The Grady rule invokes a variation of 1pocket that is very rarely played by the huge honking vast majority of players.
It is not the standard version of the game most players know and, IMO, you are punishing players that shoot at a normal pace by making them play under Grady rules. As has already been mentioned, if you're not accustomed to playing Grady rules it's likely you're going to sleep balls coming up. Spotting balls at unexpected times -- as every 1pocket player knows when they inadvertently pocket a ball and it spots, lining up perfectly for a straight-in or natural bank -- can dramatically change game outcomes, which is also unfair.
So to return to my basic point, if you have a field of 32 and you only have a couple of guys who shoot slow and/or favor a wedge game, that is a problem that can be solved with a no BS TD. Then, everyone gets to play the classic version of the game that we all love with no undo surprises.
Lou Figueroa
And Matchroom table 4" pockets promote a style of playing 9 ball that most players did not grow up playing. So? The last few matches with the dead money gone were still incredibly good, and fun to watch. Players adapt to the rules.
And to be dead honest. Players are gonna come to DCC, no matter what the rules are. All of us here have likely played bar table tourneys with wonky rules, and the better players see it as a challenge, as to how to win within the rule constraints.
One Pocket was invented as a gambling game, where the goal is to win AT ALL COSTS. Because there was often very big money on matches decades ago. That form of the game is completely incompatible with modern tournament play.
Personally, (and no offense) I don't care what the older players prefer. We need to attract younger players to the game, or the game WILL die off, as older One Pocket players die off. That is unsustainable. We need to simply relegate ourselves to the fact that modern One Pocket is a more offensive game. And fans enjoy watching firepower over moving, and that is a simple fact.
Do we want to cater to older players with failing offensive skills? Or, do we want young, aggressive, sharpshooting players taking up the game? They need tournaments for that, and those tournaments need to finish on time, as to not be absolute torture to play in. And we don't need a bunch of arbitrary new rules to discourage torturous games. The clock will take care of that all on its own.
And to reiterate... What are more people, more likely to tune in to watch? Slow, methodical games? Or fast-paced games where two gunslingers are firing both pistols at each other?
Do people enjoy watching Nick Varner more? Or Tony Chohan? Which one do you think has induced more young players to try out the game?
I could care less if Nick Varner wins another One Pocket event in his life. If he wants to prove something to me (which he almost assuredly does not), then he would show me he can win without the wedge, under time pressure.
I am more than okay with a chess clock inducing more errors. Three hour long, basically almost error free games are an absolute torture to watch.