Match lengths at World 14.1

Shot clock, and "other" type of "clock" in one particular match

unknownpro said:

Were there many problems with matches running late? Were shot clocks used? How did they affect play?

Click to expand...

I was there on the last day (semi-finals and finals). The only match where the shot clock was implemented, was midway through the Archer-Cohen match, and it obviously wasn't Cohen's fault it was implemented (instead, guess who).

The funny thing is, once the shot clock was implemented by the ref (Cosmo Ransome -- an excellent ref, btw), Johnny Archer actually shot BETTER! He started stringing together longer runs with a better rhythm, and other than the peculiar "up... down... up, pick at something on the cloth... down... up, crook the stick sideways to the left and crook it back towards the cue ball... down" motions, Johnny became a lot easier to watch.

The other two matches, Immonen-Ortmann (the other semi) and Immonen-Cohen (final), didn't need the shot clock. However, in the Immonen-Ortmann match, I thought some other "clock" was going to get implemented -- i.e. Ortmann going to "clock" Immonen for some of the under-the-breath muttering he was doing while Ortmann was shooting. (Others that were there will remember the times when Ortmann would scowl over in Immonen's direction, and there was no mistaking what was going on there.) I personally heard some of Mika's muttering, and I'd scowl at him, too.

Anyways, the Immonen-Cohen match was a nice capper to the evening. Never a dull moment, and Cohen seemed unphased with the "Mika mutterings." In fact, quite the opposite -- Cohen seemed to be having fun, making funny remarks and faces (i.e. sticking his tongue out in feigned exhaustion after a tough rack), involving the crowd, etc.

-Sean

Bob Jewett said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Steve Lipsky said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Here is an idea I discussed with friends on RSB

• 30 seconds per shot (timer starts once all balls have stopped moving)
  
• 60 seconds for incoming player to get ready to shoot.
  
• two 60 seconds time extensions for each rack
  
• The player can save the unused extensions for later racks (up to a limit, like 5 extensions total?... kind of like the roll-over minutes idea).
  
• The player have the option of using more than one extension at a time if he/she needs it and has enough saved extension.

What do you think?
(Keep your answer under 60 seconds please )

Steve Lipsky said:

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

Click to expand...

Steve, your statement actually supports the concept of a chess clock. You are NEVER confined to 30 second shots using the chess clock idea so long as the overall match time is figured out generously to begin with, and so long as the player doesn't drag his or her feet during each of their innings.

If a player paints himself into a corner during the entirety of the match by constantly playing like molasses then it's no ones fault but his own that HIS and ONLY HIS (or her) time is running out. The other player is not even effected or penalized by it and not subjected to the time problem.

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.

Another flag drop and it would be a loss. Of course, ideally playing with no time constraints is best, and the chess clock may not be perfect, but it's a no brainer to see it is better than someone with a stopwatch breathing down your back counting to 30 seconds. That system is simply like tapping in a finishing nail with a sledge hammer. Ridiculous.

3,

Think you misunderstood. I was saying that I'm now even more of a supporter than I was before .

- Steve

Steve Lipsky said:

3,

Think you misunderstood. I was saying that I'm now even more of a supporter than I was before .

- Steve

Click to expand...

Ahhh ...... Well, I was never accused of being smart!

3andstop said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

sde said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

3andstop said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree but with with the correct amount of time on the chess clock to start and perhaps making the penalty harsher, say 15- 20 shot clock, a player would NOT want to be put on the clock and play at a speed to avoid it.


Steve

Not sure what the correct amount of time to start with would be.

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?

In the round robin stage my match with a very nice gentleman Michael Frank was put on shot clock which more than anything annoyed me because I know in the night session there was a match going on with two very prominent players that took quite a while and I know they were not put on the clock. I almost felt like we were singled out and hurried along.

I shoot relatively quickly Mr Frank however was a little slow and deliberate but all in all I didnt find it to be an offense punishable by shot clock. I felt our match had some really good back and forth and both of us had opportunities to win. It was my highest scoring match of the tournament. All in all I think it affected him more than me because on quite a few shots the referee/ timekeeper would call out the warning ten seconds and he would it looked like get a little flustered and perhaps pick a shot from the time perspective and not the skill perspective.

I guess its what has to be done though if you are going to make all the sessions run smoothly.

Chris_Lynch said:

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?

Click to expand...

Chris brings up a good point about the penalty being 15 points added to your opponent's score, rather than being taken away from yours.

However, if we have any hope of convincing Dragon to make changes for next year, we need to make things as simple as possible. Wei had good suggestions too but they become too complicated.

Any good solution needs to be simple and effective. Even the chess clock idea suffers from what might happen if time starts running low - players making a safety and then running frantically the few feet over to the clock to save possibly precious seconds. Doing this would look terribly unprofessional (anyone remember the marred US Open pay per view match, where Alex Pagulayan and Ralf Souqet (I think) were so short on time they were literally running around the table?)

Here's what I think should be implemented:

- Chess Clock, set for 30 seconds x number of balls racing to.
- If time runs out, ref comes in and starts giving 20 seconds per shot thereafter, no extensions. Any violation is simply a foul, cueball remains in position.
- No running to the clock allowed (I'm kinda serious with that one; it would really look so bad)

That's simple enough, I think.

- Steve

unknownpro said:

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.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, unknown, I disagree. As soon as I see you're in time trouble, I could slow the game waaaay down. I could start shooting in my break balls early and begin every rack with a 15 minute safe battle. I would hate to see a game decided like this.

- Steve