Proposed rules for tournament slow play in One Pocket and Banks

[maha]

Sounds good. What is your suggestion to do this?

have the ref tell players before the tournament starts that slow play will be penalized at the t.d.'s discretion

have him give a warning for playing a slow speed. second warning a penalty that hurts. like ball in hand, loss of a point, etc.
second offense in a game loss of game.

allow for certain times where thought takes some extra time.

anyone can see when someone is holding up the game or making it less fun to watch. same players every tournament and year.
just tell them just one tournament not to come. next time they will keep up.

 

[maha]

good, wait great post lou.

 

[maha]

in chess its hard to stall the game to make your opponents clock run out.

in say one pocket or even 9 ball you can if you have more time and its getting near the end just play safes and force the other guy's time bank to run out if you match him in speeds of shots.

that can change the whole strategy of the game of pool.

stop trying to instill a complicated solution instead of a simple one.

 

[336Robin]

I can’t believe anyone would advocate for a scenario where the player with a higher score loses the rack because his clock expired first. It goes against the fundamental goal in pool which is to put the ball in the hole. Chess clocks, with any advanced format, would allow that possibility.

I'm not entirely sure it has to be that cut and dried.

If the play continues until one players clock expires, that could signal the end of the match at which time the score in that rack
is taken into account to determine who wins and loses that one rack, but the match is over.

If a person wastes their time and they lose on account of something they did, that isn't so bad. If they get ahead and then waste their time then other player has an opportunity to play faster and also better to equalize the situation.

This could end up with players hurrying to their seat to hit their clock and that might even improve viewership.

Until Pools viewership goes up, sponsors aren't interested.

 

[Clusterbuster]

As mentioned earlier, chess clocks. Most people probably aren't very familiar with how they work, but there are a whole bunch of time controls using chess clocks that are both fair and make sure that these players are forced to either play at a more normal pace or lose the match.

A basic time control is where each player only has a set amount of time per game. After each inning the shooter hits the post/button on the clock, which stops their clock and starts the opponents clock.

One pocket could probably benefit from a more complex time control though, to allow for longer defensive wedge games while still keeping things moving at a decent pace. One more complex option is the additive option, where not only does each player get a set amount of time, but then a small amount of time is added to the clock for each inning they play. For example 30+30 world mean each player gets 30 minutes plus another 30 seconds for each inning they complete. Or there's a similar option with a delay, where the clock has a set delay before it starts at the start of each inning (30|10d would be 30 min per player plus a 10 sec delay at the start of each inning). There's also the complex time controls for the world championship, where there's a relatively large time allotted for the first 40 moves, then less time for the subsequent 20 moves, then "sudden death" after that with 30 seconds per move .

For one pocket matches any of the more complex chess time controls would be fair, wouldn't drastically change the game or strategy, would force the slow players to pick up the pace, and would keep match lengths to a reasonable length of time.

I don’t know much about chess clocks but my sense it each player re-starts time running by simply hitting a button. Adding time for innings completed, more time for later innings, etc. seems a recipe for delay and argument. Time clock like in chess seems like a good idea but you’ve got to keep even that simple.

 

[Clusterbuster]

If I'm being totally honest, this is me. I've been called a slow player, but I think of it as being deliberate. I'm a thoughtful, tactical, and analytical person by nature, and it reflects in my approach to the game and other aspects of my life such as work and hobbies. What I am NOT is "deliberately slow". I don't try to intentionally make the game take longer than it should to gain an advantage over the field, and I don't condone others who do so.

You don’t sound like you’re being unreasonably slow which is admittedly a matter of degree but there is slower than average and there is glacier-slow. Regardless of why someone is playing slow, the effect is the same.

 

[Clusterbuster]

-Normal shot clock is no good because unless pool becomes a huge dollar sport its not feasible to have a ref with a shot clock on each table.

-Chess clocks sound like a better idea. However, for as many years as we've all talked about them, I've yet to see a tournament use them. I actually tried it once in a gambling one pocket match with a buddy about 20 years ago. He kept forgetting to hit his button and about threw the clock at me, ha ha.

Also with a chess clock, there could be a situation where it just happens to be a long game, but neither player is a slow poke. Score is tied 5-5 and the balls are out of play. Player one has 1 second left, player two has 2 seconds left. Why should the 1 second left player lose? Neither player could possibly win.

One pocket in particular is also a game where a lot of the time the shots are short and quick moves, like tapping a ball a bunch of times before someone leaks an opportunity. The players in this scenerio simply stand at the table while the opponent is shooting. They don't go back to their chair. Sending the players back to their chairs to press the button each shot would probably ruin the flow of a lot of games.

-Grady rules are different every event, and hard to remember. How many balls up table before spotting? How many get spotted? (those are rhetorical questions). Also with Grady rules they can surely speed up a match, but the players could simply knock all the balls up table again and repeat the whole process over and over. There is not a definitive expected end time to the match, in order for the TD to schedule rounds in advance.

-What I'm proposing (and what Pat is doing on his International Open Amateur Event), is the best scenerio for a TD, IMO. Its simple. No special equipment. Can be used at any tournament, whether local weekly or national level. Does not alter game-play until it is used. Has a very quick ending once it is used. Gives the advantage to the player leading the match. Still requires offense once it's started, which takes away most (but not all) of time clock manipulation beforehand. Ensures definitive time predictions of matches.

No player should be left with one or two seconds to shoot. You might as well just DQ them. Maybe structure it so that once you are ”out of time” then you shift to a time limit that is really short, like ten seconds to shoot or it’s a foul.

 

[poolandpokerman]

So how long should a one pocket game last, I consider myself as a fast shooter, I mean I look for a shot I like and then I shoot it. That does
not take long, however, I don't take shots that if I miss I lose the game, I miss a lot of straight in shots (even BIH) so I play the cue ball so I don't sell out if I miss. That being said my games sometime take an hour to complete, does that make me a slow player. Should I go for shots that l don't feel good about to speed up the game. I play the same way for $5 a game or $50 a game I just want to win every game.

 

[336Robin]

So how long should a one pocket game last, I consider myself as a fast shooter, I mean I look for a shot I like and then I shoot it. That does
not take long, however, I don't take shots that if I miss I lose the game, I miss a lot of straight in shots (even BIH) so I play the cue ball so I don't sell out if I miss. That being said my games sometime take an hour to complete, does that make me a slow player. Should I go for shots that l don't feel good about to speed up the game. I play the same way for $5 a game or $50 a game I just want to win every game.

Check your vision center for those straight ins and then use it all of the time. Helped me.

I play a longer game for $ sometimes and they can go 35 to 40 minutes if people are shooting their hole.

 

[maha]

if you have to take too long dont play in tournaments. play a cash game if the guy will let you take a long drawn out game.

 

[jasonlaus]

It’s actually very interesting to watch the effect slow play in one pocket, has on people.
Players who would otherwise be on the losing end of it, manage to disrupt their opponent into taking more risks simply because they are annoyed, and making mistakes as a result.

I think this is especially true in tournaments where there is delayed gratification.
Gambling, not so much.
I’ll take just as much time as you if you like.
If I have you stuck, you can slow play forever, I won’t care.

Yeah bro, I don't have a job and don't have to pay for a hotel - see ya tomorrow....maybe

 

[maha]

most dont realize how little you make from a slow player unless you bet real high.

say you are a 2 to 1 favorite to win every game of one pocket . you would have to bet a 100 a game to win 25 dollars an hour for an hour a game after paying just your time. 33 dollars gross winnings.
and few are playing for that much.

you can make that washing windows.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Let's say there's a time limit for a match. Once that limit is met, the player who broke that rack gets BIH in the kitchen. If they don't run out, then the other player gets BIH in the kitchen. Rinse and repeat until someone wins.

You can still play defensive if you don't have a shot to your pocket. You'd also need to weigh the risks of taking on certain shots since your opponent gets BIH if you miss.

 

[maha]

so if you broke you stall so you get first ball in hand. how is that even remotely sensible.

you cant have a time limit on a match unless each player has the exact same time limit. and still that wont work as it can be used to alter the result by playing faster or slower.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Let's say there's a time limit for a match. Once that limit is met, the player who broke that rack gets BIH in the kitchen. If they don't run out, then the other player gets BIH in the kitchen. Rinse and repeat until someone wins. ....

There are players who refuse to even do the Grady rule (spot kitchen balls) after a couple of hours. No way they are going to play shoot-out. Especially after they have been tying their opponent in knots for an hour an a half on the first rack.

Also, that's not fair because it likely punishes someone other than the snail.

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

-Normal shot clock is no good because unless pool becomes a huge dollar sport its not feasible to have a ref with a shot clock on each table.

-Chess clocks sound like a better idea. However, for as many years as we've all talked about them, I've yet to see a tournament use them. I actually tried it once in a gambling one pocket match with a buddy about 20 years ago. He kept forgetting to hit his button and about threw the clock at me, ha ha.

Also with a chess clock, there could be a situation where it just happens to be a long game, but neither player is a slow poke. Score is tied 5-5 and the balls are out of play. Player one has 1 second left, player two has 2 seconds left. Why should the 1 second left player lose? Neither player could possibly win.

One pocket in particular is also a game where a lot of the time the shots are short and quick moves, like tapping a ball a bunch of times before someone leaks an opportunity. The players in this scenerio simply stand at the table while the opponent is shooting. They don't go back to their chair. Sending the players back to their chairs to press the button each shot would probably ruin the flow of a lot of games.

-Grady rules are different every event, and hard to remember. How many balls up table before spotting? How many get spotted? (those are rhetorical questions). Also with Grady rules they can surely speed up a match, but the players could simply knock all the balls up table again and repeat the whole process over and over. There is not a definitive expected end time to the match, in order for the TD to schedule rounds in advance.

-What I'm proposing (and what Pat is doing on his International Open Amateur Event), is the best scenerio for a TD, IMO. Its simple. No special equipment. Can be used at any tournament, whether local weekly or national level. Does not alter game-play until it is used. Has a very quick ending once it is used. Gives the advantage to the player leading the match. Still requires offense once it's started, which takes away most (but not all) of time clock manipulation beforehand. Ensures definitive time predictions of matches.

excellent reply but not sure I love this last part/paragraph. Need to chew on it some...

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

A chess clock could even have the player with 7 balls lose vs the player with 0 balls. The 0 ball player could have a bit more time on the clock, and just tap tap tap tap tap the ball in a split second each inning to manipulate the time clock and win with a score of 0.

yeah this was my thought. Horrible outcome if that were to happen. And proof its a bad system.

 

[maha]

after reading all of the replies here i can see many have no idea of what would be fair and cannot even realize that their or other suggestions to fix the issue will favor one player over another to actually play more slowly.

 

[straightline]

I address the stalling issue with hour sets and by making cumulative points count toward final placement.

 

[336Robin]

There are players who refuse to even do the Grady rule (spot kitchen balls) after a couple of hours. No way they are going to play shoot-out. Especially after they have been tying their opponent in knots for an hour an a half on the first rack.

Also, that's not fair because it likely punishes someone other than the snail.

This is why I'm in favor of time limit on the match. At the end of the time, you count the balls made in the last rack to
determine the winner of that rack. One Pocket races are usually shot like race to 3. So, if one player gets a head and then starts slow playing
the underdog of the match doesn't have to play slow also. He speeds up or does something aggressive forcing the other guy to take
a swing at something. If the underdog is already losing, its his responsibility to turn things around. No chess clock needed for that. Just a start
time and an end time.