Slow Tournaments, what to do?
bk4...@hotmail.com
midnight and they did not even play the finals. Apparently one match
on Sunday took FIVE hours!
Locally, we often had trouble with our one-pocket tournaments. The TD
finally changed the loser's bracket to a race to ONE. (The winners
side is a race to two.) This has helped a bunch, but there can still
be a slow match on either side, in which case the TD brings out the
shot clock. You get one warning, the next violation is loss of turn!
That hurts a TON in one-pocket!
For straight pool, over on AZB one guy from Europe said he's played in
tournaments where there is a max number of innings. Who ever is ahead
after a certain number of innings - wins.
I see general causes for delays. One is pool quality play, the other
is intentional or unintentional slow play. For "bad" players, I think
the TD has to recognize such early in the match and then put the
players on notice in some fashion. I think it's irresponsible to
allow a match to go on for five hours like at the CSI 14.1 event.
For slow play by "better" players, hmmm, I don't know. There's a
match clock, the shot clock (per inning). Some at AZB have suggested
a longer time when first approaching the table, then 30 or 45 seconds
for subsequent shots....what else? And do you penalize shot clock
violations? Looking for ideas from what you guys have experienced, or
seen or any new ideas you may have.
Bob Keller
Ron Shepard
<390a7cd1-113c-4c92...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
"bk4...@hotmail.com" <bk4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So, apparently the 14.1 tournament in New Jersey dragged on just past
> midnight and they did not even play the finals.
I think the two players probably split the prize money in some fashion.
The big part of the prizes were two slots in another national 14.1
tournament, so both players got one of those slots. BTW, Dan Louie and
RSBer Steve Lipskey were the top two finishers.
I remember Ed Mercier used to complain here in RSB about pool
tournaments where the final match wasn't played. I understand his
objections, the main one of which was that it does not appear
professional for this to happen, and you never see this occur in other
sports. Imagine the two baseball teams deciding not to play the World
Series because they had a long season and they are tired. There are
also problems involving gambling, calcuttas, backers, side bets, and so
on when the players don't play finals matches.
However, this is fairly common in pool tournaments, especially with
amateurs because they need to get up the next morning and go to work at
their day jobs. Being an amateur player, I can understand that too.
> Apparently one match
> on Sunday took FIVE hours!
>
> Locally, we often had trouble with our one-pocket tournaments.
Yes, I've noticed this with one-pocket matches too. Even an individual
game might take anywhere from 10 minutes to two or three hours. And not
necessarily due to slow play, often it is due to the number of innings
that result from long safety battles.
> The TD
> finally changed the loser's bracket to a race to ONE. (The winners
> side is a race to two.) This has helped a bunch, but there can still
> be a slow match on either side, in which case the TD brings out the
> shot clock. You get one warning, the next violation is loss of turn!
> That hurts a TON in one-pocket!
Yes, it doesn't seem fair, does it.
> For straight pool, over on AZB one guy from Europe said he's played in
> tournaments where there is a max number of innings. Who ever is ahead
> after a certain number of innings - wins.
I've seen this done in a few tournaments too, including 9-ball and
one-pocket. The problem is that if one player is ahead, then he goes
into stall mode, trying to run out the clock, when the original goal of
the time limit was to get the players to speed up. It is the principle
of unintended consequences.
> I see general causes for delays. One is pool quality play, the other
> is intentional or unintentional slow play. For "bad" players, I think
> the TD has to recognize such early in the match and then put the
> players on notice in some fashion. I think it's irresponsible to
> allow a match to go on for five hours like at the CSI 14.1 event.
That wasn't one of the matches that they broadcast on ustream, so I
don't know why it was so slow. I doubt it was either poor or slow play
however, it seems more likely it was a sequence of long safety battles.
> For slow play by "better" players, hmmm, I don't know. There's a
> match clock, the shot clock (per inning). Some at AZB have suggested
> a longer time when first approaching the table, then 30 or 45 seconds
> for subsequent shots....what else?
I think what you want to happen is too difficult for the time keepers to
be able to do. I think what you want is to have a time limit that
changes something like
T_lim(n) = T0 + n * T1
for ball number n in the inning. If a player overruns T_lim(n) at any
time, some time penalty is imposed (after suitable warning). The way
this works is if he takes 5 or 6 quick shots, then that gives him some
headroom so if he gets in a tough situation later he can take a minute
or two to figure out a solution. But I think this is too hard to do in
practice. Maybe you could program a computer to do this, but that is an
artificial way to play pool.
The problem with a 45 second shot clock (or worse, 30 seconds) is that
every once in a while you really do need more time than that. I hate to
watch TV matches with pros where they end up taking a stupid shot
because of a shot clock limit. If they could have had time to just walk
around the table, they might have seen something clever to do. I want
to see how they solve problems, not how they fail to solve problems.
> And do you penalize shot clock
> violations?
I think you have to somehow, otherwise the shot clock has no effect.
But then the penalty, no matter what it is (loss of turn, foul penalty,
loss of game), affects both the tactics and the outcome of the game in a
detrimental way.
> Looking for ideas from what you guys have experienced, or
> seen or any new ideas you may have.
I've seen pool players try to use chess clocks. In 9-ball for example,
each player has five minutes total, and you lose the game when your
clock runs out. But I like to watch safety play in 9-ball, and this
pretty much kills all of the otherwise interesting safety battles you
might see. Also, chess clocks aren't exactly the right technology for
pool because you need to subtract out dead time from both players (such
as waiting for balls to stop rolling in between shots).
Especially when scheduling tournament rounds, this is a serious problem,
but I don't know of a good solution. Actually it is worse, I don't even
know of an acceptable solution.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> The problem with a 45 second shot clock (or worse, 30 seconds) is that
> every once in a while you really do need more time than that. I hate to
> watch TV matches with pros where they end up taking a stupid shot
> because of a shot clock limit. If they could have had time to just walk
> around the table, they might have seen something clever to do. I want
> to see how they solve problems, not how they fail to solve problems.
Have one extension (maybe a minute on top of the 45 seconds) per rack. If
you don't use it, you can save it up to a max of 3 perhaps.
John Black
John Black
@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, bk4...@hotmail.com says...
> Locally, we often had trouble with our one-pocket tournaments. The TD
> finally changed the loser's bracket to a race to ONE. (The winners
> side is a race to two.) This has helped a bunch, but there can still
> be a slow match on either side, in which case the TD brings out the
> shot clock. You get one warning, the next violation is loss of turn!
> That hurts a TON in one-pocket!
I think the shot clock should work well with allowing each player one
extension per rack if needed.
> For straight pool, over on AZB one guy from Europe said he's played in
> tournaments where there is a max number of innings. Who ever is ahead
> after a certain number of innings - wins.
I like this idea too but can this system be gamed by someone who is ahead
purposely initiating long safety battles to run out the innings? It kind of
adds a second way to win -- 1) get to 150, 2) get yourself ahead and run out
the inning count. That changes the game and the strategy.
John Black
Fast Larry
Straight pool always has had this problem with some who will play
slow, and shoot a lot of safeties. That was what killed the game off
back in the 70's.
I had 3 matches on the pro 9 ball tour where I was the last match that
finished, but each one went hill hill. 23 games takes longer to play,
than is somebody hammers somebody 11-0.
I either win fast, or lose fast. But there is always some Frank
Taberski imitation trying to shark and mess with people, to upset
them, by playing like a snail. If it was my event, I would take him
up to the roof, break his thumbs and then and throw him off head
first.
Just kidding.
9 ball or 14.1, a good, fair but aggressive Ref and TD, will kick in
the ass those dragging, and punish or DQ them if they won't speed up.
There is no excuse for poor management of any event. Most TD's are
just sitting on their butts and don't come out of their chair unless
two guys begin yelling at each other. They are watching some marquee
match and letting the match in the back slug down the entire event.
Dan White
news:ron-shepard-DD98...@news60.forteinc.com...
> In article
> <390a7cd1-113c-4c92...@d36g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> "bk4...@hotmail.com" <bk4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, apparently the 14.1 tournament in New Jersey dragged on just past
>> midnight and they did not even play the finals.
>
> I think the two players probably split the prize money in some fashion.
> The big part of the prizes were two slots in another national 14.1
> tournament, so both players got one of those slots. BTW, Dan Louie and
> RSBer Steve Lipskey were the top two finishers.
>
the top players will be there. I think Dan Louie got $1500 and Steve Lipsky
got $1200 so I doubt they bothered to split anything. Steve also had an
invite to the World Champs. either way.
dwhite
Dan White
news:Og3em.647$Jg....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Steve also had an invite to the World Champs. either way.
>
dwhite
bk4...@hotmail.com
> In article <390a7cd1-113c-4c92-bcf5-f26fe3d52314
Unfortunately, yes, any system can be gamed. I remember a one-pocket
tournament I played in once...
I forget the exact rules right now, but if one player got ahead enough
balls in the match, he would actually shoot a ball into his opponents
pocket to end the match sooner. It was weird - it wasn't "real" one-
pocket - and it was only as a result of gaming the system.
I can't think of anything fair other than an experienced referee who
makes a judgment call, effectively declaring one player "guilty" of
either slow play or gaming any shot clock system. Which doesn't sound
like a very good solution either.
Bob Keller
Carter Adams
like they use in chess tournaments? Each player is given a block of
time to use as they need....
~Carter
Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
> I think what you want to happen is too difficult for the time keepers to
> be able to do. I think what you want is to have a time limit that
> changes something like
>
> T_lim(n) = T0 + n * T1
>
> for ball number n in the inning. If a player overruns T_lim(n) at any
> time, some time penalty is imposed (after suitable warning). The way
> this works is if he takes 5 or 6 quick shots, then that gives him some
> headroom so if he gets in a tough situation later he can take a minute
> or two to figure out a solution. But I think this is too hard to do in
> practice. Maybe you could program a computer to do this, but that is an
> artificial way to play pool.
Another way to implement this would be to have a stopwatch that
counts down to zero and where you can add time in increments with a
single button. Say if T0 is 120 seconds and T1 is 15 seconds, then
each player would start each inning with 120 seconds and the clock
would begin counting down to zero. For each ball he pockets, 15
seconds would be added. If at any time the clock counts down all
the way to zero he would suffer some kind of time violation penalty.
I guess there should be a 10 second warning or something similar in
this scheme too.
Of course, this does not prevent long games from occurring that are
the result of long safety battles, it only prevents slow play.
In the above scheme, I'm assuming that the time the balls roll on
the table counts against the shooter. This isn't entirely fair, but
it seems more practical than counting just the shooting time.
I don't know if such stopwatches exist already, but I think it would
probably be pretty easy to manufacture such a device or to program a
computer or digital timer to act in that manner.
There is also the question of what exactly is the penalty for a time
violation. I mentioned some possibilities before, end of inning,
foul, or loss of game. Another possibility might be to force the
player to shoot a safety or a 9-ball style push-out.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
cuetable
I like the "roll-over" extension idea very much.
I'd push down to 30 seconds per shot (timer started after all ball
stopped), two 60 seconds extensions per rack, 60 seconds for incoming
player to start. The player can save the unused extensions up to N times.
The player have the option of using more than one extension if there is a
need and he can afford it. These are intended for tournament matches.
However, it might be *FUN* to have this in leagues or casual plays since
it adds an dimension to the game.
I feel professional pool needs to be an audience sport as well. Just an
opinion...
Here is a match from the 60's that's very enjoyable to watch:
http://talk.cuetable.com/showthread.php?t=1673
If your oppenent is taking 5 minutes for a shot, ask him to bring a beer
back from the bar :D
> Have one extension (maybe a minute on top of the 45 seconds) per rack. If
> you don't use it, you can save it up to a max of 3 perhaps.
>
> John Black
Cheers
Wei
� CueTable Demo: http://talk.cuetable.com/DemoVideo.php
� Online Pool Videos: http://talk.cuetable.com/forumdisplay.php?f=56
� Billiard Software: http://talk.cuetable.com/forumdisplay.php?f=106
� Ask Pool Instructors: http://ask-instructors.com
_______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
lfigueroa
can go up, see what's up, and make a call that all the players will respect.
In the case of bad play, I think the TD has to go up, watch, and then
shorten the race -- maybe make it five balls to win instead of 8.
In the case of slow play, it's almost always just one guy -- the one
that has to stare and chalk and stare and chalk and walk around the
table and sigh and make all kinds of facial expressions reflecting their
eternal disappointment in themselves the evil idiosyncrasies of the
balls their constant miserable lot in life and the poor luck that always
befalls them at the pool table -- I think the TD gives them one
warning... then a second, with the caveat that there will be no third.
It's really no different than calling someone on unsportsmanlike conduct.
Personally., I don't think a chess clock is a good idea because if I get
into a safety battle, and then say run 135 in a race to 150, and then
get into another safety battle, I've basically used up the majority of
my time and am now in a time crunch that the other guy can exploit.
What you'd need is just a 30 second timer that each player activates
after their inning, no extensions. At least you'd really be paying
attention while in the chair :-)
Lou Figueroa
PatH
> I think the #1 solution is a TD with cojones and cred. IOW, someone who
> can go up, see what's up, and make a call that all the players will respect.
>
I think this is the key. A tournament director who is willing to make
a ruling and then brook no arguments. We had one of those in Madison
for years. He ran a weekly handicaped 9-ball tournament and ran it
with a firm fist. I remember he would reward slow play with a mid-
match adjustment in your handicap and if the slow play continued he'd
bang it again. If you didn't like his rulings his attitude was "Then
don't play in my tournament". Most of the players appreciated the way
he ran things and the slow players wouldn't come back. Damn we sure
missed them. If the tournament director is given the authority and is
willing to exercise it the tournament can be tweaked on the fly by
shortening the races or adjusting the handicap or using a strict shot
clock for a specific match that should fix things. One of the
problems is recognizing a problem soon enough to react to it and not
put all the brackets behind.
PatH...never been accused of slowing things down
John Black
007f7e...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bk4...@hotmail.com says...
> Unfortunately, yes, any system can be gamed. I remember a one-pocket
> tournament I played in once...
> I forget the exact rules right now, but if one player got ahead enough
> balls in the match, he would actually shoot a ball into his opponents
> pocket to end the match sooner. It was weird - it wasn't "real" one-
> pocket - and it was only as a result of gaming the system.
>
> I can't think of anything fair other than an experienced referee who
> makes a judgment call, effectively declaring one player "guilty" of
> either slow play or gaming any shot clock system. Which doesn't sound
> like a very good solution either.
I don't see how you could game the shot clock system though? There is still
only one way to win so the game remains the same.
John Black
John Black
says...
> Personally., I don't think a chess clock is a good idea because if I get
> into a safety battle, and then say run 135 in a race to 150, and then
> get into another safety battle, I've basically used up the majority of
> my time and am now in a time crunch that the other guy can exploit.
What is the chess clock method? It sounds different than a max time for
each shot.
John Black
JakartaDean
> I think the #1 solution is a TD with cojones and cred. IOW, someone who
> can go up, see what's up, and make a call that all the players will
> respect.
>
> In the case of bad play, I think the TD has to go up, watch, and then
> shorten the race -- maybe make it five balls to win instead of 8.
>
> In the case of slow play, it's almost always just one guy -- the one
> that has to stare and chalk and stare and chalk and walk around the
> table and sigh and make all kinds of facial expressions reflecting their
> eternal disappointment in themselves the evil idiosyncrasies of the
> balls their constant miserable lot in life and the poor luck that always
> befalls them at the pool table -- I think the TD gives them one
> warning... then a second, with the caveat that there will be no third.
> It's really no different than calling someone on unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
> Personally., I don't think a chess clock is a good idea because if I get
> into a safety battle, and then say run 135 in a race to 150, and then
> get into another safety battle, I've basically used up the majority of
> my time and am now in a time crunch that the other guy can exploit.
>
organizer will hire a TD with cojones. I like that way, however, better
than any mechanical system. I keep thinking of Efren's Z shot against
Earl Strickland, where he walks around the table for almost a minute,
then gets down and makes a shot I wouldn't have believed possible. I'd
hate to have missed that shot because he was on a 30 second shot clock.
I'm in general anti-shot-clock, but the 10-ball tournament in Manila a
couple of months back almost made a convert of me, there were so many
players playing slow. The bigger issue for me is the break in
concentration when the referee yells out "Ten Seconds!" while a player
is getting ready to shoot.
Dean <-- doesn't have the answer to this one
bk4...@hotmail.com
I agree with you guys.
The one I hate is - it's a race to 2 one-pocket, and the player takes
a bathroom break after or during the first game. WTF? You were just
sitting around for 45 minutes waiting for the match and NOW you need
to take a break? It would take a TD with cojones to call that one,
but if a player has a rep for doing that it's a easy call.
It's all about the TD!
Bob Keller
lfigueroa
is inconsistent.
A good TD is often hard to come by.
Lou Figueroa
lfigueroa
period of time, that is split 50/50. So say you want the match to last
a maximum of two hours -- you set it for one hour per clock.
If I start the match shooting, my clock begins to run. When I'm done, I
go over to the clock, hit the button, and my opponent's clock starts.
He who runs out of time first, without winning outright, loses. I think
you can buy these for $20, either with digital or analog clock faces.
Lou Figueroa
John Black
says...
> As I understand it, it is basically two clocks that are set for a total
> period of time, that is split 50/50. So say you want the match to last
> a maximum of two hours -- you set it for one hour per clock.
>
> If I start the match shooting, my clock begins to run. When I'm done, I
> go over to the clock, hit the button, and my opponent's clock starts.
> He who runs out of time first, without winning outright, loses.
Ok. Yeah, I agree this is not really a good idea. It puts a total time on
a game that can have a variable number of shots (due to safety battles you
described). So it creates another way to win (make your opponent run out of
time) and invites gaming the system.
John Black
John Black
@forteinc.com says...
> I keep thinking of Efren's Z shot against
> Earl Strickland, where he walks around the table for almost a minute,
> then gets down and makes a shot I wouldn't have believed possible. I'd
> hate to have missed that shot because he was on a 30 second shot clock.
Not a problem with extensions, especially if you can accumulate unused
extensions.
John Black
bk4...@hotmail.com
both seemed to suggest that it effected their play.
Who knows about time limits in PGA golf? Why'd they do it? Was it
fair? Any lesson we can learn from this for pool?
Bob Keller
John Black
a0a8bb...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, bk4...@hotmail.com says...
No doubt that limiting time has a negative effect on play at times. But you
have to balance that with the negative effects of not limiting time.
Everything is a trade off. Ideally you should be able to take as long as
you want for each shot but that has consequences. Its annoying to
opponents. Its bad for spectators (live and TV) and what's bad for
spectators is bad for the growth or health of the sport. And it may result
in not even being able to finish the event as we've seen. Given all that, I
think shot clocks are the lesser of many evils.
John Black
lfigueroa
thought golf was getting out of hand with all the staring at the greens
-- t was becoming borderline stalling. So I think you have to
control the players when things start going too far afield.
Lou Figueroa
JakartaDean
three balls before they serve, then they inspect them and give one back.
These balls have been out of the can for about 45 minutes at most,and
only hit a few times. I'm guessing a best-of-five match must take at
least 20-30 minutes longer just because of this stall, which I imagine
they do because it gives them time to get mentally ready to serve.
Dean <-- getting slower, just like everything else
pltr...@spamlessxhost.org
>As an aside, what about tennis? The men these days insist on receiving
>three balls before they serve, then they inspect them and give one back.
Some do, some don't. Some take only one ball at a time, as do most women. Some
take four. Some want the last ball with which they hit a winner.
> These balls have been out of the can for about 45 minutes at most,and
>only hit a few times.
Typically six balls, used for nine games. More like twenty minutes on average.
The players are looking for the smoothest nap, which yields the fastest serve
and the most skid.
> I'm guessing a best-of-five match must take at
>least 20-30 minutes longer just because of this stall, which I imagine
>they do because it gives them time to get mentally ready to serve.
It's part of their PSR, of course. But it shouldn't cost any additional time if
the chair umpire is doing his job, since the ATP and WTA have had a hard
25-second time limit for many years. If the players didn't muck around with the
balls, they'd probably do something else, like take a walk to the back wall and
back on each point, as Sharapova does.
-- Larry (just back from a week of working the ATP Legg Mason tournament...)
Ron Shepard
JakartaDean <deanb...@forteinc.com> wrote:
> > bk4...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> OK, so they put a stopwatch and Woods and Harrington on Sunday. They
> >> both seemed to suggest that it effected their play.
I read a short article about this, and Tiger Woods, the winner, was
apparently fined for statements he made to the press afterwards.
Woods said he told Harrington after it was over, "I'm sorry that
John [the official] got in the way of a great battle."
"I don't think that Paddy would have hit the pitch shot that way if
he was able to take his time, look at it, analyze it," Woods said.
"But he was on the clock, had to get up there quickly and hit it."
> >> Who knows about time limits in PGA golf? Why'd they do it? Was it
> >> fair? Any lesson we can learn from this for pool?
> >> Bob Keller
> >>
> >
> As an aside, what about tennis? The men these days insist on receiving
> three balls before they serve, then they inspect them and give one back.
> These balls have been out of the can for about 45 minutes at most,and
> only hit a few times. I'm guessing a best-of-five match must take at
> least 20-30 minutes longer just because of this stall, which I imagine
> they do because it gives them time to get mentally ready to serve.
All three games are different, of course, but there are also some
similarities in the situations regarding shot clocks. In tennis,
for example, the timing of the shots during play is determined by
the moving ball itself, so it is only the time before the serve that
can be regulated. In pool, the time that the balls roll on the
table is usually not included on the clock, it is only the period
after the last ball stops rolling and the before the tip hits the
ball on the next shot that is timed. I don't know how it is done in
golf in this respect.
But I think the important difference is that in pool there are a
large number of possible shots that can be taken (depending on the
game, of course), each of which has different offensive and
defensive facets (also depending on the game). And the first shot
that comes to mind is often not the one you eventually choose. This
is not the case with lesser games such as golf, which is all offense
with relatively little tactics involved in the decisions compared to
pool.
When you watch pool, one of the things you pay to see is how they
solve these tactical problems. If a shot clock takes away that
problem-solving process then it takes away a significant, if not the
major, spectator aspect of the game. I like to see players take
unexpected or unanticipated shots, especially something like an
easy-to-execute game-winning safety that I had not even considered.
It also adds a new tactical facet that is not otherwise there,
gaming the clock. This occurs routinely in other sports such as
football and basketball, where late in the last quarter of the game
the tactics of the winning team change completely and obviously for
the purpose of running out the clock. In basketball, the winning
team might switch to a full court press in order to slow down the
game, or in football the winning team might wait until the end of
the play limit and simply fall on the ball in place in order to
reset the play clock without risking a fumble or pass interception.
That might not be a bad thing in these other games, but is that the
type of tactic you really want to see in a pool match?
I realize that there are scheduling problems involving tournaments,
especially if live TV coverage is a goal, but shot clocks affect
different games in different ways. Some games might even benefit
from a clock (e.g. speed chess). But I don't see much benefit to
pool games, especially the ones like 14.1, 9-ball, and one-pocket
that are popular in part because of the richness of their tactics.
I would much rather forgo live coverage and watch instead delayed
coverage, possibly with the option of having the deadtime edited out.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
bk4...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In article <j4bgm.526803$Tp1.120...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>,
>
> JakartaDean <deanb43...@forteinc.com> wrote:
Thanks for the usual detailed analysis, Ron.
To that I would say that even though there is no defense in golf,
those players still have to evaluate many different things before
making a decision on how and where to attempt to hit a shot.
Occasionally their input even includes whether a player close to them
on the leader board has just hit a shot well or poorly. So I would
suspect that the golf spectators would also have preferred to see
Woods and Harrington take their usual time on those last few shots.
I suspect you agree?
I think the shot clock in pool is to keep it moving for TV, just like
the golf shot clock. Here's my suggestion: the penalty you pay for
watching on TV versus being in the live audience is you don't get to
see all of the players' pre-shot routine. IOW, enforce the shot clock
on the BROADCAST, not on the PLAYERS.
Whaddyaall think of that?
Bob Keller
John Black
@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, bk4...@hotmail.com says...
> I think the shot clock in pool is to keep it moving for TV, just like
> the golf shot clock. Here's my suggestion: the penalty you pay for
> watching on TV versus being in the live audience is you don't get to
> see all of the players' pre-shot routine. IOW, enforce the shot clock
> on the BROADCAST, not on the PLAYERS.
> Whaddyaall think of that?
The live audience does not want to sit there until 3am either. I still say
the shot clock is the lesser of many evils. Since the overwhelming majority
of shots are routine, allowing extensions eliminates most of the problems
where players get rushed in a difficult situation and are forced to make a
bad decision.
John Black
Ron Shepard
<be2ccd89-887a-4715...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
"bk4...@hotmail.com" <bk4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> IOW, enforce the shot clock
> on the BROADCAST, not on the PLAYERS.
> Whaddyaall think of that?
Yes, I think this would be the best approach. Perhaps they could
show both types of matches on TV, the edited form during primetime
hours where they sell the expensive commercial time, and the longer
unedited version at 2am or something for us hardcore types who will
record it and watch every shot in detail. We would get stuck
watching the cheap commercials, extenZ or whatever.
All in all, I think it is tough to make pool fit into a time slot
without this kind of editing. Some sports already don't fit into
slots very well (baseball and tennis for example), and they show how
difficult it would be to show pool in primetime with the same kind
of scheduling problems. On the other hand, golf is broadcast on
about 100 channels, and it is always shown in an edited form. Even
if it is live, they switch all around the course showing different
players on different shots, they never just show one player going
from hole to hole, that would be too boring even for golf fans. But
golf has this advantage that it has almost no tactics, so you don't
lose much with all the jumping around. Pool isn't like that, there
is a flow that the spectators need to follow, and it isn't just a
sequence of individual unrelated shots that can be taken out of
context.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
JakartaDean
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:43:31 +0700, JakartaDean <deanb...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>
>> As an aside, what about tennis? The men these days insist on receiving
>> three balls b
> the chair umpire is doing his job, since the ATP and WTA have had a hard
> 25-second time limit for many years. If the players didn't muck around with the
> balls, they'd probably do something else, like take a walk to the back wall and
> back on each point, as Sharapova does.
>
> -- Larry (just back from a week of working the ATP Legg Mason tournament...)
Thanks, I didn't know that.
Dean