Slow-Play Tournament solution

[Jude Rosenstock]

The biggest problem with your idea is that someone could get up a few games and then slow down even more to make the match go to the time limit. I think a shot clock would be the best idea for slow players.

I don't think you understand. Violating the time-limit would result in a demerit (you should read my initial post again). It wouldn't stop the match so whether someone was up or not wouldn't matter.

The problem with the shot-clock is that it requires additional resources. Who is going to hold the stop-watch? I mean, you can do that for the WPBA or IPT when only 6 matches are going on at a time. What do you do in the first round of a Joss event when every table in the poolroom is in use and you have 3 people on staff?

 

[Snapshot9]

Thoughts ...

I do not like the 'demerit' system because some matches get into 'safety' battles that drag them out and it just has to play out no matter how long it takes. I once got into a safety battle with an opponent in Vegas, last
game played for the match and it was the deciding game for the match.
We played 18 safeties in a row (9 each), each safety was very critical
and painstaking. I am normally a pretty fast player, but that game took
a long time to play, and I was exhausted after it was done.

No, I still think the best way is the shot clock. I would say that only about 10% of the players are 'slow', and only half of those would be slow
enough to warrant a shot clock being put on them. In Midwest 9 ball events, when a player complains, Evelyn Dysert, tounament director, watches a couple of turns, decides if a warning is justified, warns the slow player that if they don't speed up, they will be put on a shot clock.
This is usually sufficient to get the slow player going faster, but if not,
she has a trusted known spectator time the shots with a watch.

Out of a 128 player tournament, I would say she would have to intervene
in about 4 matches unless there were a few players in the tournament nortorius for their slow play.

Not very often does she have resort to this. In money matches, there are
1 or 2 players I will avoid because they are too slow, and it annoys me.

Something else to consider, when on the shot clock the player is suppose to get a 10 second warning when only 10 seconds are left to shoot.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I do not like the 'demerit' system because some matches get into 'safety' battles that drag them out and it just has to play out no matter how long it takes. I once got into a safety battle with an opponent in Vegas, last
game played for the match and it was the deciding game for the match.
We played 18 safeties in a row (9 each), each safety was very critical
and painstaking. I am normally a pretty fast player, but that game took
a long time to play, and I was exhausted after it was done.

No, I still think the best way is the shot clock. I would say that only about 10% of the players are 'slow', and only half of those would be slow
enough to warrant a shot clock being put on them. In Midwest 9 ball events, when a player complains, Evelyn Dysert, tounament director, watches a couple of turns, decides if a warning is justified, warns the slow player that if they don't speed up, they will be put on a shot clock.
This is usually sufficient to get the slow player going faster, but if not,
she has a trusted known spectator time the shots with a watch.

Out of a 128 player tournament, I would say she would have to intervene
in about 4 matches unless there were a few players in the tournament nortorius for their slow play.

Not very often does she have resort to this. In money matches, there are
1 or 2 players I will avoid because they are too slow, and it annoys me.

Something else to consider, when on the shot clock the player is suppose to get a 10 second warning when only 10 seconds are left to shoot.

Well, that's the reason why I thought it would be best to penalize a player if they acquire a number of demerits throughout a given-duration rather than penalizing them immediately. If a fast-player has a long match, they receive a demerit even though it may be eons before they get another.

My underlying problem with the shot-clock is that it's too rigid. For a simple shot, no shot-clock could be short enough and for a critical shot, you're rushing the shooter. A player should be allowed to get into his stance, change his mind, get-up, walk around the table and re-enter his stance without worry of having a foul called on him.

 

[TheOne]

I actually posted earlier in this thread why this wouldn't work. See, in chess, the number of turns at the table is identical. Player A moves a piece then player B moves a piece. In pool, the rotation is simply not like this. Player A shoots 15 balls in a row then Player B shoots one. Hence, a dominant player would be penalized for pocketing the majority of the balls, especially if the discrepancy were huge.

You make a good point but I dont see why it wouldn't work over a match. To win a frame both players mostly would need to run the same number of balls. If the match times are set correctly giving ample times for the match to finish at a reasonable speed then its either going to finish early if one player is at the table the most or go to the wire and then the slow player would be the one on the shot clock.

 

[ScottW]

What's wrong with simply asking a ref/TD to watch the slow player and, if they see fit, tell the slow player that they need to speed things up or possibly risk forfeiting the match?

 

[unknownpro]

So today, I actually played in a pool-tournament. It was probably the first I've participated in in several months which is really unusual for me. Normally, I play in at least two a month. Anyway, after the event was over for me, I was sitting around, talking to the guys, listening to the same complaints that I've always heard. "This guy is holding up the field. I can't stand playing him. I don't understand why they don't have a shot-clock on him ALL THE TIME!"

Well, it got me thinking. See, you can't have a shot-clock on him all the time because it would exhaust resources. I mean, only an IPT event can afford to have a referee for each match! On top of that, does the shot-clock really prevent slow-play? Personally, I don't care if anyone takes an extended time to look-over a complicated situation. That's perfectly acceptable in my book. What bothers me is when they take their sweet time when the shot is simple. Shots that can take 10 seconds or less to execute can take some players a full 30 seconds (some cases, a minute). Those are the delays I want eliminated as a spectator AND as a competitor.

That's when I came up with a slightly different approach. Instead of micro-managing a match, simply put a cap on its length. For a race to 9, you can allot 90 minutes for the match. If the players report the final score later than 90 minutes after it was scheduled to begin, both players are given a demerit for delaying the event. Three demerits during a single event will put a player on immediate probation which can result in disqualification if it is assessed that he/she is deliberately playing slow. Seven demerits over a span of 15 matches would put a player on probation and can result in banishment from the tour.

I thought of this because I think it's important to eliminate slow-play altogether. It's not just a strain on the players and the room, it's boring even for pool's biggest enthusists and we're at a time when we're trying to draw as many spectators as possible. The shot-clock isn't going to do it. Having a match go to sudden-death is a poor solution and slow-play can be used to create sudden-death. I use the word "probation" because I think prior to taking action, a player would need to be evaluated first. At the same time, this player should be warned that they have been involved in matches that have held up events and by holding up an event, they're not just affecting their opponent, they're affecting EVERYONE.


It's not a perfect idea and perhaps not the best solution but I was wondering what all of you thought.

A chess type clock for the whole match seems to be the easy answer. Run out of time and you lose.

unknownpro

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You make a good point but I dont see why it wouldn't work over a match. To win a frame both players mostly would need to run the same number of balls. If the match times are set correctly giving ample times for the match to finish at a reasonable speed then its either going to finish early if one player is at the table the most or go to the wire and then the slow player would be the one on the shot clock.

You're still faced with added equipment (the clocks), arguments relating to the clocks (a player forgets to punch in/out) and what to do if a player DOES go over his time in a lop-sided match. It's one thing if the score is neck and neck, it's another if it happens to be a blow-out.

 

[Snapshot9]

One other point ...

Players can not hit the 'shot' clock, the shot is 'over' when the tip hits the cue ball.

I think that the shot clock should not be considered unless you have a complaint from a player about slow play, and then it should be monitored and decided. Evelyn has never had a problem getting a known spectator that she judges qualified to be the shot clock monitor for a match. Most
are happy to help. I do realize that on the pro level, there might be more formal rules about who can be the shot clock keeper and who can not.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...
That's when I came up with a slightly different approach. Instead of micro-managing a match, simply put a cap on its length. For a race to 9, you can allot 90 minutes for the match. If the players report the final score later than 90 minutes after it was scheduled to begin, both players are given a demerit for delaying the event. Three demerits during a single event will put a player on immediate probation which can result in disqualification if it is assessed that he/she is deliberately playing slow. ...

Here's another approach.

Suppose the match is a race to 9. You keep track of the players who are slow, on average. Maybe give them ratings, like 1 for 10 minutes late, 2 for 20 minutes late, 3 for 30 minutes late, etc., on average. Add up the slowness of the two players in the match. If it's more than a certain amount, they play to 8. It if is more than another amount, they play to 7. Etc.

This only requires bookkeeping and not equipment. It doesn't say that a player is "bad" or "on probation," it just says that he is slow.

The actual number to keep track of is minutes per game in the match, I think. So, if two players take 90 minutes to get a 9-0 result, they should get some slowness points.

We do a similar thing in a handicapped straight pool league I play in. The length of the game is set by how many points the better player goes to, with the assumption being that better players will usually run balls faster. The top players go to 140, but if there were a very slow top player, he could go to 100 instead with his opponent's game reduced proportionally.