Shot clock in pool

[Chili Palmer]

I think the standard for the shot clock in Accu-stats events has been "no time foul if down on the shot" for a long time.

LOL, I don't ever remember noticing that, but then I'm not too worried about the clock when I play so I guess I don't pay too much attention to it when watching.

And now I have to go watch more pool videos

 

[hang-the-9]

I've used a chess clock in two different 14.1 leagues. The time for the match gave 30 seconds per ball plus some for racking and such. Even though that was plenty, it made the slow players really nervous. That's either a pro or con depending on your own speed.

Before they had time control at chess, Paul Morphy (the greatest player in the 1850s) asked one opponent for a time limit of half an hour per move. The opponent refused.


Using something like a chess clock, you have your own time on your own clock. It is not community time. If your opponent slow plays, he is hurting himself because his clock is running, not yours.

The tournament I have seen was just a time limit for the match. Also in chess the clock is right there and you don't move from the seat. Where are they going to put a clock on the pool table? It's a bit hard to have a shot clock to keep track of, run around the table for the shot, aim, shoot, and keep a half eye on the clock even if someone else automatically stopped and started it for you. When does the shot start? When the ball stops or when you get to the table for your turn? So the opponent shoots, the balls stop in motion, does the other player then need to run to the table? Or are they standing behind the opponent to jump right into their time? Or does the time only start when the opponent gets to the table?

Don't think a time match would work well for a game that involves a lot of moving and walking on the field/table as well as a "corner" you need to sit in to keep from distracting the shooter.

 

[skogstokig]

I saw this mentioned before (chess clock) - how do you think it would affect a game?

Pro - Matches would now have a predetermined length so scheduling/timing in tournaments would be easier.

Con? I think crafty people will come up with crafty things to exploit that clock - for instance if you're playing a slow walking/moving player just park the ball on the opposite side of the table when playing safe's. Clearly, ball layout would be key there but I could see it either 1) forcing that player to move faster and thus maybe get them out of stroke or 2) simply using up his time.

Can anyone think of any other ways (pros or cons) it would affect the game?

well, once you have a couple racks lead you can play slow as a turtle. they have it in some chinese 8-ball tournaments and certain players use this strategy.

 

[Island Drive]

If anyone wants too know How to beat and ''up down look around'' player, I figured it out. In the late seventies, and then ran into a similar play style with another player and it worked, it beats at their own game.

 

[erhino41]

I like the soft shot clock rules. No foul if the player is in the final execution but if they get up its a foul. I also like the automatic extension instead of the foul.

For the matchroom events, the hard shot clock with the beeps is meant to add a bit of excitement to a game that is less than exciting to most of the general public. The psychological aspect resonates with most people subconsciously.

The only issue I have is that it's pretty much a loss of game to have a shot clock foul. In any other sport the penalty is mostly minimal, although sometimes they can be huge swings. Football teams very often take delay of game penalties for strategic purposes.

As to fast players, I've watched quite a few of Tony Drago's matches and some of the routine misses he makes has to be attributed to his pace of play. It's a beautiful frenzy when he's on, but not so much when he's off. That's not to slight him, he's pretty damn good. That being said there is no reason for agonizingly slow play either, 30 or 40 seconds is enough time for any shot in rotation. I think 20 is just too short for some shots.

I've watched some matches with shorter shot clocks, 20 or 15 seconds I don't remember which. The play was less than stellar, although it was a small sample size, not entertaining at all in my eyes.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Con? I think crafty people will come up with crafty things to exploit that clock - for instance if you're playing a slow walking/moving player just park the ball on the opposite side of the table when playing safe's. Clearly, ball layout would be key there but I could see it either 1) forcing that player to move faster and thus maybe get them out of stroke or 2) simply using up his time. ...

I suppose that's possible in a very, very small number of cases but I don't think it is worth worrying about. If you use a reasonable increment per inning, like 20 seconds, walking to the shot is not a factor unless the player is in a wheelchair. Perhaps a devious opponent could try it once in a rack but that's about it. It's not possible to force your opponent to use up all his time -- he has to do that on his own.

In chess the strategy seems to be to prepare a complicated, new line of play. Learn all the ins and outs of the positions it leads to. Then spring the variation on your opponent. He has to think things through while you know most of the responses.

 

[Bob Jewett]

well, once you have a couple racks lead you can play slow as a turtle. they have it in some chinese 8-ball tournaments and certain players use this strategy.

That has nothing to do with the chess clock method. You play on your time and the opponent plays on his time. The times are separate, not shared.

In Mexico there were some carom matches for TV with a fixed total time, so your strategy was possible even though there was also an individual shot clock. One tactic was to shoot straight at the nearest ball with extreme side and a stun shot. That left the cue ball spinning in place after striking the ball. A good stroke could leave the cue ball spinning for 30 seconds.

 

[Chili Palmer]

I suppose that's possible in a very, very small number of cases but I don't think it is worth worrying about. If you use a reasonable increment per inning, like 20 seconds, walking to the shot is not a factor unless the player is in a wheelchair. Perhaps a devious opponent could try it once in a rack but that's about it. It's not possible to force your opponent to use up all his time -- he has to do that on his own.

In chess the strategy seems to be to prepare a complicated, new line of play. Learn all the ins and outs of the positions it leads to. Then spring the variation on your opponent. He has to think things through while you know most of the responses.

That makes sense given that time is added per shot/ball/move.

RE: chess - I can see that. I've played a little chess but never with a clock, only checkers with a clock and that's totally different because I like speed checkers.