Proposed rules for tournament slow play in One Pocket and Banks

iusedtoberich

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
At a certain match time marker set by the TD, lets say 1.75 hrs for example, a specific shot is shot over and over again until the game is won. One point is awarded for each successful shot. The current score of the game is taken into account. If in one pocket the score is 7-5, whoever has 7 only has to make 1 shot, and whoever has 5 must make 3. The shots are taken alternate shot until there is a winner.

The shots:
One Pocket: BIH behind the line spot shot (straight into your hole).

Short Rack Bank Pool: BIH behind the line spot shot "straight back" bank shot.

Possibly do equal innings, although I'm not decided on that yet. If it were equal innings, it could result in a tie score of 8-8 for one pocket, or 5-5 for banks, in which case the players would keep going in equal innings until the score was not tied. If it were not equal innings, when the time limit is called, whoever is at the table shooting takes the first spot shot. If that player needs 1 and pockets the spot shot, he wins immediately. I could potentially see some time clock manipulation in this scenario, that's why the equal innings might be worth it.

If its a race to 3 and both players are slow as molasses and they are not even on the last game, then the current game is finished out this way, and the entire remaining games are played this way.
 
Make it a shorter ball count race!

Instead of race to 8 balls!

Convert to a race to 5 balls!

Will speed things up with out drastically changing the game.

After a set time limit! Change to a 5 ball race!

Kd

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 
At first glance, this may not be popular. The TD should set a maximum time for a match. If that time is not met: disqualify both players. They will learn to work it out.

I do not think it will happen more than once.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
At first glance, this may not be popular. The TD should set a maximum time for a match. If that time is not met: disqualify both players. They will learn to work it out.

I do not think it will happen more than once.
Click to expand...
So I'm playing the top-rated player in the first round of the tournament. My buddy bought #2 in the calcutta for $3500. What should I do? What should I do? I think I'll wipe my cue and have a drink of water. :devilish:
 
Bob Jewett said:
So I'm playing the top-rated player in the first round of the tournament. My buddy bought #2 in the calcutta for $3500. What should I do? What should I do? I think I'll wipe my cue and have a drink of water. :devilish:
Click to expand...
The 'Devil's Advocate' always asks a good question. My assumption, that you being a professional/non-violent player, would discuss this with the TD for a decision. What would you really do?

If I was tournament director I would tell them that the next session will start on time ... with or without you. The next round will be a bye round. It is up to the players to work it out.
 
Last edited:
How about you play the game the way it was supposed to be played, and tournaments account for that speed of game and schedule their tournaments accordingly instead of trying every way possible to shorten games/tournament length.
If there are enough players, make it 2 or 3 days so everyone can play their game Instead of wanting matches to be a half hour long as if it were a speed pool tournament.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
How about you play the game the way it was supposed to be played, and tournaments account for that speed of game and schedule their tournaments accordingly instead of trying every way possible to shorten games/tournament length.
If there are enough players, make it 2 or 3 days so everyone can play their game Instead of wanting matches to be a half hour long as if it were a speed pool tournament.
Click to expand...
Crazy talk. Do you want a Varner wedge every game? One match could easily take 7 hours. And that IS a very valid way to play one pocket. Keep that for the gambling and out of tournaments.
 
If the match is not complete at x hours/minutes, each player has 5 minutes to break and run as many balls as possible. Player who runs more within their 5 minutes wins. If they both don't make a ball on their break, they keep trying until someone does.

This might be interesting to watch for 1 pocket, lol.
 
There is a time limit per match set by TD.
If the match is still in progress when time limit expires, shooting stops, and the player with the most games wins--when games are equal the player with the most balls wins--when games and balls are equal, a tie is declared and money/points split equally.

There is a tournament time limit set by TD.
If matches are still in progress or to be started when time limit expires, all players are considered to have a tie, money/points distributed equally.

So if you want/need to win more money, you have to beat your opponent faster.
 
iusedtoberich said:
At a certain match time marker set by the TD, lets say 1.75 hrs for example, a specific shot is shot over and over again until the game is won. One point is awarded for each successful shot. The current score of the game is taken into account. If in one pocket the score is 7-5, whoever has 7 only has to make 1 shot, and whoever has 5 must make 3. The shots are taken alternate shot until there is a winner.

The shots:
One Pocket: BIH behind the line spot shot (straight into your hole).

Short Rack Bank Pool: BIH behind the line spot shot "straight back" bank shot.

Possibly do equal innings, although I'm not decided on that yet. If it were equal innings, it could result in a tie score of 8-8 for one pocket, or 5-5 for banks, in which case the players would keep going in equal innings until the score was not tied. If it were not equal innings, when the time limit is called, whoever is at the table shooting takes the first spot shot. If that player needs 1 and pockets the spot shot, he wins immediately. I could potentially see some time clock manipulation in this scenario, that's why the equal innings might be worth it.

If its a race to 3 and both players are slow as molasses and they are not even on the last game, then the current game is finished out this way, and the entire remaining games are played this way.
Click to expand...
We have had to bar a few players who slow down an entire tournament. Everything ran fine after that.
 
Most 1P tournaments these days have a couple of rules to speed up play, which seem to work relatively well for the most part. Those rules being fouls cancelling out until at least one player no longer owes any balls, and some form of the Grady rule implemented after the match reaches a specific time limit.

Is the argument that these rules aren't working well enough?
 
u12armresl said:
We have had to bar a few players who slow down an entire tournament. Everything ran fine after that.
Click to expand...
The use of chess clocks has worked pretty well in a couple of leagues around here. One guy speeded up enough that he never ran out of time. Another snail simply quit because he couldn't deal with the clock and everyone was happy.
 
Justin Bergman just won the Ultimate Pool Challenge and he's a slow as it gets.., OK Hennessy, but the point is that he did just fine with the shot clock and those games were very entertaining. You have a set amount of time to complete your match and a shoot-out if there a tie at the end of the time period. Looks like its working real well.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The use of chess clocks has worked pretty well in a couple of leagues around here. One guy speeded up enough that he never ran out of time. Another snail simply quit because he couldn't deal with the clock and everyone was happy.
Click to expand...

I played chess competitively long before finding cue sports. I've always thought that cue sports could be greatly improved by implementing an Elo type ratings system like the one used for chess (which we now have with Fargo), and chess clocks.
 
As an example, consider the one pocket match at Derby City between Darren Appleton and Tom Spencer. Darren was ahead 2-0 going to 3. He had a lead in the third game. He let the people running the TV ring game he was about to play in know that he would be over shortly. Six hours later -- seven and a half total hours -- Tom Spencer wins the match.

Of course Derby City is an easy target for scheduling issues but the Appleton-Spencer match could have been in any tournament.
 
King T said:
Justin Bergman just won the Ultimate Pool Challenge and he's a slow as it gets.., OK Hennessy, but the point is that he did just fine with the shot clock and those games were very entertaining. You have a set amount of time to complete your match and a shoot-out if there a tie at the end of the time period. Looks like its working real well.
Click to expand...
Justin Bergman won the Colorado Shootout, lost in the semi-final of the Open.

You are very correct about his pace of play, it was just fine throughout the tournament from what I could see.
 
Bob Jewett said:
As an example, consider the one pocket match at Derby City between Darren Appleton and Tom Spencer. Darren was ahead 2-0 going to 3. He had a lead in the third game. He let the people running the TV ring game he was about to play in know that he would be over shortly. Six hours later -- seven and a half total hours -- Tom Spencer wins the match.

Of course Derby City is an easy target for scheduling issues but the Appleton-Spencer match could have been in any tournament.
Click to expand...
That’s one pocket. It happens.

However if we look at the big picture-how many 1P matches are there per year and how many last an extraordinary long time? I don’t think it’s enough to rewrite the rules and change the game.

If it’s too slow, pick a new game.

The hamster wheel never strops turning

Fatboy <——getting bored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top