30 Secound Shot Clock.. Fair?
- Thread starter cut shot
- Start date
Great question! Some players are so slow that they literally turn spectators off but that is their style of play and to hurry them may put them at a distinct disadvantage. Maybe 30 seconds is too short a time. Maybe 60 seconds max would be better?
cut shot said:Is the thirty secound shot clock fair when there is a title on the line?
No. The shot clock is a terrible idea. Players should only be put on the clock when they are so slow it is ridiculous, and then they should be given more time in unusual situations, maybe up to a certain max time. But then you need officials with sense and experience.
This is really three questions in one. 1) Is a shot clock fair for a televised match?, 2) Is a shot clock necessary in untelevised matches?, and 3) What principles are important with respect to use of the shot clock that apply whether or not a match is televised?
Televised Match
As ESPN will not televise a match that has no shot clock, this seems to be a no-brainer, but let's dig a little deeper. Switch the shot clock to sixty seconds and the TV viewer would miss even more of the action than they do now. In addition, for those who attend the TV rounds of an event, reducing the varaibility in the length of a match is highly desirable. The thirty second shot clock, whch doesn't produce a fast-paced game by any stretch of the imagination, makes perfect sense.
Untelevised Match
Now it's only about scheduling. I love the way the WPBA does it. Go to a WPBA event and you'll see that it stays on schedule. Why? Because of the shot clock. In WPBA races to nine (the race length in the non-TV rounds), in any match where eight racks are not completed in half the match's allotted time, both players go on the shot clock. Hence, if a match is scheduled to last two hours, if it's 4 - 3 after an hour, the match goes on the shot clock. This helps to maintain the match schedule, which is important for the fans. In a UPA event, no such luck. At the Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge in August in NYC, no shot clock was in use in some snail-paced matches on the final day. More specifically, largely due to Jeremy Jones' brilliant, but lethargically paced, run on the final day, the event lasted until well after two in the morning on Sunday, and the final match was witnessed by very few of those that paid good money for the privilege of watching the tournament's final session.
Important Principles With Regard to the Shot Clock
Even ignoring ESPN's insistence on a shot clock, the real issue raised by the shot clock is all about whether the priorities of the players or the fans are the ones most to be served. While it may serve the interests of, at least some of, the players to play without a shot clock, abandonment of the shot clock is very fan unfriendly.
The shot clock is very fan friendly, and therefore, has it's place. Long live the shot clock!
Televised Match
As ESPN will not televise a match that has no shot clock, this seems to be a no-brainer, but let's dig a little deeper. Switch the shot clock to sixty seconds and the TV viewer would miss even more of the action than they do now. In addition, for those who attend the TV rounds of an event, reducing the varaibility in the length of a match is highly desirable. The thirty second shot clock, whch doesn't produce a fast-paced game by any stretch of the imagination, makes perfect sense.
Untelevised Match
Now it's only about scheduling. I love the way the WPBA does it. Go to a WPBA event and you'll see that it stays on schedule. Why? Because of the shot clock. In WPBA races to nine (the race length in the non-TV rounds), in any match where eight racks are not completed in half the match's allotted time, both players go on the shot clock. Hence, if a match is scheduled to last two hours, if it's 4 - 3 after an hour, the match goes on the shot clock. This helps to maintain the match schedule, which is important for the fans. In a UPA event, no such luck. At the Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge in August in NYC, no shot clock was in use in some snail-paced matches on the final day. More specifically, largely due to Jeremy Jones' brilliant, but lethargically paced, run on the final day, the event lasted until well after two in the morning on Sunday, and the final match was witnessed by very few of those that paid good money for the privilege of watching the tournament's final session.
Important Principles With Regard to the Shot Clock
Even ignoring ESPN's insistence on a shot clock, the real issue raised by the shot clock is all about whether the priorities of the players or the fans are the ones most to be served. While it may serve the interests of, at least some of, the players to play without a shot clock, abandonment of the shot clock is very fan unfriendly.
The shot clock is very fan friendly, and therefore, has it's place. Long live the shot clock!
drivermaker
Banned
JPB said:
That doesn't work in golf and it wouldn't work in pool. Once a player keeps pushing the envelope on slow play and abusing it even slightly, but regularly, it's difficult bringing it back and saying something. Especially if he/she has one of the bigger names. The officials don't have enough nerve to call it and the ones affected the most are the other players playing with the slow mover. They just get more and more pissed and it affects their game, not to mention the fans. Personally, slow play drives me insane.
This has been discussed in length through several threads. My opinion is known that a shot clock has no business in pool. Especially at the championship level. Anyone here that thinks it's unlikely to have two shots in one game that require more than 60 seconds to think about, hasn't played much pool.
This is a thinking game. If you can't handle waiting on your opponent taking some time to think on a few shots, then forfeit the match.
By the way, I'm not a slow player.
This is a thinking game. If you can't handle waiting on your opponent taking some time to think on a few shots, then forfeit the match.
By the way, I'm not a slow player.
Tournaments should bring back the push-out after every shot rule for 9-ball. this would eliminate safties and make the game more exciting. If player A pushes and player B passes the shot back to Player A and if Player A misses the shot then Player B gets ball in hand. I agree with SJM and his well explained definition of the shot clock as applied to espn tv. It only makes sense. I also support that Jeremy Jones always be on a 30 sec shot clock at every tournament he plays in.
SJM,
Absolutely correct. You may recall how flabbergasted I was 2 years ago in Peoria when the Corr-Fisher hot seat match (no shot clock) was so slow that I couldn't even watch the whole thing (paint drying would have been much more exciting - I even started a thread here about Karen's 6 minute 3 ball cosmo).
Best shot clock quote = Lou Butera, when asked about the use of a 45 second shot clock for the first time in a major straight pool tournament; replied "it's a good idea, but they should make it a 10 second shot clock."
Absolutely correct. You may recall how flabbergasted I was 2 years ago in Peoria when the Corr-Fisher hot seat match (no shot clock) was so slow that I couldn't even watch the whole thing (paint drying would have been much more exciting - I even started a thread here about Karen's 6 minute 3 ball cosmo).
Best shot clock quote = Lou Butera, when asked about the use of a 45 second shot clock for the first time in a major straight pool tournament; replied "it's a good idea, but they should make it a 10 second shot clock."
Last edited:
drivermaker
Banned
I think a shot clock of 30 seconds is more than fair to both players because they're both playing under the same requirements and limitations. In a US Open, they could possibly make an exception and have 2 extentions per game or extend it to 40 seconds, but that's it.
Without it, the fast player gets penalized tremendously and his game suffers more so than the slow player. And with it, the slow player should be able to see and assess the layout and get his shot off easily. After all, he/she IS a PRO! There is NO excuse for a funerial pace in 9ball. It's ridiculous.
Without it, the fast player gets penalized tremendously and his game suffers more so than the slow player. And with it, the slow player should be able to see and assess the layout and get his shot off easily. After all, he/she IS a PRO! There is NO excuse for a funerial pace in 9ball. It's ridiculous.
cut shot said:
The exact number of seconds is open to discussion in my mind, but the need for a shot clock is unquestionable to me. Especially if pool wants to appeal to the public as a spectator sport. It can be argued that players should learn to adapt to a slow player if they are true champions, but the same arguement is valid in reverse, that is, a slow player should be able to adjust to a shot clock if they're a true champion. Hell, I'm barely beyond the novice stage and when I watch Ralf Souquet play I generally see the right shot immediately that he winds up taking a minute later. No need for that, true it is a thinking game, but it is also a simple game. A pro should see his next shot virtually immediately and I think generally does, but some pros (and others) have to think about it half a day no matter how obvious it is.
BTW, I consider myself a slow player, but 30 seconds is a lot of time.
Maybe one 60 seconds time out per rack for a Title match might be more workable and better? I agree there should be some reasonable timing but, how about the times when a pro needs a little more time in a Title Match? The only reason I brought this up is when Tony Robles asked "Mitch, I need a time out, what is it 60 seconds " and the commentaters where laughing saying " he knows it is only 30 seconds ".
catscradle said:
I think I prefer a system that I heard they use in Europe. It's pretty much just like a chess clock, and you start with a certain amount of time on the clock, which runs while it is your shot. If your clock runs out before you do, you lose. Wipe your hands, go to the restroom, sign autographs, move balls from one pocket to another and then put them back, pick lint off the table, take the square root of the hypotenuse of the second diamond, or nap. It's all up to you how to use your time. And they start with plenty.cut shot said:
Another system they use that is better suited to one pocket is to start with several minutes and then get some number of seconds added on to your clock for each shot you shoot. This requires more elaborate time keeping equipment, though.
I used to play a guy named Elliot. He would get down on the shot and take some warm-up strokes. Then he would look back at his backhand to see how his grip was doing and if his wrist was hanging properly and take a few warm-ups while looking back there. Then he would look up at the object ball and make sure of his aim and take a few more warm-up strokes. And then he would decide that the shot choice was bad, and stand up and rechalk while he thought about table strategy. This would not have been so irritating except that the guy almost never missed. Is there any reason why someone should not be given five minutes per shot?
Bob, I know exactly what you are saying and I do not disagree! The TV guys need action and that is what is really driving this 30 secound stuff and I cannot blame them too much for it. Time is money for them and I know where they are coming from!
Bob Jewett said:
A 30 second shot clock for 9-ball is needed. There are only 9 or less balls on the table and 90% of the layouts are easy to read and play. How rare is it to see Strickland, Morris, Salvas, Mathews or McCready take longer than 30 seconds to scope out a rack and than run it out playing 9-ball? Not very long.
Well, I think 9-ball itself has got to go as the pro game, it is just to simplistic and the pro's are all jammed up with each other due to them all being able to run out 9-ball racks far too consistently.
On the shot clock, the problem with a 30 second shotclock is when the table is NOT straightforward. Yes, most 9-ball games are fairly routine and simple to scope out, but those are not the games that win the match. The important games where the swings take place are the safety battles, the clutch shots that take some time to prepare to shoot. I have seen far too many games with shot clocks where what would have been a awesome safety battle between two top pro's get turned into a joke when the pro is faced with his second safety he needs to escape and 15 seconds into scoping out a difficult posistion a ref is breathing down his neck and telling him he has 10 seconds to shoot. I am sorry, that is not pool. More often then not the player gets that grin on his face, takes a half hearted swing, and sells out.
Be thankful that the match between Strickland and Efren when the "shot that was heard around the world" and according to Strickland the "best shot he had ever seen" was not a shot clock match, we would have lost one of the greatest moments in pool.
*******************************************************
If we need time limits then somehow we must average the shot time for each player. Curling has a shot clock that begins at the start of the game and clicks down, the players get a specified amount of time for ALL the shots, not EACH shot. Perhaps we should have a shotclock that starts at 0 and clicks up on each shot, whatever the time is on the clock when the cueball hits the object ball is recorded and the clock starts again once the balls come to a rest. Throughout the match the average speed is kept, so you dont need to take less then 30 seconds for each shot, you just need to take less then a 30 second "average" for each shot, which allows for some fast play to make for some time to think about those tougher shots and kicks. Allow for 2 time outs in each match, each 60 seconds and they pause the clock allowing you to think.
AKA
1st shot, 18 seconds
2nd shot, 22 seconds
3rd shot, 46 seconds
4th shot, 60 seconds
5th shot, 12 seconds
6th shot, 14 seconds
7th shot, 22 seconds
8th shot, 8 seconds
9th shot, 19 seconds
10th shot, 14 seconds.
So thats what, 237 seconds total? Adding it real fast in my head makes that, and 10 shots, so average time per a shot is 23.7 seconds so this player is playing a accepted pace.
What happens if a player plays to slow and averages over 30 seconds in a match? Automatic loss. That is why we have a clock with the updated average shot speed up so the player can see it and make sure they are playing a proper pace.
This works far better for pool, because there are times when shots require more time then 30 seconds to think through, and if you are playing fast on most shots there is no reason to penalize you on that rare time when you actually have to work out some tougher shot. Average shot time clock stops reasonless slow play, but it does not penalize a person who gets stuck in a tough hook or with a tough choice to make.
On the shot clock, the problem with a 30 second shotclock is when the table is NOT straightforward. Yes, most 9-ball games are fairly routine and simple to scope out, but those are not the games that win the match. The important games where the swings take place are the safety battles, the clutch shots that take some time to prepare to shoot. I have seen far too many games with shot clocks where what would have been a awesome safety battle between two top pro's get turned into a joke when the pro is faced with his second safety he needs to escape and 15 seconds into scoping out a difficult posistion a ref is breathing down his neck and telling him he has 10 seconds to shoot. I am sorry, that is not pool. More often then not the player gets that grin on his face, takes a half hearted swing, and sells out.
Be thankful that the match between Strickland and Efren when the "shot that was heard around the world" and according to Strickland the "best shot he had ever seen" was not a shot clock match, we would have lost one of the greatest moments in pool.
*******************************************************
If we need time limits then somehow we must average the shot time for each player. Curling has a shot clock that begins at the start of the game and clicks down, the players get a specified amount of time for ALL the shots, not EACH shot. Perhaps we should have a shotclock that starts at 0 and clicks up on each shot, whatever the time is on the clock when the cueball hits the object ball is recorded and the clock starts again once the balls come to a rest. Throughout the match the average speed is kept, so you dont need to take less then 30 seconds for each shot, you just need to take less then a 30 second "average" for each shot, which allows for some fast play to make for some time to think about those tougher shots and kicks. Allow for 2 time outs in each match, each 60 seconds and they pause the clock allowing you to think.
AKA
1st shot, 18 seconds
2nd shot, 22 seconds
3rd shot, 46 seconds
4th shot, 60 seconds
5th shot, 12 seconds
6th shot, 14 seconds
7th shot, 22 seconds
8th shot, 8 seconds
9th shot, 19 seconds
10th shot, 14 seconds.
So thats what, 237 seconds total? Adding it real fast in my head makes that, and 10 shots, so average time per a shot is 23.7 seconds so this player is playing a accepted pace.
What happens if a player plays to slow and averages over 30 seconds in a match? Automatic loss. That is why we have a clock with the updated average shot speed up so the player can see it and make sure they are playing a proper pace.
This works far better for pool, because there are times when shots require more time then 30 seconds to think through, and if you are playing fast on most shots there is no reason to penalize you on that rare time when you actually have to work out some tougher shot. Average shot time clock stops reasonless slow play, but it does not penalize a person who gets stuck in a tough hook or with a tough choice to make.
As a pool player the shot clock should only be put on slow players like J. Jones. As a general public viewer, everyone should be on the shot clock. Is'nt it that who the shot clock is for? and for espn tv? Everyone who dosn't like the shot clock is correct from a players and a pool enthusiest point of view. but espn rules and the shot clock stays. Long live bowling!!!
Again?
The 30 second shot clock is just too quick..
45 seconds is a much better time...
like they said before ...if the rack is straightforward/ balls are out in the open/ not much time is needed/
but when balls are jammed up ... just looking at the layout can take a bit of time>>> even for a fast shooting player
The 30 second shot clock is just too quick..
45 seconds is a much better time...
like they said before ...if the rack is straightforward/ balls are out in the open/ not much time is needed/
but when balls are jammed up ... just looking at the layout can take a bit of time>>> even for a fast shooting player
drivermaker
Banned
ajrack said:
Yeah, but there's one thing you can be certain of and it doesn't matter what the time limit is on the shot clock, it could be 3 minutes like a round in boxing, the slow player will take each shot, simple or difficult to the very end of the allowable limit. They'll find some way to eat that time up in analyzation (the first 4 letters of the previous word describing their thought processes) and that's what eventually gets to be a royal pain in the arse. I could name at least two women and two men right off the top of my head that would easily go two minutes on each shot if allowed. I'll bet everyone here can think of a few also.....
