Improved shotclock method

[nathandumoulin]

Currently a shot clock gives a player a specified amount of time (usually 30-45 seconds), plus one extension (usually 45 seconds). Failure to play the shot within the allotted time results in a foul.

There are three problems with this:

1) As time counts down, there is a beeping noise to alert the player that time is about to expire. This can be a massive distraction, and often sharks the player.

2) If a player need only 5 extra seconds, they must utilize their entire extension. This forces them to waste the remaining time.

3) Some shots are elementary, while other shots require more thought. This is especially the case when playing safe. Having a specified amount of time per shot does not account for this.


So here's what I propose:


A time bank is used in conjunction with the shot clock.

Each player is given a time bank, which is set per game and clearly displayed. An example would be 2 minutes. Players are also put on a shorter shot clock, say 20 seconds.

When the shot clock runs out, time begins to be withdrawn from the time bank. When the shot is executed, the time bank pauses. It will not begin to subtract time again until the next time the shot clock is depleted.

The benefits of this method are as follows:

1) No distracting beep is made when the shot clock is about to expire. Only a beep will sound when the time bank is nearly depleted.

2) Players can use more time on shots that require more time. No more rushing in key situations.

3) The entire set time can be easily estimated to help properly schedule matches. In fact, the per-game time bank could be set to a lower amount (say 1 minute) if the match is past the allotted set time.

4) When a players time bank expires, the method works the same as a standard shot clock, meaning that a foul is rewarded to the opponent when the shot clock runs out each inning.


We can name it the Nate-Clock.

Thoughts? :thumbup:

 

[brandoncook26]

I just posted on another thread about the shot clock saying I thought 40 seconds was enough, but most shots didn't need that much and some require much more. This is the best solution I've heard to keep the match moving forward.

I was thinking maybe you could give the player 30 seconds per shot with something like 40-45 seconds in the "shot bank", but also bank any time the player didn't use for previous shots.

Example: I start with 45 seconds in the "bank" when I break. I shoot the one in ten seconds (+20), the two in 15 seconds (+15) and have a hard shot on the three. Now I have 80 seconds in the bank to use (45+20+15) for the shot.

Maybe this is too complicated to keep track of, but it seems fair and rewards players for keeping a good pace on routine shots. JMO.

 

[kernelPanic]

Sounds like it would work, to me. You can get relatively cheap chess clocks that will do the time bank work for you. Of course in that game, it is usually played straight time bank, and hitting 0:00 is a forfeit.

one sort of cheap chess clock

You can get some real nice, brass and oak ones too, if you're into that sort of thing.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Sounds like it would work, to me. You can get relatively cheap chess clocks that will do the time bank work for you. Of course in that game, it is usually played straight time bank, and hitting 0:00 is a forfeit.

one sort of cheap chess clock

You can get some real nice, brass and oak ones too, if you're into that sort of thing.

We've discussed using chess clocks over in the 14.1 forum. It seems to work pretty well. It has the very large advantage of not requiring a timekeeper.

The timing system used in the BWA (3-cushion) tournaments gave the player a few minutes to begin and an additional 40 seconds (or so) for each completed shot. It required a timekeeper.

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

The problem I see with this 20 second + time bank suggestion would occur during a safety battle game. The time bank would be gone thru no fault of slow play. 20 seconds is not enough time in this situation IMO. If you made it a 30 second timeclock in this scenario, that may be the ticket. Cool idea Nathan. :thumbup:

 

[nathandumoulin]

The problem I see with this 20 second + time bank suggestion would occur during a safety battle game. The time bank would be gone thru no fault of slow play. 20 seconds is not enough time in this situation IMO. If you made it a 30 second timeclock in this scenario, that may be the ticket. Cool idea Nathan. :thumbup:

Thanks KK9L.

The numbers I used were just examples. They could be anything really, and could be manually altered on the device to account for the type of game being played and the intended set length.

 

[center pocket]

I think its a great idea and kudos to you. Hopefully someone will read this.

 

[cuesmith]

Currently a shot clock gives a player a specified amount of time (usually 30-45 seconds), plus one extension (usually 45 seconds). Failure to play the shot within the allotted time results in a foul.

There are three problems with this:

1) As time counts down, there is a beeping noise to alert the player that time is about to expire. This can be a massive distraction, and often sharks the player.

2) If a player need only 5 extra seconds, they must utilize their entire extension. This forces them to waste the remaining time.

3) Some shots are elementary, while other shots require more thought. This is especially the case when playing safe. Having a specified amount of time per shot does not account for this.


So here's what I propose:


A time bank is used in conjunction with the shot clock.

Each player is given a time bank, which is set per game and clearly displayed. An example would be 2 minutes. Players are also put on a shorter shot clock, say 20 seconds.

When the shot clock runs out, time begins to be withdrawn from the time bank. When the shot is executed, the time bank pauses. It will not begin to subtract time again until the next time the shot clock is depleted.

The benefits of this method are as follows:

1) No distracting beep is made when the shot clock is about to expire. Only a beep will sound when the time bank is nearly depleted.

2) Players can use more time on shots that require more time. No more rushing in key situations.

3) The entire set time can be easily estimated to help properly schedule matches. In fact, the per-game time bank could be set to a lower amount (say 1 minute) if the match is past the allotted set time.

4) When a players time bank expires, the method works the same as a standard shot clock, meaning that a foul is rewarded to the opponent when the shot clock runs out each inning.


We can name it the Nate-Clock.

Thoughts? :thumbup:

I really like your idea! Something needs to be done about slow play, but as you stated not all shots are not created equally! Some require more time than others to formulate the best plan. I always hated that buzzer and have seen many players sharked by it. Maybe 30 sec & 3 minute time bank for a race to 11 would be a little better IMHO, but the concept is one of the best ideas for a rule change I've ever heard of! There are some players that IMHO should be barred from tournament play because of the "slow play". I haven't seen Babyface play in years, but the last time I saw him play I wanted to throttle him for the way he played. It was to the point of being ridiculous!

 

[softshot]

I think the time between the break and the first shot should be a larger interval than the time between the rest of the shots..

give them more time to figure out what they want to do.. then shorten it up for the execution phase

my $.02

 

[cuesmith]

I think the time between the break and the first shot should be a larger interval than the time between the rest of the shots..

give them more time to figure out what they want to do.. then shorten it up for the execution phase

my $.02

I agree. I think the shot clock should not even be in play on that first shot after the break. That's one time when a player really needs to evaluate the layout and decide how to proceed. After that he's already had an opportunity to examine the layout and should not need much time to develop his game plan.

 

[nathandumoulin]

I think the time between the break and the first shot should be a larger interval than the time between the rest of the shots..

give them more time to figure out what they want to do.. then shorten it up for the execution phase

my $.02

I agree. I think the shot clock should not even be in play on that first shot after the break. That's one time when a player really needs to evaluate the layout and decide how to proceed. After that he's already had an opportunity to examine the layout and should not need much time to develop his game plan.

Thanks for the feedback.

But what if a player takes 5 minutes to analyze the table? There are no rules preventing this. This could effectively put the entire round behind schedule, and bore the audience to death.

My time bank method already accounts for giving extra time after the break anyway. That's why I suggested 2-3 minutes as the total for the time bank. It gives plenty of time for a player to analyze the table while simultaneously offering a reasonable limitation.

 

[cuesmith]

Thanks for the feedback.

But what if a player takes 5 minutes to analyze the table? There are no rules preventing this. This could effectively put the entire round behind schedule, and bore the audience to death.

My time bank method already accounts for giving extra time after the break anyway. That's why I suggested 2-3 minutes as the total for the time bank. It gives plenty of time for a player to analyze the table while simultaneously offering a reasonable limitation.

I don't really see that as being a big issue. If someone was taking a ridiculously long time, then the tournament director should be called and put him on the clock, or if it was deemed as a sharking move even call a foul on unsportsmanlike conduct grounds.

To me the problem is once the game gets going. Slow play breaks the opponents rhythm. Some players do this intentionally because they know their opponent is susceptible to being sharked by slow play. My buddy Gary Spaeth was such a player. He was a rhythm player and his matches always lasted less time than the other matches going on in the same round. But when he played a player like Babyface, for some reason, when his opponent finally finished at the table, Gary would almost run to the table and seemingly try to make up for the wasted time of his opponent! That was the only way Babyface had a chance to beat Gary and he used it to his FULL advantage. In a tourney in Raleigh once Gary was playing at the top of his game beating Earl and a few other noteworthy players on the way to the finals. He had to play Babyface in the finals, which took a full 2 hours for a race to 11 because of Baby's stalling tactics. Babyface edged him out doing this and I've never had any respect for the guy since, because I know he was doing it intentionally as a shark. If he'd have been on a shot clock, Gary would have run through him like shit through a goose!

 

[brandoncook26]

Thanks for the feedback.

But what if a player takes 5 minutes to analyze the table? There are no rules preventing this. This could effectively put the entire round behind schedule, and bore the audience to death.

My time bank method already accounts for giving extra time after the break anyway. That's why I suggested 2-3 minutes as the total for the time bank. It gives plenty of time for a player to analyze the table while simultaneously offering a reasonable limitation.

You could give a separate amount of time for the shot after the break. Maybe one minute and then as soon as you shoot the first shot the clock and bank time begin. If you run over your minute after the break you start using bank time so it doesn't take any longer.

 

[Luxury]

Filling seats needs to be the priority. The same rules apply for everyone so the slow thinkers will lose more. Oh well. We have to speed up the game to sell more tickets. I can't believe a business man like Kevin T. Didn't know that with the ipt. The spectators looked miserable every tv moment that I saw.

 

[nathandumoulin]

We have to speed up the game to sell more tickets.

This is primary and most obvious reason why shot clocks are imposed, however most people overlook the secondary reason.

Scheduling a round of pro tournament matches is difficult, as not all players play at the same speed. Even if most players play a race to 9 in 10-ball within 2 hours, the whole round needs to be adjusted to account for the slower players who take 3 hours. It holds everyone up. You can't have sets taking longer than the allotted time, so in this case the tournament director would be forced to make the set 3 hours.

Applying a shot clock could be used in either of the following ways:

1) Speed up the slower players and reduce the allotted set length to 2 hours to make the tournament run faster.

2) Speed up the slower players and continue to use the 3 hour set time, in turn allowing the players to play longer races (which as we all know, is something the top pros prefer).

(the set times/lengths I've used are just examples)

 

[Cameron Smith]

Another potential amendment. When the player is down on the shot and is about the play it, there is no penalty if they run over time, only if they get up before playing the shot.

 

[Marie's husband]

nathandumoulin,

Since you asked for thoughts I just couldn't resist.

Sounds like a pretty good idea and I like the idea of a time bank system.

Just an Idea on how this could be implemented.

I would imagine that Pro tournaments usually have 20 plus tables and this would mean a Ref/shot clock official for each table, which really doesn't seem like a cost most tournaments would be able to afford. Now how do you alleviate this cost, you have a player that is not currently in a match be the ref.
Now that can be organized pretty easily because like you said, you will be able to actually have set times that each match begins and you would be able to use the tournament brackets to actually establish which player will be the shot clock official for each match. An example would be. if you have a winners side match going on and the winner of that match would not be scheduled to play until the following day or later on that night, then in that bracket it would say (winner referee's 2pm match on table 1). Now if the looser has to wait two matches to play again, then it would say, (looser referee's 2pm match on table2) and so on.

Now, how would I have the clocks set up. I would have each player having there own clock and it would be located on a stand directly in front of there chair where they are supposed to be seated when there inning is complete and they would have loud buzzers that would go off when they reach zero.

The clocks would be set for each individual game with a specific time bank predetermined by the TD.

Each player is responsible for starting and stopping there own clock. The clock does not start for either player until after the break. Once break is complete and all balls stop rolling, then whichever players turn it is at the table will start there clock.

If a player fails to start his clock at the beginning of his inning then he receives one warning by the stop clock official and then it is a foul from there on after for the rest of the match.

If a player fails to stop his clock when his inning is over, that is his own fault and will have to deal with his time remaining.

once the allotted time for the game has been exceeded, then that player goes into extra time which is determined by the TD. If that player exceeds his allotted time, then it is a loss of that game for that player.

As per what times a player should have per game, or what the allotted times should be, that's a hard one to figure out but I would think there are enough video/you tube/ streaming to be able to figure that out pretty easily.

Thank you for reading and its just an idea.

 

[JB Cases]

What's wrong with just using a standard chess clock? A match has two hours finish and the player who runs out of time loses.

That forces each player to adopt a pace that is comfortable for them yet still enough for them to remain focused. They can take longer on the tricky shots and not waste time on the simple ones.

If for example the match came down to the two hour limit and the score was tied then each player could have some overtime.

Chess clocks are also self regulating because the player who finishes his turn is responsible for stopping their clock.

The clock starts as soon as the opponent stops his. This way it's not a shot clock, the clock runs as long as the player is at the table and when their turn is done they punch it.

If this has already been suggested, sorry, jsut wanted to sneak an ad in

 

[nathandumoulin]

Just an Idea on how this could be implemented.

Oddly enough, is almost identical to my own. I have a few improvements, but the general idea is essentially the same. Thanks for the excellent input!

What's wrong with just using a standard chess clock? A match has two hours finish and the player who runs out of time loses.

Imagine watching two players race neck and neck for 2 hours on TV, playing right to a crucial hill-hill battle ...only to have the set suddenly end prematurely because only one player used up too much clock time in earlier games.

Nothing is more exciting than seeing how a player deals with the pressure of the final few balls. As a fan I'd feel completely robbed of this intense moment if the match were cut short based on a technicality.

 

[JB Cases]

Imagine watching two players race neck and neck for 2 hours on TV, playing right to a crucial hill-hill battle ...only to have the set suddenly end prematurely because only one player used up too much clock time in earlier games.

Nothing is more exciting than seeing how a player deals with the pressure of the final few balls. As a fan I'd feel completely robbed of this intense moment if the match were cut short based on a technicality.

That's a good point. On the other hand if you're watching it on TV and the match clock were ticking down then it could also be intense. Imagine the excitement of going into the final three games and player A has 15 minutes on his clock and player B only 5. Can player B get his shots in and win three games in five minutes? Will player A stall with safeties to run the clock out?

I could definitely see some strategy and battles happening there with such a clock.

I wouldn't call it a technicality loss if it was part of the game environment.

One thing is for sure - something has to be done. The debacle at the Predator 10 Ball with taking games away and changing the rules mid set with regards to the shot clock was completely and totally ludicrous IMO.

Regardless of where professional pool is financially stuff like this should already be worked out when you consider the amount of brainpower in pool.

Didn't they just have a professional tennis match where it went something like 54 match points in a tiebreaker?

That made world headline news.

If it was pool they would have just said at the one hour mark, ok next point wins, that's it.