The feasibility of implementing a chess clock in one pocket tournaments

[lfigueroa]

I agree wholeheartedly. Most of this is caused by a few bad actors. I have no problem telling them they can't play or DQ'ing them for slow play, but how many others are that brutal? I would say not many. So we need an objective measure to 1) Identify the problem children, 2) punishing them with an objective measure instead of subjectively "picking on them". If everyone knows that they are subject to be put on the clock for slow play, then nobody can cry when they go over the time (average 1 hour per game played). And if you go over time, you lose. Cut and dry. Nobody is picking on you. I think we get to the same place, Lou, it's just the lawyer in me seeks some due process and even handedness before the axe falls.

ah, an attorney who seeks due process!

I think slow play is just the old: know it when you see it. It can take different forms: from studying shots forever, to passing on offensive shots, to purposely shooting everything up table at every opportunity, or more likely a combination. Besides, we all know who the slow players are. But there is no bright red line or calibrated yardstick.

You know it when you see it and so will an experienced TD.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

lol, I can think of any number of players, pro and amateur, who after blowing a shot, will return to the shot clock and smash it fist first into oblivion to punch their time in.

Lou Figueroa
just sayin'

 

[unoperro]

Geez I thought Ronnie Alan changed traditional 1 pocket. Have I been misled?

 

[Jeff sparks]

I agree wholeheartedly. Most of this is caused by a few bad actors. I have no problem telling them they can't play or DQ'ing them for slow play, but how many others are that brutal? I would say not many. So we need an objective measure to 1) Identify the problem children, 2) punishing them with an objective measure instead of subjectively "picking on them". If everyone knows that they are subject to be put on the clock for slow play, then nobody can cry when they go over the time (average 1 hour per game played). And if you go over time, you lose. Cut and dry. Nobody is picking on you. I think we get to the same place, Lou, it's just the lawyer in me seeks some due process and even handedness before the axe falls.

Well if this is all true, then there in lies the solution… seems simple enough… no clocks or Grady rule, just single out the offenders,
warn them, if they do not comply, DQ them… problem solved, why look further…

 

[baby huey]

We keep thinking the slow play or Wedge Game or stalling or something else soley creates the lengthy matches. We had a number of seniors who don't pocket balls very well and don't play at a younger persons pace such that their matches took hours to play. It's not always about purposely trying to extend the length of time rather it's just some players just don't play that well and play because they want to compete and be in the mix. That goes for DCC as well and maybe moreso there. It's like golf. Who wouldn't want to play a round with Woods, Rahm or anyone else just because they could. They shoot 90 the pro's shoot 70. How long would that round take?

 

[NH Steve]

lol, I can think of any number of players, pro and amateur, who after blowing a shot, will return to the shot clock and smash it fist first into oblivion to punch their time in.

Lou Figueroa
just sayin'

Goodby to them in the tournament, that would be the easy part lol. The clocks, the 1B1P, no matter what you pick, if you have a player that refuses to play along, you give the TD an easy reason to DQ that player.

I don't see the Grady rule hurting anyone. It helps ALL THE MATCHES avoid lengthy games, and that helps the flow of the entire tournament -- nothing to do with singling out certain players. I am making the assumption that the Grady rule applies throughout the tournament here, which is the only way I have personally seen it used.

If you only brought it out for matches that are behind schedule, then you have half a point Lou. I say "half" because the Grady rule really is no big deal. Either player can still wedge up 4 balls, which is a significant number of balls -- even more significant the fewer balls there are in total on the table.

 

[lfigueroa]

Goodby to them in the tournament, that would be the easy part lol. The clocks, the 1B1P, no matter what you pick, if you have a player that refuses to play along, you give the TD an easy reason to DQ that player.

I don't see the Grady rule hurting anyone. It helps ALL THE MATCHES avoid lengthy games, and that helps the flow of the entire tournament -- nothing to do with singling out certain players. I am making the assumption that the Grady rule applies throughout the tournament here, which is the only way I have personally seen it used.

If you only brought it out for matches that are behind schedule, then you have half a point Lou. I say "half" because the Grady rule really is no big deal. Either player can still wedge up 4 balls, which is a significant number of balls -- even more significant the fewer balls there are in total on the table.

The Grady Rule hurts players because they are not accustomed to playing them.

*All their pool playing lives,* perhaps for decades, they have played traditional 1pocket. Now you put rules on them that they will almost inevitably sleep. If you've ever -- and who hasn't -- unintentionally pocketed an up table ball and had it spot to leave a straight in or dead bank you know what a profound impact that kind of thing can have on the outcome of a game.

It is ludicrous to throw that on players, deep in concentration in a tournament.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Tobermory]

The Grady Rule hurts players because they are not accustomed to playing them.

*All their pool playing lives,* perhaps for decades, they have played traditional 1pocket. Now you put rules on them that they will almost inevitably sleep. If you've ever -- and who hasn't -- unintentionally pocketed an up table ball and had it spot to leave a straight in or dead bank you know what a profound impact that kind of thing can have on the outcome of a game.

It is ludicrous to throw that on players, deep in concentration in a tournament.

Lou Figueroa

This argument belies the evidence. I've played the usual rules for decades. At the Hague5 tournament, the Grady rule was applied for the first time in my playing career. I was surprised the first time the rule was invoked. After that, I knew it was coming and adjusted my playing strategies accordingly. No big deal for me, and I didn't hear one complaint from anybody else in the room. It is silly to suggest that anybody will have prolonged difficulty coping with this rule.

 

[NH Steve]

Let’s not overlook, TD’s need to have tools to keep their 1P tournaments flowing — or there will come a straw that breaks the back — like at Bogie’s Senior. The Grady rule is pretty benign compared to about everything else, and it is not hard for the TD’s to incorporate either…

 

[HowardK]

The Grady Rule hurts players because they are not accustomed to playing them.

*All their pool playing lives,* perhaps for decades, they have played traditional 1pocket. Now you put rules on them that they will almost inevitably sleep. If you've ever -- and who hasn't -- unintentionally pocketed an up table ball and had it spot to leave a straight in or dead bank you know what a profound impact that kind of thing can have on the outcome of a game.

It is ludicrous to throw that on players, deep in concentration in a tournament.

Lou Figueroa

I remember Hard Times implemented a total time rule. The total time of maximum games was set. If the players had not completed their match at that set time. whoever was ahead was automatically declared the winner. In the event that the games are even, then I would like to see a OBOP playoff. Lag for break.

 

[Pogue]

You are not required to use the hour. But one game out of the set may need that much time. Races to 3 should not take 6 hours. With this format, the longest game will be about an hour. Eventually, once everyone gets used to the clock, we will give you an aggregate time to finish your match. The time will be decided based on this formula. But you're right, you probably don't need 30 minutes a game per player. Once we get adequate data, we'll have a tighter time estimate.

The chess clock should be for the match, not per game. And should include the 5 minute break for each player. Once the clock starts, it does not stop until the match ends. That way, if someone runs 8 and out quickly, now both players have time to grind out the win in the next game, without being under time pressure "so much".

And if this becomes the standard, players will practice playing with chess clocks, just like they practice any other skill needed to win. Players will start to see the shots faster, on the whole.

 

[Pogue]

Two things to keep in mind here (OK, maybe three lol).

1. Most matches are fine under standard One Pocket rules, so absolutely nothing needs to change for most matches -- that is a blessing!
2. TD's do need some ways to speed up certain matches, and many of those measures do change the game, at least in subtle ways, and possibly in major ways. But if you have troublesome matches, as Lou said, TD's have to be able to do what they need to do to reign them in for the good of the greater tournament as a whole (not to mention the viewers!)
3. The basic Accustats style shot clock is the least intrusive tool to speed up players and make a game more watchable. However, shot clocks have the issue of needing a visible clock and a competent volunteer or official; that is most practical only on stream tables.

So if you are going to impact the game by whatever serious measures TD's have to take to reign in the match times on all of the non-officiated matches, what are the best options for the TD's, with the least impact on the game? And keep in mind "best options" also means, what options will the players best understand, and at least grudgingly accept as necessary?

An overall game clock would certainly put a hard cap on how long a game could last. My concerns about that are number one, we don't know what the unintended consequences of that might be. You could in fact have one player intentionally sending balls up table to drag out a game because they have more time left on their clock than their opponent does! That would sure ruin the game, and as a fan, it would accomplish exactly the opposite of what we as fans want. The second thing is, you could end up "ruining" a fantastic hill-hill match between two players, with lots of spectators glued to the drama -- but then the clock kills it!

The first thing to do in my opinion would be to warn players who are running over. And if they run over once, get their next match in front of the TD desk and put them on a clock first. If that is not enough, then you have to go with something more extreme.

More extreme measures (after basic shot clock) -- pick your poison lol:

• Game clock
• Grady Rule
• Shortened races
• Shorten the number of balls needed for a win
• My personal rather interesting idea is to add a "two point shot" -- Any time more than one ball is in the kitchen a player could "call" a 2-point shot -- meaning if they make a ball from behind the head string, they get to "pick" a second ball from behind the head string and add that to their scoring as well. If there is no ball available in the kitchen to pick, then of course it is only worth one. This idea would at least be fun to watch, with more aggressive play on balls behind the head string! Football has "going for 2" and Basketball has a 3-point shot, so why not

You do bring up valid points about players who will game the clock with uptable games. Perhaps a combination of Grady rules + clock?

Keep in mind... Statistics of individual match times are easy enough to keep. You "tag" players as slow after the first match or two (or across different years), and THEY are the ones that get a clock for their matches, without impacting other matches.

And as far as the bolded part... the chess clock could be the greatest thing ever for people sweating a match. Hook up the clock to a display the viewers can see, the players cannot (for an arena match..). If a player forgets to hit their clock and the other player is playing on their time, and the crowd knows it? That would be fantastic! A slow, methodical player gets ahead in the match score, but now is under constant time pressure "paying the piper", as it were, which forces mistakes, and dramatic turnarounds in score due to those mistakes? Also fantastic for viewers!

And here's the thing.. It doesn't have to be two superpros to make a match like this watchable... I'd literally stop to watch any match where one or both players is/are under time pressure..

Nobody ever said pool has to be played perfectly to be enjoyable to watch, or play. Plenty of other sports have time pressure, and it really ADDS drama to the game. Clock ticking, down in the score with 3 minutes to make something happen.. What's not to love?

As far as uptable games? Pshaw. People will practice banking off the head rail more. Players will always adapt. Might make players more willing to shoot at their hole early, before the balls can be moved uptable. Nobody said tournament One Pocket needs to look like a backroom match with $10,000 on the line. We need the game (whatever game thay might be on the pool table) to be marketable to the masses. If they like the game and want to try it out later, they can always play without time limitations in their home hall.

 

[Pogue]

Chess clocks work perfectly for chess because the players are just sitting there and it is easy and fast to just hit the button after you make a move. Deploying a chess clock for one pocket would be a nightmare. Players will have to run back to their chairs to hit the button. What happens when balls need to be spotted? Or when a player is about to shoot a shot that needs to be watched by a ref? Bathroom breaks? User errors, and then the ensuing arguments will make it a joke.

If you love wedge games, you won't like the Grady rule. Otherwise, as just demonstrated at the tournament at Hague5, it really does work to keep things moving along, and it doesn't change the way the game is played enough to worry that the integrity of the game is compromised. That tournament ended early each evening, except for the final day that ended before 6. Once you get used to the rule and remember that the balls are coming back up to the spot, you can plan accordingly.

Incorrect. Time allotted per player takes into account target match times, and also takes into account time to rack, spot fouls, bathroom breaks, walking back to your chair, etc. Nobody is elbowing their opponent out of the way to get down on their shot asap. There's always a short time between one player leaving the table, and the next player executing the shot. This is factored into the time each player is given. And the chair is never more than perhaps 10 steps away, if you ended your innjng at the other end of the table. How long does it take to walk 10 steps? Whatever time that is, is captured by average match length anyways, a d time will be set to allow for "longer than average, but within the tournament schedule". If clock is set per match, and not per game, some games will go faster than others, allowing the players time to think when they need it on other games.

 

[Pogue]

questions who is in charge of punching oponents clock. if clock is not punched is there way to put time back is there a way to pause clock if yo uforget to punch clock is there a penalty. ect ect

You are responsible for hitting your button when you get back to your seat, which starts your opponents clock. If you forget, then oh well, buddy. Your opponent is playing on the gift of your time, and if you keep forgetting, then you're gonna have a baddddddddd day, mmmkay?

And no, time is not added to your clock. You stop the clock only if a ref call needs to be made. All bathroom breaks, spotting of balls, etc occurs on the time clock of the player in control of the table on that inning. You get one free break for each match for a tournament ref call, and after that, you better find an immediately accessible player to make the call. Not optimal, but necessary for the health of the event itself.

This last part may take some tweaking.

 

[Pogue]

The players will handle the time.

Please make sure the stream is displaying individual player's remaining time. Even if only a small additional camera centered on the clock.

 

[Pogue]

I hadn't seen before that the players will be pushing the button for their opponents rather than for themselves as in speed chess. That should eliminate the foot races but may open the door to tomfoolery. When I push the button to stop my opponent's clock after he shoots, does that automatically start my clock to run? What will be the mechanism to ensure that my opponent stops my clock after I shoot? What will be the rule about the time it takes to spot up balls after fouls or inadvertent pocketing? What about the time it takes for rules disputes that require discussion or resolution?

That is not how chess clocks work at all. You push YOUR button on YOUR side of the clock to STOP your time, and START your opponent's time. If you forget, you simply allow your opponent to play on your time, and if you keep forgetting, you will put yourself in self-inflicted time trouble.

There is a VERY strong incentive to hit your button when you get back to your seat.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

I like using the Grady rule throughout. It works, its well known and was invented for exactly this reason. No reason not too use it in a time constrained tournament setting.
After thinking a bit more I like matches that are behind at a certain point to be warned, break the next game rack full rack except only go to 4 balls to win.
Another option that has never been discussed is to give a warning that at a certain time go full Grady on them...put a marker on the table any ball in the kitchen spots...lol.
Personally I think going full one ball one pocket is a last resort and not desirable.

I do think a clock has its place. One can be started and give to each match to show the match time, allowed match time and notify the players at certain points of upcoming slow play rules that are enforced at certain time.
Like at 2.5 hrs of a 3/3 race in a 3.5 hr limit match... If the 5th game hasn't started each player is warned, has one inning a piece and no ball in the kitchen rule starts for the current game. Still behind on time after its tied up 2-2 then the case game could be decided with no ball in the kitchen and 4 balls win.

 

[Pogue]

I like using the Grady rule throughout. It works, its well known and was invented for exactly this reason. No reason not too use it in a time constrained tournament setting.
After thinking a bit more I like matches that are behind at a certain point to be warned, break the next game rack full rack except only go to 4 balls to win.
Another option that has never been discussed is to give a warning that at a certain time go full Grady on them...put a marker on the table any ball in the kitchen spots...lol.
Personally I think going full one ball one pocket is a last resort and not desirable.

I do think a clock has its place. One can be started and give to each match to show the match time, allowed match time and notify the players at certain points of upcoming slow play rules that are enforced at certain time.
Like at 2.5 hrs of a 3/3 race in a 3.5 hr limit match... If the 5th game hasn't started each player is warned, has one inning a piece and no ball in the kitchen rule starts for the current game. Still behind on time after its tied up 2-2 then the case game could be decided with no ball in the kitchen and 4 balls win.

Yeah... But this just complicates the rules, and makes it harder for a non One Pocket player to understand. Set amount of time per player makes it super simple for non hardcore spectators, speeds up the game, and implements time pressure, which is always good for the fans. Fouls and spotting of balls already takes some getting used to, without having to explain to viewers what the Grady rule is. Just implement the time, and let the chips fall where they may. Slow players who attempt to game the clock with uptable games will find their speedier opponent still outpacing them, and getting themselves in time trouble, which will force mistakes later. Faster players will adapt, and if folks play the wedge, lettem. It won't win against a faster player, because they will just outpace the slow player and force a win on time.

Once it becomes clear an uptable wedge will lose 100% of the time to a faster player, folks will shoot at their hole more. But in any case... Let's just TRY the chess clocks with a set amount of time, a d see what works, and what needs ro be adjusted, without overly burdensome rules. We might see some tactics we really like, and either way, I think the time prssure will be a nice element for fans.

We don't need two hour wedge games in tournaments. Like, at ALL. If wedge games become an issue, give less time to each player, to encourage a more tournament-friendly downtable game.

As I said before, nobody said tournament One Pocket needs to look exactly like the backroom games between the Ancient Mariner and Methuselah.

 

[Pogue]

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.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

Yeah... But this just complicates the rules, and makes it harder for a non One Pocket player to understand. Set amount of time per player makes it super simple for non hardcore spectators, speeds up the game, and implements time pressure, which is always good for the fans. Fouls and spotting of balls already takes some getting used to, without having to explain to viewers what the Grady rule is. Just implement the time, and let the chips fall where they may. Slow players who attempt to game the clock with uptable games will find their speedier opponent still outpacing them, and getting themselves in time trouble, which will force mistakes later. Faster players will adapt, and if folks play the wedge, lettem. It won't win against a faster player, because they will just outpace the slow player and force a win on time.

Once it becomes clear an uptable wedge will lose 100% of the time to a faster player, folks will shoot at their hole more. But in any case... Let's just TRY the chess clocks with a set amount of time, a d see what works, and what needs ro be adjusted, without overly burdensome rules. We might see some tactics we really like, and either way, I think the time prssure will be a nice element for fans.

We don't need two hour wedge games in tournaments. Like, at ALL. If wedge games become an issue, give less time to each player, to encourage a more tournament-friendly downtable game.

As I said before, nobody said tournament One Pocket needs to look exactly like the backroom games between the Ancient Mariner and Methuselah.

How you figure a wedge player must lose to a faster player. That doesn't compute. A wedge player can still play a faster wedge game than their opponent. Heck a younger player could force a wedge against a older or heavier player every game to wear you out running back and forth to the table. They could actually force a wedge to wear you out.. I've done it without a clock to a guy who was being a jerk...lol
Grady rules are well known, only used occasionally during a game and adds back a level of strategy that it removes from the game. A clock has to be managed every single shot and can obviously be used to disadvantage your opponent.

The end goal here should be to play a fair pace of play for everybody, not to create speed one pocket or ban players.
Props to Joe and Ray for trying something new whatever they decide. Much respect for trying to fix the extended match play guys. Its a tough nut to crack.