Not sure that will work. Fastest game is usually a top pro like Josh or shaw going 9-0 on the early rounds against a guy who is just there for the experience. He shouldn’t win money for being a whipping boy!
Slow play by pros
- Thread starter middleofnowhere
- Start date
It make/MAKES them think of more/other options/and that takes extra time.
USA
McBride.... tough action to watch.... Kaci like in his beginning at the US Open where he got 2nd the TD, allowed em to stay down/swinging it after 40 sec shot clock sound, w/o fouling. Foul if he came off the shot.
McBride.... tough action to watch.... Kaci like in his beginning at the US Open where he got 2nd the TD, allowed em to stay down/swinging it after 40 sec shot clock sound, w/o fouling. Foul if he came off the shot.
Problem with this is. If the first player clears all the balls and then it ends up a tactical battle with say 8 and 9 left or just the 9 , then the first player is penalised just because he put all the other balls down as he will have less time left to think ?
It's not so much about being blazing fast. Just brisk. Chua and SVB were tired Saturday night, but they played at a brisk tempo with no shot clock.
True, they are supremely talented players who know what they want to do instinctively and immediately in most cases. Yet almost every top player who I have seen on the shot clock has played as well as they do without one. Even deliberate players like Kaci, Alcaide, Capito, etc.
This is not hard. Thirty seconds is plenty of time. Once you've taken thousands of shots, you usually know what you need to do next. The only time I tend to take extra time, as a mere amateur, is after a break or when calculating a multi-rail kick.
True, they are supremely talented players who know what they want to do instinctively and immediately in most cases. Yet almost every top player who I have seen on the shot clock has played as well as they do without one. Even deliberate players like Kaci, Alcaide, Capito, etc.
This is not hard. Thirty seconds is plenty of time. Once you've taken thousands of shots, you usually know what you need to do next. The only time I tend to take extra time, as a mere amateur, is after a break or when calculating a multi-rail kick.
TheRooster
New member
This is a pretty good point. I can also think of a scenario where a long safety battle causes both players’ clocks to be low so instead of trying to run out they try to “flag” the other player (make their time run out).
I’ll have to think about this more. That might add an interesting element to the game (like it is in rapid/bullet/blitz chess formats), or it might be too much of a change.
Something that comes to mind immediately is a delay per shot. It could be made very similar to today’s shot clock by using a 30 second delay with only 30 seconds on the clock to begin. This way the extension would be more like a time bank that you only start using once your 30 second delay per shot runs out. It would allow you to use the extension over multiple shots. I think something like this could be tuned to allow for plenty of thinking time in tough situations but increase the overall game speed. Something like a 90 second game clock (time bank) plus a 20 second delay.
This is different than how chess clocks work because the delay would have to happen every shot instead of every inning. In chess, ordinarily, the delay only occurs when the clock switches between players.
middleofnowhere
Registered
There's a difference between taking a little extra focus on pocketing a ball and wandering around the table several times only to come back and shoot a simple straight and stop shot.
Agree 100%. All these top players are capable of getting out without all the stall tactics, even on today's tight tables. They play slow/dick around because they can GET AWAY WITH IT.
To hell with extensions. Just do 45sec per shot. More than enough time. If this was enforced the players would figure it out. Quick.
dquarasr
Registered
Would the following be feasible?
Let the players police it. A player is playing slow, so his/her opponent requests a ref to monitor a few innings. If the ref subjectively (or objectively via hand-timing) determines the player is playing too slowly, he gets a warning and is notified that the rest of the match will be subject to a shot clock. This wouldn't require a dedicated ref/timer at every table.
This requires a somewhat subjective determination by the one making the accusation of slow play, and might allow abuse of the privilege, using it to shark an opponent already playing at a reasonable pace. One way to get around that is for a player to request a review, but surreptitiously, without the "offending" player knowing he/she is being watched. I don't know how the mechanics of this could be worked out where the player questioning another has the opportunity to request a review without opponent knowing.
I dunno, but as amateurish as APA is, in higher-level tournaments, I have seen this practiced. Slow player is requested to be watched or given a warning that another complaint puts them under more objective scrutiny. And I haven't seen this abused to shark an opponent.
Let the players police it. A player is playing slow, so his/her opponent requests a ref to monitor a few innings. If the ref subjectively (or objectively via hand-timing) determines the player is playing too slowly, he gets a warning and is notified that the rest of the match will be subject to a shot clock. This wouldn't require a dedicated ref/timer at every table.
This requires a somewhat subjective determination by the one making the accusation of slow play, and might allow abuse of the privilege, using it to shark an opponent already playing at a reasonable pace. One way to get around that is for a player to request a review, but surreptitiously, without the "offending" player knowing he/she is being watched. I don't know how the mechanics of this could be worked out where the player questioning another has the opportunity to request a review without opponent knowing.
I dunno, but as amateurish as APA is, in higher-level tournaments, I have seen this practiced. Slow player is requested to be watched or given a warning that another complaint puts them under more objective scrutiny. And I haven't seen this abused to shark an opponent.
So what, everyone has a chance at getting the cash and it is not winning it it is incentivizing fast play. Shit do it everyday of the tourny. Fastest 10 matches everyday get some cash. Plus I would argue, it gives the bangers at a chance for a little cash when they know Filler is gonna steam roll them.
You have a surprising lot to say about something you know little about
cueball2010
Active member
What are you trying to say?
pool is boring enough to watch. and making the game watchable takes more than putting liberal shot clocks on the game.
all tournaments should be invitational and those that play slow don't get to come. problem solved. and tv will start to pick up the game as viewers will stay interested. and prize pools will grow as well as the sport.
same as in the poolroom. very slow players dont get in action unless they are locked up or bet a lot. and rightly so.
all tournaments should be invitational and those that play slow don't get to come. problem solved. and tv will start to pick up the game as viewers will stay interested. and prize pools will grow as well as the sport.
same as in the poolroom. very slow players dont get in action unless they are locked up or bet a lot. and rightly so.
Just remembered some other rules that might apply well.
NO COUNT
Breaker would be allowed time to study the spread and be required to declare a runout or push/safety/pass.
If no run out is declared, the incoming player will be allowed to declare run or pass.
As in no count pool, failed outs accrue no score. The remainder of the rack is played out normally for the next break only.
This is skeletal at best but you get the idea.
There's plenty to thunk if any player is so inclined.
Or the bangers just roll over and try and get the fastest loser cash?!