Post a reply

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Skullman

Andy Spark wrote:
Sonny wrote:
I agree that if a player is taking an excessive amount of time then the referee should step in, but that's not a shot clock.

An "excessive amount of time" being up to the refs judgement sounds like a reasonable rule but fails in practice. How often have you seen a ref step in and warn a player? The system is not robust enough to work because there is so much subjectivity that the ref normally chooses not to step in, and due to that fact when a ref does take it upon himself to step in the player is likely to feel awful and thus it upsets him and disrupts his game; consequently the entire good nature of the sporting contest is ruined.


And a beeping shot clock doesn't do that?

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Sickpotter

Andy Spark wrote:
Sonny wrote:
I agree that if a player is taking an excessive amount of time then the referee should step in, but that's not a shot clock.

An "excessive amount of time" being up to the refs judgement sounds like a reasonable rule but fails in practice. How often have you seen a ref step in and warn a player? The system is not robust enough to work because there is so much subjectivity that the ref normally chooses not to step in, and due to that fact when a ref does take it upon himself to step in the player is likely to feel awful and thus it upsets him and disrupts his game; consequently the entire good nature of the sporting contest is ruined.


So you think implementing a rule that disrupts many players rather than allowing refs to occasionally upset one player with a reprimand is a good idea?

<doh>

Slow play is not an issue and shot clocks have no place in ranking events.

If you feel you need a shot clock to keep snooker moving at a pace that you like you probably have a degree of ADD and should consider a switch to a sport that moves at a pace you can deal with.

Honestly it never ceases to amaze me that fans think they should be allowed to dictate pace of play when it's the players who have their jobs/income on the line. :shrug:

The day the players push for a shot clock is the day I'll support it.

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Wildey

Sickpotter wrote:The day the players push for a shot clock is the day I'll support it.

well Graeme Dott is a supporter of it lol

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Sickpotter

Wildey wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:The day the players push for a shot clock is the day I'll support it.

well Graeme Dott is a supporter of it lol


Dott may support it but he isn't pushing for it. One also needs to consider when he came out in support of it...did he just finish a long gruelling match against Ebdon? No player should be asked about shot clocks after a match with Ebdon ;-)

IMO if the majority of the top 32 players started to push for a shot clock it would be a clear indication that slow play has become a problem, I just don't see anything of the sort. We get the odd comment here and there from pros after a particularly long match but no organized push for a change.

In the end our opinions don't matter, only those who stand to lose their lively hood are entitled to push for rule changes.

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Andy Spark

Sickpotter wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:An "excessive amount of time" being up to the refs judgement sounds like a reasonable rule but fails in practice. How often have you seen a ref step in and warn a player? The system is not robust enough to work because there is so much subjectivity that the ref normally chooses not to step in, and due to that fact when a ref does take it upon himself to step in the player is likely to feel awful and thus it upsets him and disrupts his game; consequently the entire good nature of the sporting contest is ruined.


So you think implementing a rule that disrupts many players rather than allowing refs to occasionally upset one player with a reprimand is a good idea?


This idea that we are somehow initiating disruption to play by disrupting the slow players if we produce a shot clock, I don't buy it! What about the disruption already to the faster players style throughout normal play! Faster players have to wait ages for Peter Ebdon or whoever to get on with it and they already suffer disruption. It's not as easy as it might seem to keep your patience while you are sat in your chair for long periods watching a player (according to your own speed of play) crawl around the table like a narcoleptic tortoise.


At swimming pools the system they often use is two or three lanes for lengths, so slow swimmers can go at their own pace in the slow lane while fast swimmers can go at their own pace in the fast lane. It seems a perfectly sensible system to adopt for snooker. Also faster styles happen to be more marketable, it make sense not to stand in their way.

I think people here are thinking about the shot clock as a threat to normal snooker but it isn't! It's a fantastic chance to differentiate the products on offer. Would Wimbledon be as special if it was just another long rally hard court tennis event? No, it stands out because it's different.

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Sickpotter

If the faster players can't deal with the time they have to spend waiting while the other player plods then keep them off the table with superior play. Inability to wait patiently while your opponent plays is a serious mental weakness that no top player should fall victim to on a regular basis.

I'm not sure I grasp your swimming analogy.....there's only ever one person shooting at a time at snooker.

That just gave me a thought of what could be an amusing variation.....putting two cue balls on the table and having both players go at it at the same time.....rules might take me a while though ;-)

I'm not saying there's no room for shot clock events, lots of other variations on the go, mostly trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of fans. These variations do bring a wider spectrum of fans which brings money into the game....that can never be bad. <ok>

Just leave ranking events alone, there's no call for or need for shot clocks there. :hatoff:

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Wildey

Andy

if a player cant cope with slow play thats their problem you could argue that a fast player will disturb a slow player rhythm by playing fast anyway adding a shot clock is artificial and not allowing someone to play their natural game.

the Table is yours while your opponent in their seat.

make the most of the chance you got.

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Andy Spark

I think that it is far easier as a slow player to cope with sitting in his chair while a fast player speeds round the table than it is for a fast player to cope with sitting in his chair while a slow player crawls round the table. For one thing the negative experience is over far more quickly.

It's interesting actually to hear a player like Peter Ebdon saying that a stimulus, such as a shot clock, to play more quickly can help him to focus and clear his mind. I think that there is a certain fast, flowing, instinctive mode that is natural to all players and is as much a part of real snooker as is the potential ten minute safety exchange period in a traditional frame. If we introduce the shot clock into more events I don't believe this is to "dumb down" snooker at all because it's already a way of playing that most people, pros and club players alike, are familiar with. In some ways it could be described as "braining up" snooker because the task is made more difficult. A more difficult clearance is actually a more competitive game because the average number of scoring visits required to win the frame increases.

I talk from a natural fast players perspective. Give me a bottle of chardonnay and a quick game any day!

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Andy Spark

Sonny wrote:Brainwashed

...and of course your single word post indicates is a far broader awareness of the pros and cons. :hatoff:

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby Sickpotter

Andy Spark wrote:
Sonny wrote:Brainwashed

...and of course your single word post indicates is a far broader awareness of the pros and cons. :hatoff:


Andy, you have yet to list any real pros to a shot clock beyond it helping those who have attention deficit issues.

While at the table the player can play at whatever pace they need to....within reason.

The slow player doesn't impede the fast player while they're at the table and vice-versa. No player is prevented from playing their natural game.

That is not the case with shot clocks, that gimmick alone can force a player out of their natural pace and that's wrong.

If the faster player is kept in his seat it's up to them to deal with it. Being kept off the table has nothing to do with pace of play.

Re: Argument for and against shot clocks !!

Postby SnookerFan

Sickpotter wrote:If the faster players can't deal with the time they have to spend waiting while the other player plods then keep them off the table with superior play. Inability to wait patiently while your opponent plays is a serious mental weakness that no top player should fall victim to on a regular basis.

I'm not sure I grasp your swimming analogy.....there's only ever one person shooting at a time at snooker.

That just gave me a thought of what could be an amusing variation.....putting two cue balls on the table and having both players go at it at the same time.....rules might take me a while though ;-)

I'm not saying there's no room for shot clock events, lots of other variations on the go, mostly trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of fans. These variations do bring a wider spectrum of fans which brings money into the game....that can never be bad. <ok>

Just leave ranking events alone, there's no call for or need for shot clocks there. :hatoff:


The bolded is spot on.

This idea that none shot clock play discourages fast play is nonsense of the highest order. There's a difference between no one particular style of play being encouraged and fast play being discouraged.