that's a problem.

Say in a race to 11 both players are running low on time. Then it turns into a silly speed pool event as both players try to avoid being the first one to run out of time.

Or suppose each player is allotted 60 minutes. Both players are at 58 minutes. Player "A" is on the hill leading player "B" in the race by a score of 10-1. Player "A" is at the table and runs out of time before running out the rack and winning the match. Is it really fair for him to lose the match when it is obvious that of the 2 players it was player "B" who, hardly getting to the table during the set, was the slower player? Would you like to see player "A" dog a shot on purpose just to get to his chair and stop his clock? If so, and both players were short on time, player "B" would do the same thing to get "A" back on the clock. This scenario just sounds clowny to me.

Then there's the question about what should happen if, because of slow play, numerous safety battles, a string of difficult table layouts, both players have only a couple of minutes left on their clocks and the score is 4-4 in a race to 11. Neither player has enough time to win the set no matter how fast they play. What happens then?

In curling, like chess, each side gets the same number of turns (moves, shots, etc.) so a chess clock lends itself a little better to those games. But in pool the number of "turns" is not usually equal. The leader most often has taken many more shots than the player who is behind in the match.

Not saying something shouldn't be done, but the answer is not as simple as it seems.
 
The problem is that in curling a team throws a fixed number of rocks (8 per end times 10 ends) whereas in a pool match each player shoots an unpredicatable number of shots ... the difference between someone running a 9-pack versus a 9-8 match with lots of defensive battles.

Dave

<edit: that dog who posted above me knows his stuff and can type faster than me too>
 
Just want to a offer possible solution

I haven't read any other thread on this topic, so don't shoot me if this has already been mentioned.

I also think loss of match is too harsh a penalty for running out of time.

My solution to this is instead of a shot clock for the entire match, how about the clocks for each player is reset for each game and running out of time is only loss of game.

I think this solves everything.

ED
 
The chess shot clock should be per game not per match. Thus you can lose one game because you play slow or can't play safes effectively.
 
JoeW said:
The chess shot clock should be per game not per match. Thus you can lose one game because you play slow or can't play safes effectively.
Click to expand...

It could be possible to do it per a game, but the case may arise where this would screw up the odd safety battle game that arises. The shot clock being over the entire match would tend to balance out over safety battles and open table runouts.

Perhaps the match loss is too harsh, if you run out of time you lose the game when the time expires and then each player has 5 minutes added to their clock per a subsequent game.
 
As mentioned above. Per game and you give up ball in hand. It won't become speed pool. What it won't become is rope-a-dope pool.

20 Seconds a ball is plenty. Say your playing 9 ball

(9 x 20) + (3 x 20 Safety Battle) + (60 Brain Teaser) = Max Allowed per player per game
Max = 5min per player

This is forever. Go to youtube and time out your average game. If your taking more than 5 min to run 9 balls without back and forth your walking needless laps. If you each get 15 turns at the table...you should take up curling (or some other sport that will have you). If you want to spend 2 minutes on a pivotal shot. No problem. You better run the balance at pace.
 
During the course of a safety battle at least the players are trading turns. One player isn't taking multiple shots that makes a chess clock inequitable.

Still some bugs though since a prolonged game could still encounter the scenarios I mentioned earlier with respect to creating a speed pool event or dogged shots back and forth or neither player having enough time to win that rack. But at least you don't lose the whole match.

You would need enough time on the clock per game. Games could end up taking longer than having a 30 second shot clock on each shot. And you in any event would still have players bolting back to their chairs as fast as they can after every miss to stop their clocks, maybe before the balls have stopped moving. Would that be a foul, and who calls it?

Seems more workable though than a chess clock on the entire match.
 
Last edited:
I really like this idea and with a little tweaking I think it could def be applied to all the rotation games.
 
Nick B said:
20 Seconds a ball is plenty. Say your playing 9 ball

(9 x 20) + (3 x 20 Safety Battle) + (60 Brain Teaser) = Max Allowed per player per game
Max = 5min per player
Click to expand...

This is a very workable solution... 10 minutes is a long game of 9-ball.

I played 5 races to 9 (in 9ball) the other night against another player about my speed (in skill and speed)... I counted up at the end and we had play 75 racks in about 5 hours.... that equates to 4 minutes a game on average... Not even close to the 10 minutes allowed above.

10 minutes per game * 17 games (9-8 match) would be 170 minutes ... 10 minutes under 3 hours which is horribly long, but I've seen two slow players approach that length of a match... completely messes up a tournament.

I'd happily play with a 2 x 5minute Chess clock setup! 2 x 4minute would be even better.
 
We use a 2 X 7 minute chess clock for each game in our 8-Ball round robin tournaments and there has only been two or three games in over 200 - 500 games where someone timed out. Whoever times out first loses the game.

So the clock really doesn't come into play all that much. What it does is keep the player's attention and keeps their mind on the game. There is very little slow play and players do not seem to be rushed. They simply do not spend excessive time on a shot because they try to save their time for the end game where it may be (but usually isn't) needed. The games usualy take about 7- 9 minutes so a 14 minute (total time) is more than sufficient. It seems it is just the presence of the clock that keeps things moving. You could lose based on time but it does not happen often becasue the players are aware of it when they are playing.

While many of the scenarios noted above are possible I have not seen any of them have a significant influence. Players don't rush back to the chair. In fact they tend to forget to hit the clock and we usually try to have the loser of the last game as the time keeper for the next game.

At our local tournaments where the players and spectators all know each other the player who misses usually starts talking with a spectator and forgets the clock. We also had trouble getting the player to the table to take his turn because he was talking to others. That is why we started to use the clock.

On the odd time when there has been a saftey battle the clock has been useful. Players figure out what they are going to do and do it without a lot of excessve thought. Maybe one in ten times a player seems to rush a shot or bang away when they can' figure out what to do in less than a minute or so. This actually makes for a better game at times.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to Bob the chess Clock, a free JAVA applet we use for our tournaments. It is on a laptop and can be seen by most of the spectators.

http://bobchess.doubtlesshouse.org.uk/BobChessClock.htm

I bought a chess shot clock a while ago but it is too small for spectators to see. This one is much better, thought it is a plain jane implementation.

The Fischer subroutine allows you to enter a preshot time (we use ten seconds) and that is more than enough for the player to walk to the table after the opposition has hit the clock.
 
Why couldn't there be a 20 second shot clock per shot, with the remainder carrying over?

So if you spend 10 seconds on a shot, you now have a reserve of 10 seconds should you need it. Now you could spend 30 seconds on a tough shot and still be ok.

This would reset each rack to avoid a player accumulating too much time and taking a break to eat a Snickers bar or something . . . :smile:
 
This item requires clarification at the players meeting by the TD. The two large tournaments that I played in that run the smoothest are the Swanney and the Texas Open. The TD's in both events show resolve and commitment to the best interest of all the players be demanding, and getting adaquate compliance by all by being proactive. The Swanney doesn't commit to specific table times while the Open does. In both cases the TD's announced prior to tourney commencement that if X amount of games were not accomplished by Y amount of time that was allocated for the standard match, a shot clock COULD be applied. The TD prowls the floor, if a match has not reached the game total anticipated, he simply observes a little while, taking all conditions into consideration. I have seen two reactions, 1) Nothing done, as his experienced eye calculates that it was just a tough match being hard fought and taking a little longer than normally anticipated. 2) A shot-clock being inatiated because one or both parties being in his opinion were excessively or painfully slow. Either way the shot clock issue comes up very seldom and is usually because of one habitually slow player. The system is pretty good like it is. If you are matched with a habitually snail like player, (yes they do exist), the best deal is to ask the TD to keep an eye on the match before you start. If this happens during the match, take your time out, wash your face, then search out the TD and inform.
 
Celtic said:
First off the traditional shot clock sucks.

At times in pool there is a clear out with relatively little thinking required and at these times shooting within a 30 second window is not an issue.

There are other times when you are off angle on a shot or lining up that 3 rail return kick safety and these shots as can be imagined take more time to accurately hit.

In Curling the issue of slow play is resolved via each time having a total time clock at the beginning of the game. AKA each team starts with 90 minutes, and when they are shooting that time ticks off.

This allows for the slower times in the match, and it allows for those times when there is not as much thinking required and one can shoot quicker to conserve the shot clock.

I would rather see each player given a 60 minute or 75 minute shot clock or whatever number can be worked out as reasonable for the game being played and the race and then the clock simply runs down for each player while they are at the table. These clocks can be in plain view and allows the players to see where they stand in time and they can work that out relative to the score to make sure they are on a good pace.

IF you run out of time? You lose the match, period. It is very simple and effective and the players don't have to constantly be worrying about 10 second warnings beeping off in their ear as they are down about to shoot a shot, they don't have to worry about extensions, they simply have a clock with all their time on it that they have to manage and in time they would know exactly what type of pace is needed to finish a match in the required time.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is it would change the game entirely someone could get a time lead then just safety their opponent to death make them run down their clock until they eventually lose the match.
 
alexndayton said:
The problem with this is it would change the game entirely someone could get a time lead then just safety their opponent to death make them run down their clock until they eventually lose the match.
Click to expand...

I think we have already killed the idea of a shot clock for the entire match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top