Slow play?

[The Statman]

I think the game needs to take a leaf out of 8 ball pool and introduce a time limit for all shots. I honestly think if players knew that a rule was in place they would all benefit in the long run.

Last season for instance I made a number of comments about Selby playing slow and using gamesmanship and thankfully he sped up his play this season and looks all the better for it.

When players think too long and take time it only adds to the pressure and usually slow games are in the majority of cases very poor or below standard average. It would also benefit the audience as a paying crowd they are entitled to watch a game played at a good speed and not a borefest that many matches seem to be these days.

No!

One of the fundamental things of snooker is that, sometimes, shots take a great deal of thinking about. Even Ronnie O'Sullivan at his best (and actually, when he's at his best it is more likely to happen because he takes his safety seriously too) sometimes takes a large amount of time considering a safety shot - and when that thought process is borne out with the best possibly reply, it reaps rewards far in excess of what the length of time thinking about it denies.

No, you can keep your shot clock as far as I am concerned. You could, as I suggested above, have some kind of average shot time limit, but limits on each individual shot would knock the stuffing out of the game of snooker.

We have this perception of so-called Ronnieites who think that the world revolves around his speed around the table, but in fact he is the best example of a player who, when so inclined, can commit a great deal of thought into getting the exact result that he can out of a shot. Anyone who disagrees is, frankly, blinkered towards the potting game to the detriment of appreciating even Ronnie's magnificent safety game.

[The Statman]

Let me add to that, if I may - one might counterargue that no negative effects are seen in the Premier League, but I wonder if that's true.

For sure the big breaks seem to flow under the shot clock. But to what extent is that down to fluffed safety shots that are played in under 25 seconds when the situation of the balls naturally asks for more than that?

Unfortunately I don't have access to channels that air the Premier League so I see very little of it. But you can't tell me that players are able to give every situation the warranted full thought when limited to 25 seconds' thinking time.

Add to that the pressure of ranking points which all but the very highest ranked will be under, if a shot clock were introdiced into ranking tournaments, and you will see that one of the major facets of the game of snooker will, on occasion, be bypassed immediately.

Sorry of this seems a bit of a rant after a huge intake of beer, but in essence that's exactly what it is!

[Mal]

Totally agree Statman. The best breaks IMO are not the ones where someone clears in 5, 6 or 7 minutes (although these are good to watch a player flowing). The best breaks are the ones where people have to think about dislodging balls, getting pink and black into play, clearing from behind and having to take high value colours etc etc. and these breaks require concentration and thought.

And the frames I enjoy most are those where their is a tactical battle - with high class safety, not where people are missing loads of chances of course.

Referees perhaps should be stronger. People complained about Ebdon in WC QF vs Ronnie - i personally think it was his intense concentration - no doubt Ebdon is always one of the most sporting players in victory or defeat. But, back to the point, the referee should have said something to Peter.

[Rane]

Well you have all said it up there. The day snooker is only ton after ton after ton, I won´t be watching anymore, thats for sure. The real drama comes in the close matches, and that is the best thing about snooker by my opinion.

[poolqjunkie]

When I watched snooker, I want to learn from watching the pros. Sometimes, there will come situations whereas I would ask myself what should I do, and what would the pros do. I have learned a lot watching how they solve these puzzles at the table. With the shot clock, I do not always see the best reply. Sometimes, it is just a rush shot based on luck.
I think this lowers the standards of the game.

[alexholowczak]

Maybe they could use chess clocks. Start off with 1 minute on their clocks, and after every shot they get another 30 seconds. If they run out of time, they lose the frame. After each shot, a player has to sprint back to his chair to press the clock. That'll liven it up a bit!

[dantuck_7]

Just a few comments from me on the Premier League. I've been to a couple of the games and watched a fair bit of it and the players have a certain number of timeouts permitted. So, if some thought is needed a timeout is called and then the pondering begins. I feel it does still make for a very good standard of play. You can't really compare with ranking events - because as has been said there is less pressure with no ranking positions to play for.

As for the comment about the average shot-time from TS - this could be an option but it would probably be worth excluding say the 2 longest shots when safeties are being considered, this would give you a better picture of how long each player was taking. But, this is going to obviously be a bit biased toward the quicker players. Personnally, the drawn out affairs are good to watch - Gunnell was probably playing for the biggest cheque of his life against Davis - he has the right to grind away.

[daveinaustria]

What I don't like is the inconsistency that is sometimes shown in executing the rule. I think everyone remembers the controversy a few years ago when Ebdon deliberately slowed down O'Sullivan in the World Championship to grind out a win without so much as a warning. What bothered me though, was that in the same competition, Joe Swail was faced with an incredibly difficult shot that required a great deal of thought about getting the cue ball safe and yet was told to make his shot by the ref.

[kevy62]

What I don't like is the inconsistency that is sometimes shown in executing the rule. I think everyone remembers the controversy a few years ago when Ebdon deliberately slowed down O'Sullivan in the World Championship to grind out a win without so much as a warning. What bothered me though, was that in the same competition, Joe Swail was faced with an incredibly difficult shot that required a great deal of thought about getting the cue ball safe and yet was told to make his shot by the ref.

well said!

although i don't really want a time clock , perhaps something needs to be established that can actually be enforced by all referee's, rather than just guidelines & some referee's with nothing more than good intensions.

we all know about the 1 minute rule in 8 ball pool & the need to address the table within thirty seconds & then warned after 30 seconds have passed so as to enable enough time to play a shot, timeouts need to be called if a rest is required & on & on & on.

Ok you say, but in pool you only ever have the same object ball when both players are on the black (rare) this takes far less time to figure out a shot, so really there is very little corolation between the two games. unless you want snooker to go down this path, i would advise this gets sorted asap , speed snooker? i do hope not :snooker:

[vmax4steve]

The referees know the game and if the situation a player is in is difficult or not. The referees also know the players as they referee their matches regularly.
It was very obvious to me in the Ebdon v O'Sullivan WC QF that Ebdon was not only playing deliberately slowly but was leaving the arena after almost every frame in an attempt to put O'Sullivan off his game, and thanks to the referee being weak and gutless he succeeded.
It must be remembered that Ebdon also did this to Tony Drago claiming after the match that he was ill, which was clearly bollocks, again the referee in this match was weak and gutless.
The referees know that some players are slow and some are fast, but they also know that some players concentration is easily broken by gamesmanship and when this is used as a tactic they should be strong enough to do something about it.
The game of snooker needs diversity and tactical battles are just as ingrossing as hundred breaks but there is no reason why all tactical battles have to be slow, the final frame of the 1985 final is a perfect example, the frame took an hour yet neither player took an unneccessary amount of time over each shot, there just happened to be a lot of safety.

[Odrl]

Yeah, but there is nothing in the rules against playing slowly deliberately. Players are warned when they take "an abnormal amount of time over a stroke", deliberate or not.

A player is allowed to deliberately slow down the tempo, as long as they don't cross the "abnormal" line.

If your oponent prefers a quick tempo, you have the option to slow down, and rightly so.

The Ebdon-O'Sullivan match is the perfect example. The question should be: did Ebdon take an abnormal amount of time over shots? Not if he did it on purpose.

[RocketRoy1983]

I am a fairly quick player with probably an average shot time of around 15 seconds or so and I miss a fair few shots i should pot. My fav player is Ronnie who too is fairly quick!

But I dont believe anything needs to be done about slow play unless its BLATANT as everyone is different on and off the table and they shouldnt be penalised for this.

[poolqjunkie]

Some may argue that slow play makes the game unbearable to watch on TV. I am not sure. Golf is really slow, too--they would take one shot, wait for someone else to shot, then walk, then take another shot...

I think if it is done on purpose, then it should be warned. It is a tough call. But if the layout is tough, or if the game is really important, it warrants more thinking.

How does the warning work? If a player receive a warning in the beginning, and then he is still considered to be slow, does he get warned again, lose the frame right away, or lose some foul points...?

[kevy62]

The referees know the game and if the situation a player is in is difficult or not. The referees also know the players as they referee their matches regularly.
It was very obvious to me in the Ebdon v O'Sullivan WC QF that Ebdon was not only playing deliberately slowly but was leaving the arena after almost every frame in an attempt to put O'Sullivan off his game, and thanks to the referee being weak and gutless he succeeded.
It must be remembered that Ebdon also did this to Tony Drago claiming after the match that he was ill, which was clearly bollocks, again the referee in this match was weak and gutless.
The referees know that some players are slow and some are fast, but they also know that some players concentration is easily broken by gamesmanship and when this is used as a tactic they should be strong enough to do something about it.
The game of snooker needs diversity and tactical battles are just as ingrossing as hundred breaks but there is no reason why all tactical battles have to be slow, the final frame of the 1985 final is a perfect example, the frame took an hour yet neither player took an unneccessary amount of time over each shot, there just happened to be a lot of safety.

You are quite right to point out one or two problems within the time allowed guidelines, although i do like the odd tactical battle , that does not actually mean, slow boring shots designed to play just a spoiling frame, & mess with your opponents head.

I have always thought that this tactic is very poor sportsmanship / bordering on blatant gamesmanship

[poolqjunkie]

Sometimes, a player can lose his own stroke and rhythm when he tries to out slow his opponent.