Proposed rules for tournament slow play in One Pocket and Banks

[Tennesseejoe]

As an example, consider the one pocket match at Derby City between Darren Appleton and Tom Spencer. Darren was ahead 2-0 going to 3. He had a lead in the third game. He let the people running the TV ring game he was about to play in know that he would be over shortly. Six hours later -- seven and a half total hours -- Tom Spencer wins the match.

Of course Derby City is an easy target for scheduling issues but the Appleton-Spencer match could have been in any tournament.

Was anyone happy about the outcome except Tom Spencer? I don't think so. Put a time limit on it. The tournament director can deal with it by a coin flip, shoot out, disqualification, etc. if necessary. Set the rules in the players' meeting so everyone knows.

Even a fast player can delay the game by setting up the wedge. For a tournament, the TD has the discretion to make tournament decisions as he/she sees fit. Players will adjust. Some players will be barred.

 

[King T]

Justin Bergman won the Colorado Shootout, lost in the semi-final of the Open.

You are very correct about his pace of play, it was just fine throughout the tournament from what I could see.

Had to travel for work, didn't get to see the remainder of the tournaments. Who won the Open?

 

[Fore Rail]

Had to travel for work, didn't get to see the remainder of the tournaments. Who won the Open?

Jordan Shepherd

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Crazy talk. Do you want a Varner wedge every game? One match could easily take 7 hours. And that IS a very valid way to play one pocket. Keep that for the gambling and out of tournaments.

Wedge is a part of the game for old heads.
Don’t see the issue. Most of today’s young players don’t bother with a wedge anyway and play around the stack downtable hoping for a mistake so they can run out. It’s rare to see a match really go full wedge. No one has the patience for that.

I remember I played Jimmy Reid when the Derby was still at the Executive West Hotel.
It was the very last batch of first round matches back when they were using the lottery machine with the ping pong balls for the draw and redraw every round.
First game took something like 2.5 hours and the entire match was close to 5 hours.
It held up the entire tournament cause they couldn’t do the draw and start the next round till we were done. Everyone was over at the table watching and waiting for that match to be over.
Why sell out for the sake of speed, when ducking can win you the match?

 

[SUPERSTAR]

There is a time limit per match set by TD.
If the match is still in progress when time limit expires, shooting stops, and the player with the most games wins--when games are equal the player with the most balls wins--when games and balls are equal, a tie is declared and money/points split equally.

The only problem with this is the stall. When someone gets up a couple of games, stall and go extra slow so time runs out.
Just like those guys do when gambling. Someone says, I can play for a few hours and have to leave at 5pm. Their opponent gets up a few games and then turns into a slug so the player has absolutely zero chance to get even during their remaining time.
There will always be someone exploiting it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Put a time limit on it. The tournament director can deal with it by a coin flip, shoot out, disqualification, etc. if necessary. ...

You haven't really addressed fairness. To some people that's important.

 

[iusedtoberich]

With my proposed solution, it gets rid of the stall to manipulate the time clock. Each player must still "be offensive" after the time clock. The only way a stall "might" be useful is if the player behind is a straighter shooter and has a poor position. They may have the best chance of winning the game in a shootout (vs continuing the normal way) since each shot will be pure offense. The stronger vs weaker position is applicable to both one pocket and bank pool.

The priority in tournament play is NOT the integrity of the game, whatever game is played. It's the integrity of the tournament as a whole. Knowing how long a tournament will take trumps everything else, IMO. With fixed match lengths, the TD can schedule each round beforehand. That is great for the players, and the fans. They all know when they need to come and go.

Having matches vary greatly in length from 25 min for a 3-0 win with 3 8 and outs to 7 hours for 6 wedge games is simply not manageable, EVEN if there was unlimited days available to play.

I'm not saying to make it speed pool. If it's a race to 3 in one hole, maybe the limit would be 2.5 hrs, and a race to 3 in short rack banks could be 2 hrs. Something in that range I think this format would only come into play about 25% of the time.

I personally think this type of rule is better than the "Grady Rules".

 

[iusedtoberich]

While we are at it, the same concept could be used for regular rotation 9 ball. I actually just saw it on Pat's International Open Amateur event. He will have the players lag for each game remaining in the race after 2 hrs. Pat, as we all know, is very smart in all aspects of pool.

Quote from Pat's site:
If the race to 7 is not done in 2 hours (no need to be ashamed ), the players will continue the match by lagging for each rack win until a player reaches 7.

 

[King T]

Jordan Shepherd

Thanks!

 

[Biloxi Boy]

An important aspect of One Pocket's beauty is defense, and defense can be slow. This is a part of the game and should not be affected by arbitrary time limits. Time limits can impose additional pressure which is completely unwanted and unneeded under the circumstances.
OTOH
It is absolutely necessary that TDs have tools available to control the rate of play. (Very little worse than a tournament that does not flow.) There are some players who are "just slow". I personally believe slow play is discourteous. In some instances slow play is a deliberate sharking move. We all know who these folks are. I hate playing them. I avoid playing them. Tournaments force my hand.*

If it was my call, I would find a way to penalize habitually slow players, up to and including not allowing them to play. If they want to play, they can get with the program.

If there absolutely, has got to be, a time limit, I would apply it on a sliding scale basis -- the deeper into the bracket, the longer the limit. At some point (final game?) the limit would come off completely.

*In all fairness, there is the rare person who is naturally slow -- it shows up in everything they do and not just here and there. (I am not talking about "mentally slow".) These folks are just born this way. Other than praying for the patience I require to deal with such folks, I don't know what to do with them.

 

[desert1pocket]

*In all fairness, there is the rare person who is naturally slow -- it shows up in everything they do and not just here and there. (I am not talking about "mentally slow".) These folks are just born this way. Other than praying for the patience I require to deal with such folks, I don't know what to do with them.

As mentioned earlier, chess clocks. Most people probably aren't very familiar with how they work, but there are a whole bunch of time controls using chess clocks that are both fair and make sure that these players are forced to either play at a more normal pace or lose the match.

A basic time control is where each player only has a set amount of time per game. After each inning the shooter hits the post/button on the clock, which stops their clock and starts the opponents clock.

One pocket could probably benefit from a more complex time control though, to allow for longer defensive wedge games while still keeping things moving at a decent pace. One more complex option is the additive option, where not only does each player get a set amount of time, but then a small amount of time is added to the clock for each inning they play. For example 30+30 world mean each player gets 30 minutes plus another 30 seconds for each inning they complete. Or there's a similar option with a delay, where the clock has a set delay before it starts at the start of each inning (30|10d would be 30 min per player plus a 10 sec delay at the start of each inning). There's also the complex time controls for the world championship, where there's a relatively large time allotted for the first 40 moves, then less time for the subsequent 20 moves, then "sudden death" after that with 30 seconds per move .

For one pocket matches any of the more complex chess time controls would be fair, wouldn't drastically change the game or strategy, would force the slow players to pick up the pace, and would keep match lengths to a reasonable length of time.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

In some instances slow play is a deliberate sharking move. We all know who these folks are. I hate playing them. I avoid playing them.

It’s actually very interesting to watch the effect slow play in one pocket, has on people.
Players who would otherwise be on the losing end of it, manage to disrupt their opponent into taking more risks simply because they are annoyed, and making mistakes as a result.

I think this is especially true in tournaments where there is delayed gratification.
Gambling, not so much.
I’ll take just as much time as you if you like.
If I have you stuck, you can slow play forever, I won’t care.

 

[RakRunr]

*In all fairness, there is the rare person who is naturally slow -- it shows up in everything they do and not just here and there. (I am not talking about "mentally slow".) These folks are just born this way. Other than praying for the patience I require to deal with such folks, I don't know what to do with them.

If I'm being totally honest, this is me. I've been called a slow player, but I think of it as being deliberate. I'm a thoughtful, tactical, and analytical person by nature, and it reflects in my approach to the game and other aspects of my life such as work and hobbies. What I am NOT is "deliberately slow". I don't try to intentionally make the game take longer than it should to gain an advantage over the field, and I don't condone others who do so.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

You haven't really addressed fairness. To some people that's important.

My first post #5 started with 'this may not be popular'. The time problem could be discussed in the players meeting with the TD suggesting/agreeing on a method to resolve the match time limit. If agreed on before the tournament started, it would be relatively fair to all. Not much is absolutely fair but this would be fair for the majority

 

[maha]

We have had to bar a few players who slow down an entire tournament. Everything ran fine after that.

that is the answer. read it again.

 

[maha]

you cant make a total time for a match or someone can take advantage of it.

if you make someone 2 balls ahead 7 to 5 have to make one and the other guy have to make three hard shots to his one it isnt fair to the person behind.
in the game he may be a two or three to one dog. or sometimes even a favorite. doing the three in a row shots makes him a 7 to one dog. how is that fair. so the person winning 7 to 5 stalls so the shoot off happens.

 

[maha]

the right thing to do is make all players play at a speed that makes the tournament run smoothly and on time.

that is one of the jobs of the tournament director. and since none do that someone needs to set them straight or find another.

 

[straightline]

I'm a pool fan.
Play one hole like straight pool. Total balls - say 50 points or 1hr. per match period.
Play every rack to the last ball. Winner break maybe.

 

[AtLarge]

If I'm being totally honest, this is me. I've been called a slow player, but I think of it as being deliberate. I'm a thoughtful, tactical, and analytical person by nature, and it reflects in my approach to the game and other aspects of my life such as work and hobbies. What I am NOT is "deliberately slow". I don't try to intentionally make the game take longer than it should to gain an advantage over the field, and I don't condone others who do so.

Even though you are not "deliberately slow" you may still be "too slow," at least for some tournament play. That used to be the case for some pro golfers. Now, in a given round (PGA), the pace-of-play penalties are a warning on the first offense, strokes added on the 2nd and 3rd offenses, and disqualification on the 4th offense: https://www.pga.org/Document-Library/pat-rules-policies-guidelines-pace-of-play.pdf

 

[maha]

yea the golf rules are complex but are easy to follow if you dont play slow.

and the ref. is the judge and enforces it. not so in pool.

in pool people want to punish both players when it is just one player causing the issue.

punish the proper player