Post a reply

If you had to choose...

25 seconds
3
33%
40 seconds
6
67%
 
Total votes : 9

Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Roland

Taken from the Eurosport Snooker Review of the Year:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23122009/ ... -2009.html

Rule change for 2010

I think the one thing that's fine with snooker is the rules. However, it will be interesting to see if they bring a shot clock into one of the ranking tournaments. They have it in the Premier League, and it would sort some people out, because there are certain players - mostly from lower down the rankings - who definitely try to slow things down and drag matches out, which is never good to watch. I can't say I'm a big fan of the shot clock but it would be interesting to see, and the big question would be how long would the clock be for? In the Premier League it is 25 seconds but maybe they could make it for 40 seconds in a ranking event because there really is no excuse for most shots to take longer than that.



Let's say for arguements sake they (Hearn and World Snooker) invent a new ranking tournament under shot clock conditions. Which format would be better, 25 or 40 seconds?

For me it has to be 25 seconds. As soon as you start moving to 40 seconds that's when you're in danger of some bright spark declaring it a success and changing the rules for good. 25 seconds is a "feature", 40 seconds is an attempt to change the game.

As for the last sentence in the above quote (It's Dave Hendon in case anyone didn't realise), I completely disagree. There is every excuse for taking longer than 40 seconds when the lay of the balls and state of the match is at stake. Take Mark Selby - some of the best shots he's played, the most inventive shots have come after 1 to 2 minutes consideration. Eliminating these sorts of shots robs the game of integrity and sends out the wrong message. Snooker is in essence a thinking mans game. Giving the hurry up in the name of "entertainment" may bring in some new fans of short attention span, but it will alienate those who genuinely love the game and all aspects of it.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Wildey

nobody averages 40 second a shot ....ok theres some shots that will take longer but really its not worth it having time restrictions these days.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Bourne

25 seconds if you want a playground knockabout
40 seconds if you want something generally resembling snooker

But preferably neither.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:25 seconds if you want a playground knockabout
40 seconds if you want something generally resembling snooker

But preferably neither.


ive seen Ronnie taking a minute on some shots that proves just how tricky some can be and if you got a minimum of 40 mins to play a shot cockerel up's will happen.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Eirebilly

I cant see the point in shot clocks at all. If you look at the average professional player then they mostly average between 18 and 35 seconds over a whol match so the whole shot clock thing is a waste of time.

1 shot may take 3 or 4 seconds to decide (several if they are in the balls) and another may take 1 minute, it all evens out.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Wildey

eirebilly wrote:I cant see the point in shot clocks at all. If you look at the average professional player then they mostly average between 18 and 35 seconds over a whol match so the whole shot clock thing is a waste of time.

1 shot may take 3 or 4 seconds to decide (several if they are in the balls) and another may take 1 minute, it all evens out.


totally agree it is pointless.

for example Dave Harold Shot time vs Higgins would be more than it would be playing Trump or Wenbo because the Higgins safeties would have taken more thought for maximum impact.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Eirebilly

wildJONESEYE wrote:
eirebilly wrote:I cant see the point in shot clocks at all. If you look at the average professional player then they mostly average between 18 and 35 seconds over a whol match so the whole shot clock thing is a waste of time.

1 shot may take 3 or 4 seconds to decide (several if they are in the balls) and another may take 1 minute, it all evens out.


totally agree it is pointless.

for example Dave Harold Shot time vs Higgins would be more than it would be playing Trump or Wenbo because the Higgins safeties would have taken more thought for maximum impact.


The thing is, you have long frames and you have quick frames. I dont know how many times i have seen a frame that goes on for nearly 1 hour (full of quality snooker) to then be follwed up by 4 or 5 frames that only last 10mins or so.

I dont believe that clocks will make that much of a difference except to force more rushed shots which can only mean, IMHO, poorer standard of snooker.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Eirebilly

I just saw my mistake, i meant that over the duration of an average match a players shot time will range between 18 - 25 seconds and not the 18 - 35 seconds as i previously wrote :-)

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Roland

hmmm, 4 votes to 1 in favour of 40 seconds. That means people actually want a shot clock :?

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:hmmm, 4 votes to 1 in favour of 40 seconds. That means people actually want a shot clock :?


no i just think longer the option for a shot clock will be they would vote for it unlike me who didn't vote and seifer who obviously in days before his snookerfanatic exile voted for 25 seconds.

Re: Shot Clock: 25 or 40 seconds?

Postby JohnFromLondonTown

Its got to be 25 seconds surely? That's what a shot clock is there for isn't it, to speed things up?