Were there many problems with matches running late? Were shot clocks used? How did they affect play?
Matches mostly finished on time. Shot clocks were used on a few matches when a certain number of balls had not been pocketed after a certain amount of time. The rule was 30 seconds per shot, warning at 10 seconds left, two indefinite extensions per match. I think some players who were not used to the system were affected slightly.Were there many problems with matches running late? Were shot clocks used? How did they affect play?
Were there many problems with matches running late? Were shot clocks used? How did they affect play?
Matches mostly finished on time. Shot clocks were used on a few matches when a certain number of balls had not been pocketed after a certain amount of time. The rule was 30 seconds per shot, warning at 10 seconds left, two indefinite extensions per match. I think some players who were not used to the system were affected slightly.
I was affected greatly. One of my round-robin matches was put on the clock, and it's really not a good system. I was a chess-clock supporter before, but now a rabid one. Thirty seconds isn't even in the ballpark of enough time on certain situations.
Note the term "situations" above. Thirty seconds is more than enough time for almost any shot - but with a semi-closed rack where you have to make calculated decisions on which route to go, thirty seconds (with so much on the line) is really not right.
I plan on making a full trip report as soon as I get some time, in which I was going to make my observations with the shot clock. But this is as good a place as any...
(Btw, the rule they were using at this tournament differs from what the WPBA uses - here, you have to get the shot off in 30 seconds. Merely being down in your stance in 30 seconds is not enough... they will call the foul.)
- Steve
The problem is that you often run into racks where there are several tricky safeties and then when it finally opens a little, you are stuck with a very difficult pattern to get through.Yes, 30 seconds doesn't seem like enough time for some situations. I think they should allow one exception per rack rather than two for the match. And being in the stance should be good enough, provided you shoot that shot without getting up.
I was affected greatly. One of my round-robin matches was put on the clock, and it's really not a good system. I was a chess-clock supporter before, but now a rabid one. Thirty seconds isn't even in the ballpark of enough time on certain situations.
- Steve
3,
Think you misunderstood. I was saying that I'm now even more of a supporter than I was before .
- Steve
As I suggested before, the initial penalty for running out of time with the chess clock doesn't have to be loss of game. It could simply be a 15 point foul with the same rules as 3 consecutive fouls. 10 minutes could be then added to the clock and the game could continue.
I suggest that the penalty for the player running out of time on the chess clock to be being put on a 20-30 second shot clock for the remainder of the game.
Steve
I was affected greatly. One of my round-robin matches was put on the clock, and it's really not a good system. I was a chess-clock supporter before, but now a rabid one. Thirty seconds isn't even in the ballpark of enough time on certain situations.
...
- Steve
Steve, that's also a viable option, the down side of course is that once the 30 second clock is invoked, at that point there still isn't a finite parameter for the game's end. Since those 30 second shots could go on for quite a while and result in overlaps for upcoming matches it pretty much defeats specifically one of the benefits of using the chess clock.
...
I'd like to see the chess clock system implemented in a tournament. Maybe I should get our 14.1 LO to try it, except his is one of the most needy of time control. But what to do if one player runs out of time?
The last thing that should happen if a player runs out of time is taking away points and making the game take longer.
If your clock runs out your opponent should be awarded 15 points for the foul and they would have the option of accepting the table or having the offending player perform the opening break. What do you guys think?
The simplest solution is a loss of match penalty. In pro tournaments, given the right scheduling and no interference from other tables and spectators, I actually believe this will be the best solution.