I'd like to hear what scientists have to say about tournament dynamics.
Proposed rules for tournament slow play in One Pocket and Banks
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
Not getting this. You mean as penalties?
No sorry if I don't use the right words.
I mean you just put a ball back on the surface play after some time. Nothing to do with the score.
Usually one pocket or banks games are "slow" when there is too few balls remaining.
It could be 20 minutes after the beginning of the match, 5 minutes after the last pocketed ball, of 10 exchanges between players without a pocketed ball. The referee would tell "on the next inning, I will put a ball on the fly".
I mean you just put a ball back on the surface play after some time. Nothing to do with the score.
Usually one pocket or banks games are "slow" when there is too few balls remaining.
It could be 20 minutes after the beginning of the match, 5 minutes after the last pocketed ball, of 10 exchanges between players without a pocketed ball. The referee would tell "on the next inning, I will put a ball on the fly".
I don't think I'm that slow - but that's probably part of the problem. Slower play feels normal to a naturally slower player.
How about just end the match, count the balls, award the winner, send the loser to wherever they need to go.
Get a little ahead and play real, real slow. Squeeze 'em like a python. Five, six minutes per shot.
If the set is limited to an hour, a little slow play won't be such a bother. AND the guy behind needs to pick it up.
Geez, if you're in a hurry enter the 9 ball tourney.
Shot clock should take care of that. That's not a lot of extra measures. What is a good time 60 seconds?
That's the beauty of using a chess clock. Each player gets the same amount of time for all of their innings. Play slow, your clock gets low, and you either need to start playing fast or lose the game on time. Only the slow player gets punished.
I think a chess clock is a much better solution than a shot clock, especially for one pocket. Sometimes you need a couple minutes, particularly for a difficult situation. Chess clock with maybe 15 or 20 min per player per game. You play slow and let your clock run out, you lose that game. It's fair, allows taking your time to think through a difficult position if needed, and puts a maximum time limit on each game which helps keep the tournament running smoothly. With a shot clock the players could still play a long drawn out wedge game that takes hours to finish.
-Normal shot clock is no good because unless pool becomes a huge dollar sport its not feasible to have a ref with a shot clock on each table.
-Chess clocks sound like a better idea. However, for as many years as we've all talked about them, I've yet to see a tournament use them. I actually tried it once in a gambling one pocket match with a buddy about 20 years ago. He kept forgetting to hit his button and about threw the clock at me, ha ha.
Also with a chess clock, there could be a situation where it just happens to be a long game, but neither player is a slow poke. Score is tied 5-5 and the balls are out of play. Player one has 1 second left, player two has 2 seconds left. Why should the 1 second left player lose? Neither player could possibly win.
One pocket in particular is also a game where a lot of the time the shots are short and quick moves, like tapping a ball a bunch of times before someone leaks an opportunity. The players in this scenerio simply stand at the table while the opponent is shooting. They don't go back to their chair. Sending the players back to their chairs to press the button each shot would probably ruin the flow of a lot of games.
-Grady rules are different every event, and hard to remember. How many balls up table before spotting? How many get spotted? (those are rhetorical questions). Also with Grady rules they can surely speed up a match, but the players could simply knock all the balls up table again and repeat the whole process over and over. There is not a definitive expected end time to the match, in order for the TD to schedule rounds in advance.
-What I'm proposing (and what Pat is doing on his International Open Amateur Event), is the best scenerio for a TD, IMO. Its simple. No special equipment. Can be used at any tournament, whether local weekly or national level. Does not alter game-play until it is used. Has a very quick ending once it is used. Gives the advantage to the player leading the match. Still requires offense once it's started, which takes away most (but not all) of time clock manipulation beforehand. Ensures definitive time predictions of matches.
-Chess clocks sound like a better idea. However, for as many years as we've all talked about them, I've yet to see a tournament use them. I actually tried it once in a gambling one pocket match with a buddy about 20 years ago. He kept forgetting to hit his button and about threw the clock at me, ha ha.
Also with a chess clock, there could be a situation where it just happens to be a long game, but neither player is a slow poke. Score is tied 5-5 and the balls are out of play. Player one has 1 second left, player two has 2 seconds left. Why should the 1 second left player lose? Neither player could possibly win.
One pocket in particular is also a game where a lot of the time the shots are short and quick moves, like tapping a ball a bunch of times before someone leaks an opportunity. The players in this scenerio simply stand at the table while the opponent is shooting. They don't go back to their chair. Sending the players back to their chairs to press the button each shot would probably ruin the flow of a lot of games.
-Grady rules are different every event, and hard to remember. How many balls up table before spotting? How many get spotted? (those are rhetorical questions). Also with Grady rules they can surely speed up a match, but the players could simply knock all the balls up table again and repeat the whole process over and over. There is not a definitive expected end time to the match, in order for the TD to schedule rounds in advance.
-What I'm proposing (and what Pat is doing on his International Open Amateur Event), is the best scenerio for a TD, IMO. Its simple. No special equipment. Can be used at any tournament, whether local weekly or national level. Does not alter game-play until it is used. Has a very quick ending once it is used. Gives the advantage to the player leading the match. Still requires offense once it's started, which takes away most (but not all) of time clock manipulation beforehand. Ensures definitive time predictions of matches.
Last edited:
Sounds good. What is your suggestion to do this?
The one second player should lose because they managed their time slightly less efficiently, and somebody needs to lose in order for the match and tournament to progress. They had the same amount of time at the table as the 2 second player.
While shooting spot shots is certainly a useful skill in one pocket, I don't like the idea of deciding matches on it. But maybe I'm just biased because I'm not a great shot, and would likely lose way more than I'd win in your proposed spot shot shootout sudden death situation.
A chess clock could even have the player with 7 balls lose vs the player with 0 balls. The 0 ball player could have a bit more time on the clock, and just tap tap tap tap tap the ball in a split second each inning to manipulate the time clock and win with a score of 0.
Assuming the 3 foul rule is in place, the player with 0 would still need to make a legal hit, and not sell out a ball. I think you're underestimating how difficult it would be be truly manipulate the clock in the vast majority of 1P games. And a more complex time control would also resolve most of those types of clock manipulation concerns. Something like 15|d20 for instance would work pretty well (15 min per player plus a 20 sec clock delay at the start of each inning).
Modern chess clocks have a feature that you can enable. You get a small time boost for each turn at the table. You could set this to 20 seconds. If there is a protracted safety battle, the faster thinker would have the advantage. In fact if they play each safe in less than 20 seconds, their total time could actually increase.
I would advocate for a delay rather than added time, to prevent manipulation adding to a players time as you mentioned. But really, either would work and be appropriate.
I can’t believe anyone would advocate for a scenario where the player with a higher score loses the rack because his clock expired first. It goes against the fundamental goal in pool which is to put the ball in the hole. Chess clocks, with any advanced format, would allow that possibility.
This is a very easy problem to solve.
Issues like “The Wedge” are pretty much a one player issue — Nick Varner. Any TD worth his salt can tell him, “No wedge or you're out.” He’s either barred or disqualified. Problem solved and you don’t penalize an entire field of players who want to play one pocket.
Slow play by one or two guys — same deal: you don’t shoot at your hole in timely fashion, you’re out. “What’s a “timely fashion?” Whatever the TD decides it is. Problem solved and, once again, the rest of the field enjoys playing one pocket. A TD who knows what he's doing and has the cojones to make the tough calls, regardless of who the player is, makes this whole discussion a moot issue.
It's not rocket science and tournaments should not be entertaining "solutions" that fundamentally alter the base root of the game. Over the years I have watched so many matches with the remaining balls up table that have been beautiful. The players employing creative and elegant solutions to all kinds of problems. Who in their right mind -- that claims to love the game -- is going to decide to destroy a major component of what makes one pocket so demanding and fascinating?!
Lou Figueroa
Issues like “The Wedge” are pretty much a one player issue — Nick Varner. Any TD worth his salt can tell him, “No wedge or you're out.” He’s either barred or disqualified. Problem solved and you don’t penalize an entire field of players who want to play one pocket.
Slow play by one or two guys — same deal: you don’t shoot at your hole in timely fashion, you’re out. “What’s a “timely fashion?” Whatever the TD decides it is. Problem solved and, once again, the rest of the field enjoys playing one pocket. A TD who knows what he's doing and has the cojones to make the tough calls, regardless of who the player is, makes this whole discussion a moot issue.
It's not rocket science and tournaments should not be entertaining "solutions" that fundamentally alter the base root of the game. Over the years I have watched so many matches with the remaining balls up table that have been beautiful. The players employing creative and elegant solutions to all kinds of problems. Who in their right mind -- that claims to love the game -- is going to decide to destroy a major component of what makes one pocket so demanding and fascinating?!
Lou Figueroa