Shot clock/Match clock

Danny Kuykendal

Danny K
Silver Member
I ran several open tournaments here at Danny K's, and we let the players know ahead of time of a 30 second time clock. We had six referees walking the floor to monitor this and other rules of etiquette (like sitting in your chair, not speaking to someone else when your opponent is shooting, etc.)

It worked amazingly well. If everyone knows upfront that a time clock will be utilized they play at a quicker pace.

One of the secrets is to be aggressive about it, and when players understand these rules will be implimented, they respond.

If we had to put someone on a 30 second clock, their game would immediately pick up. After several of these tournaments, no one was ever put on the clock again.

I think it requires diligence on the part of the tournament director, and paying close attention to the pace of all the players.
 

FLICKit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
...I admit, I have a very funny stance - I want pool to be faster but I don't want it clocked. I would NEVER think anything of my opponent taking a minute or two to measure up an important shot at hill-hill. It's when he takes a minute or two to shoot the 1-ball in the first game and the 2-ball is hanging nearby do I get irritated. How do you clock that?
If a game is really only going to take 5-7 minutes, and therefore you can estimate a race to 6 will take less than an hour, then overall it's not really gonna matter much.
 

FLICKit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A fixed 30 second per shot clock is the worst option of the 3 or more mentioned. In certain situations it really screws up the game/match.
 

unknownpro

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
No, I understand but it's the only reference we really have and it doesn't really work. The APA uses a match clock for team matches and that might be the most horrible thing ever. I admit, I have a very funny stance - I want pool to be faster but I don't want it clocked. I would NEVER think anything of my opponent taking a minute or two to measure up an important shot at hill-hill. It's when he takes a minute or two to shoot the 1-ball in the first game and the 2-ball is hanging nearby do I get irritated. How do you clock that?
How does the APA match clock work? I agree that a clock shouldn't be a factor. But a 30 second shot clock imposed in the middle of an uneven match is pretty much always a penalty on the trailing player, who usually has not been at the table nearly as long as his opponent.

Nobody knows how long each shot should take, but they do have to schedule times for matches. I'd be happier with a 15 second clock than 30 or 45 seconds if it started from the beginning of the match. But most won't like that.

The fairest way I see to keep one player from hogging all the time, is to only give him half the time.
 

lewdo26

Registered User will do
Silver Member
I think shot clocks are horrible.

At least at the end.

I've seen a couple pro matches in which the clock may have been a decisive factor toward the end.

To avoid, that --- THE FISCHER CLOCK is an easy solution. It actually already exists.

I wouldn't like to see any rigid 30/45 secs rule because of the obvious variation different shots in different competitive situations require.
 
Last edited:

JoeW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_clock

The Fischer clock is what we use. And the best way to use it is to have each player press the button as needed. The newer clocks have a five second delay: When a player hits the button five seconds elapase before the opponent's clock starts. In some of the newer models the length of the delay can be set before the game.

I really don't understand the objection to a clock. When set to seven minutes or one minute per shot for each of the player's balls in an 8-Ball game there is more than enough time.

If they play quickly they can save time for safety battles. When at the table many shots are played in less than 15 seconds and the player saves 45 seconds on each shot. This allows for something like timeouts on one or even two difficult shots.

We have found that the clock primarily keeps the players focused. The clock does not get in anyone's way.

I think that six minutes each in a 9-Ball game should be more than sufficient. This assumes that each player makes half the balls or is on a run. It also allows for safety battles or aggressive play. The player is in control.
 

vagabond

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are no fair and equitable solutions for this problem that is so pervasive.Audience should be allowed to ostracise a slow player in a tournament setting.That is the only thing I can think of in a tournament situation.In other situations (like gambling or practice sessions ) you do not play with that guy.
 

Johnnyt

Burn all jump cues
Silver Member
If I was good enough to match up with Johnny A or some of the other very slow players the first handicap I would ask for would be a 30 second shot clock. Johnnyt
 

unknownpro

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Johnnyt said:
If I was good enough to match up with Johnny A or some of the other very slow players the first handicap I would ask for would be a 30 second shot clock. Johnnyt
The problem is, that'll likely just make him play better.
 

unknownpro

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
vagabond said:
There are no fair and equitable solutions for this problem that is so pervasive.Audience should be allowed to ostracise a slow player in a tournament setting.That is the only thing I can think of in a tournament situation.In other situations (like gambling or practice sessions ) you do not play with that guy.


In the pro tournaments with no clock you know a lot of the top players will play very slowly late in matches if the score is tight. So that makes you play slower sort of in self defense. And that makes them play slower, and on and on.

The only real problem I see with a chess clock is older players, and handicapped or wheelchair players. But I think you could allow say an extra 15 minutes over the scheduled match time before a forfeit and still get most matches done earlier because no one would ever want to lose on time. And I don't really remember anyone holding up tournaments because of playing in a wheelchair or physical problems.

If players are holding up the tournament just because they shoot too many balls into the rail then maybe they should be out anyway?

Dividing the time gives you an incentive to play more quickly. If you've used less time, you can't lose on time. There is no incentive now. And waiting till half the match is over (which was or maybe is? common practice) to start a shot clock only encourages you to get ahead early regardless of how much time you use, while generally penalizing the player that used less time early.
 

memikey

Never Has Been
Silver Member
In one of the most popular forms of uk style 8 ball i.e that known as "World Rules" (the format from which the likes of Darren Appleton, Karl Boyes and others have migrated to American Pool) the rules incorporate a 60 second limit for each shot.

Bearing in mind that they are playing on a smaller more congested surface and that the pockets are significantly tighter than on an American table and that there is probably more potential benefit from tactical safety play, some kind of timing was considered a good thing as the length of some matches was becoming a serious problem. I personally feel that 60 seconds is far too long. Any player likely to find himself in contention in a reasonably good standard of competition in uk 8 ball who cannot assess the various options of any given situation and shoot within maximum 45 seconds should find another sport. Like golf, excessively slow play is just about the biggest bugbear in the game.

For 8 ball on an American table, given the different rules, table and pocket sizes etc, 60 seconds seems way far too long and 30/40 seconds should be more than enough in any conceivable situation.

9 ball is harder to judge and the jury that I'm on is still out on how long would be reasonable.
 
Top