Ssb - slow news day

[arbitrage]

there would be too much contention as to what is slow and whether the offence is serious enough for a penalty of some sort. why not just introduce a shot clock?

[Odrl]

there would be too much contention as to what is slow and whether the offence is serious enough for a penalty of some sort. why not just introduce a shot clock?

Many reasons, all discussed in detail before... But I suppose the most obvious one is that shot times in snooker vary so dramatically from shot to shot, even when played by the same player. A simple pot around the black spot could take five seconds, while a tricky safety that could lose you the frame could take two minutes.

Having a shot clock at two minutes would be pointless, I think we all agree on that. But at the same time, anything around the 30 second mark (which is often suggested) would mean a player can't play a tricky shot properly, and that's the last thing I would want to see in snooker.

[arbitrage]

PLS and it's rules work fine - and it's very popular as well.

[Odrl]

PLS and it's rules work fine - and it's very popular as well.

Interesting, I would say the opposite. I think it's a great example of how the shot clock doesn't work. The players are forced to get on with it before any tension can build up. In a way it goes against the natural, measured pace of snooker, which is one of snooker's strengths, rather than something we need to fix.

It also forces players into early mistakes and generally lowers the standard of play. The safety exchanges are usually limited to a couple of shots, and that again takes away one of the most intriguing parts of snooker.

I'm not sure how popular it is either... I don't think many snooker fans consider it among their favourite events. Speaking for myself, it fills the time between ranking events, but I wouldn't really miss it if it was gone.

[the montrealer]

HI here is a suggestion if a player takes more than 30 seconds to play a shot its cue ball in hand that would speed the slow player any comments.

[damienlch]

PLS and it's rules work fine - and it's very popular as well.

I think the rules work fine in the PLS context, i.e. for an exhibition event with no ranking points but needs more fine tuning and careful deliberaration before implementing it in ranking tournaments.

There are numerous advantages to a timed event; planning for television coverage would be easier, faster pace means less people nodding off, reduces gamesmanship and makes the players to get on with it, which they'd probably play better that way.

Then again, allowing too much time on the shot clock defeats its very purpose. Also, does the current landscape of the game requires such a change?

It is highly debatable...

[arbitrage]

Interesting, I would say the opposite. I think it's a great example of how the shot clock doesn't work. The players are forced to get on with it before any tension can build up. In a way it goes against the natural, measured pace of snooker, which is one of snooker's strengths, rather than something we need to fix.

It also forces players into early mistakes and generally lowers the standard of play. The safety exchanges are usually limited to a couple of shots, and that again takes away one of the most intriguing parts of snooker.

I'm not sure how popular it is either... I don't think many snooker fans consider it among their favourite events. Speaking for myself, it fills the time between ranking events, but I wouldn't really miss it if it was gone.

point #1. - i think empirical data would suggest there is no bias either way - if you measure pot success, safety success, points scored per frame, highest breaks, breaks above 50 etc., I think you will see that there is little difference between PLS and ranking events.

point #2. - in relation also to point #1, i don't think it lowers the standard of play or safety exchanges - in fact, if you consider the main components of shot speed to be familiarity with the shot angle and positioning of cue ball and then shot execution - then as a professional you should be able to execute that within 25 secs COMFORTABLY. shouldn't the person who is MOST familiar with the angles, pots, positioning of the cue ball and execution be the most deserved player to win?
taking that line of logic if you consider ronnie o'sullivan to be the best player technically the sport has produced (which many experts do) - then the results at PLS reflect this - he is the MOST familiar with the angles, positioning, execution and is therefore one of the fastest as well as most precise - and therefore he has won 9/10 finals he has been in including 6/7 of those with a shot clock.
of course, this is a line of reasoning and not causal evidence - however, i think it is food for thought?

point #3. with regards to popularity, i've never seen an empty seat in any of the matches and i have seen the ratings on SKY which are pretty high - i can't find it anywhere though so you will have to take my word for it. for me personally, this is the way snooker needs to go - not painful, drawn out matches which are unnecessary except for the fact that players like ebdon take advantage of the antiquated rules to torture opponents and the spectators.

[cazmac1]

Why can't we have a separate official monitoring shot time who can direct the ref if there is a problem. After all the ref is totally focused on the game and it would effect his/hers concentration if they were have to keep tabs on slow play.

[Odrl]

point #1. - i think empirical data would suggest there is no bias either way - if you measure pot success, safety success, points scored per frame, highest breaks, breaks above 50 etc., I think you will see that there is little difference between PLS and ranking events.

That's probably true. As I said in the past, No one really takes 25 seconds per shot during breakbuilding, unless there is a difficult shot under pressure to be played, or if they need some extra equipment. It's usually a couple of safety shots that bring the average up. For example, if you pot 10 reds and 10 colours in an average time of 15 seconds, a single safety shot that lasts a minute will take the average up to 17 seconds. Play two safeties like that and it's 19 seconds.

That's why I think the players don't look much different when breakbuilding under the shot clock. On top of that, it's usually only the top players who play in the league, and it doesn't really carry the pressure of a ranking event, so they are more relaxed. There is also the lack of prolonged safety battles, which means the balls rarely go awkward.

point #2. - in relation also to point #1, i don't think it lowers the standard of play or safety exchanges - in fact, if you consider the main components of shot speed to be familiarity with the shot angle and positioning of cue ball and then shot execution - then as a professional you should be able to execute that within 25 secs COMFORTABLY. shouldn't the person who is MOST familiar with the angles, pots, positioning of the cue ball and execution be the most deserved player to win?
taking that line of logic if you consider ronnie o'sullivan to be the best player technically the sport has produced (which many experts do) - then the results at PLS reflect this - he is the MOST familiar with the angles, positioning, execution and is therefore one of the fastest as well as most precise - and therefore he has won 9/10 finals he has been in including 6/7 of those with a shot clock.
of course, this is a line of reasoning and not causal evidence - however, i think it is food for thought?

Yes, but another very important component of shot speed, as you put it, is surely the speed of delivery. O'Sullivan is a very fast thinker (when he thinks at all), but he also has a very fast technique and takes about two seconds to play the shot once he decides on it. Most players need more time to settle into the shot. Even someone like John Higgins would have less time to consider their shot, let alone the extreme cases like Ebdon or Dave Harold.

I think it's the safety aspect of the game where the shot clock makes the most difference. When breakbuilding, you think a couple of shots ahead, so you always know what you were going to do from the position you played yourself in. In a safety exchange, you come to the table having to asses the situation, and having to think of a shot that gets you out of trouble, or one that puts your opponent in trouble. I guess you could again say that the faster thinker should prevail in the safety battle, because he is also the best thinker. But I don't think that's always the case. I don't want players rushing to play the first decent shot they see. I want them to play the best shot possible. I think that's where the Premier League fails the most. Of course there won't be a dramatic difference in "safety success", because all players can play routine shots back to baulk, but a lot of quality is lost along the way.

point #3. with regards to popularity, i've never seen an empty seat in any of the matches and i have seen the ratings on SKY which are pretty high - i can't find it anywhere though so you will have to take my word for it. for me personally, this is the way snooker needs to go - not painful, drawn out matches which are unnecessary except for the fact that players like ebdon take advantage of the antiquated rules to torture opponents and the spectators.

Yes, it's a good format for the spectators. Each week in a different location, only one night of snooker, and the players known well in advance, all of them top players. It's not bad for TV either, a couple of hours on a Thursday night between the week-long events. I used to watch it myself, until they further butchered the rules. But the more proper snooker there is, the less needy I get. And anything with shot clocks is at the top of my list of events to skip. :wink:


We can analyze the effects a shot clock would have on results, or on the type of game that is played. But what it ultimately comes down to, from a spectator's point of view... is it as fun to watch? I don't think most people realize what a dramatic change it would make. Sure, the likes of McLeod and Ebdon would be forced to get on with it, and probably struggle and go out of events early. But most of the drama, most of the tension would also be lost. Think of any great final, any decider, any big shot, and imagine it played under the shot clock. That feeling, as if you are somehow with the player as he considers an important shot, those extra seconds of anticipation, all gone...

I've actually just watched the deciders of the 2006 Masters final and the 2009 UK semi-final between Higgins and O'Sullivan, just to see if Higgins would have been in trouble in those two crucial breaks. I'm actually amazed at how fast he played with so much at stake. He got most shots in around 20 seconds, hats off. But what about those three or four that he needed to think about? I cringe at the thought of Higgins rushing around the table to play a shot with the rest, or at the beeping sound every time he gets within five seconds of the limit. I also cringe at the thought of Higgins breaking the complete silence, snapping everyone out of that magical feeling only snooker can provide, by calling for a TIMEOUT! :redface:

[vmax4steve]

You could have a shot clock of thirty seconds and a player could also be allowed to nominate "safety" after which he could have double the time and only be allowed to play a safety shot and also be allowed to nominate "snookered" and be given as much time as it takes to get out of a snooker.

[postman]

All these solutions are great in their own way, however I can't help believing that we are willing to change the great game that snooker is, due to something that happens in a very small percentage of games. Can we just not accept the diversity of the different players and leave the game unchanged.

[wildJONESEYE]

All these solutions are great in their own way, however I can't help believing that we are willing to change the great game that snooker is, due to something that happens in a very small percentage of games. Can we just not accept the diversity of the different players and leave the game unchanged.

here here to that.

snookers popularity was build around diversity of characters and speed.

[arbitrage]

all very good points.

there was the 2 timeouts per frame and 5 timeouts total over 6 frames they could use whenever they needed to think about difficult safety shots (until 2010). then they also introduced the ball in hand rule in 2011 which i'm ambivalent about but arguably could be a substitute for the miss rule.

higgins' average shot time is around 21 secs, robertson's now is around 23 secs. so even with the pros who have a measured approach to the game, 25 to 30 secs should be more than adequate for most shots.

obviously, no format is perfect and there are trade-offs associated with each. personally, i would agree with ronnie in that revamping the rules to speed up play etc. would create a far fairer playing field for the players. commercially, it would be probably also be in the best interests of the owners and organizers.

[Looki]

Trying to squeeze every player into the same mold with shot clock etc. sounds like a bore, I personally wouldn't like to watch that kind of snooker week after week. Limited shot time is a nice curiosity in PLS which makes it attractive and exciting (? to some people, at least) on its own right but would it be like that if there were 22 similar tournaments? I don't think so. PLS benefits from being so different to other tournament, there's only two matches per evening once a week, short format, every time they play it's a different city and different crowd.

Personally, I think slow play isn't even a real problem in snooker, it's a storm in a tea cup.

[arbitrage]

this is not about 'mold' at all - it is to ensure a level and fair playing field for the players. most of the players range from between 17 to 24 secs per shot on average - do you consider this a 'mold'?

slow play isn't a problem? then why are articles like this pasted over the headlines after ebdon's win?:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/t...145234803.html