|
Post by Chris_Sav on Feb 14, 2007 9:46:42 GMT
Might as well air all the dirty washing as well as rocking the table.
We all speed up when chasing and slow down when in front, but where do you draw the line and can you legislate??
I have never seen a player penalised for blatant timewasting and its completely legal. There's nothing in the rules to stop you standing at the table for seventeen minutes until the bar drops and then playing three breaks and a one-up and shake hands thanks I've won.
Somewhat extreme example I know, but is a rule necessary and, if so, can a rule be formulated that the average scorer would have the guts to apply.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2007 10:48:06 GMT
I've had the same thoughts exactly on this one. It's difficult to legislate against, and again the "unwritten" rule is that it is up to the scorer to draw the line between ungentlemanly conduct with slow play, and out-and-out blatant timewasting.
As a scorer I have more than once said "Play Up !" rather sternly, and it has had the desired effect.
I think the ruling should be "If the scorer rules that blatant timewasting is occuring, it can result in forefeiture of that player's turn. The opponent is then entitled to approach the table as if the player has walked away from the table."
You need to specify that stopping to chalk the cue is acceptable behaviour, unless done to excess.
|
|
|
Post by Hammy on Feb 14, 2007 13:38:20 GMT
This is a difficult one as I'm sure we have all played a little slower and more deliberate when the score and time is tight and in your favour. Only once have I witnessed 'blatant' timewasting and had to bite my tongue when it happened...........................which yes is unusual for me! :o I agree that it should be up to the scorer to monitor but with no written rule it would be hard to enforce especially with some individuals that I'm sure we have all played against. :o :)
|
|
Josie
Full Forum Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by Josie on Feb 17, 2007 19:30:48 GMT
This one I just had to comment on.
A certain player in the Redhill league (not now playing - you can relax Tommo!) once took 3.5 minutes to take a shot. I was gagging to get back on the table at the time!!! >:(
The trouble is, in all honesty he wasn't time wasting. He didn't know what to do. As a scorer you can't really call on that!!! If you start saying "play up" or whatever - what are they going to do?????
I agree a rule needs to be drafted - but unless you time every shot and set a time limit - I think this is quite a difficult one to enforce! It doesn't matter how many times you chalk your cue - that is part of the game!!!!! 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2007 22:54:24 GMT
Funny you should say that Josie, but one player that does still play Redhill was the subject of some controversy a long time ago in the Mid Sussex league. The reason was he got to the situation where he had a ball smack bang in front of the left hand fifty, and went round to the side of the table to have a good look at it ! We found it hilarious. ;D I find it is best to fight fire with fire. The faster my opponent plays, the faster I try to play myself. And the slower my opponent is, the slower I will play. Nothing wrong with chalking your cue between each shot, even if your young opponent from Merstham VC gets the knock over it !
But I agree, there should be a guideline, and I feel it should be left to the scorer's discretion - to tell a player to play up or get off if he feels that someone is taking unfair advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Feb 23, 2007 19:34:13 GMT
Possible Rule
If in the opinion of the scorer a player is taking unecessarily long over shots he should warn the player. If the player, in the opinion of the scorer continues to play in an unsportsmanlike manner, the scorer may call end of break.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 20:22:19 GMT
I agree your suggested wording, Sav, but we have to be a little careful here, as one scorer's idea of timewasting might differ wildly from another's. I sometimes stop to have a little chalk of my cue to regain my composure, and wouldn't take kindly to being accused of cheating just for that.
There are always those willing to take advantage of loopholes, and we don't want an over-diligent scorer intervening and bullying a player undergoing a crisis of choice of shot, which in itself could be seen as taking unfair advantage.
I can foresee trouble from a new rule, unless it clearly defines the parameters of what constitutes timewasting.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 23, 2007 21:40:44 GMT
I see a problem here as if a player has a ball near the black peg and has a foul called he keeps his registered score but his opposition is then faced with that unmoved ball........what does he do, time wast until another foul is called.....and so on.....until the player with the lower score is forced to take on the shot or loose anyway.....so not a good rule in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2007 22:24:19 GMT
I think Sparky has just identified a scenario that it is virtually impossible to legislate against.
If I were scoring a game in which a situation were reached where neither player were loth to go for the ball (tight against the black but not touching, and the difference in score negligible) I would ask both players if they wanted a re-start (equivalent to a re-rack in snooker) - though at present there is no official rule to cover such a situation.
Over to Sav !
|
|
|
Post by Nick (Barnett) (R.I.P.) on Feb 24, 2007 10:26:21 GMT
There's nothing in the rules to stop you standing at the table for seventeen minutes until the bar drops and then playing three breaks and a one-up and shake hands thanks I've won. In the jersey rules it states "Play must be continuous"
Doesn't say a penalty if it isn't though?Oh and anyone who has been lucky enough to see you play probably thinks that's what you do every match, ask Micky eouzan ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 24, 2007 14:24:29 GMT
Nick I like the principle of a "Play must be continuous" rule but as you infer just how is it enforced except by pier pressure and therefore is only a guideline not a rule.
By the way the red wording is difficult for some to see :-[
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.) on Feb 24, 2007 14:58:13 GMT
We don't have 'piers' around these parts, will this only apply at seasides ;)
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 24, 2007 15:05:23 GMT
We don't have 'piers' around these parts, will this only apply at seasides ;) Haven't you been leaned on by a pier yet...you haven't lived ;D oh alright maybe it should be peer but I'm surprised you noticed being peerless yourself ::)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 16:19:23 GMT
On Monday we had that problem of "Time Wasting", one of the opponents knew it was his turn but purposfully drank his drink and took some more tokes of his ciggy!
I was scoring at the time, he got on my nerves as this person had "Won the game"! I felt like saying foul or hurry up, however there is no rule so how do you enforce such scum to hurry up?
The next AGM Meeting I shall make a proposal for this "Time wasting" as it is a cheats way of winning!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 19:44:06 GMT
Nick I like the principle of a "Play must be continuous" rule but as you infer just how is it enforced except by pier pressure and therefore is only a guideline not a rule. More to the point - the Jersey rule is there, and it's a rule not a guideline. But as Nick points out, the rule says something has to happen, but doesn't specify a penalty for if it doesn't. So looking back up to Sav's suggestion for a possible wording: "scorer may call end of break" - that would pin it down nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 24, 2007 19:56:35 GMT
Nick I like the principle of a "Play must be continuous" rule but as you infer just how is it enforced except by pier pressure and therefore is only a guideline not a rule. More to the point - the Jersey rule is there, and it's a rule not a guideline. But as Nick points out, the rule says something has to happen, but doesn't specify a penalty for if it doesn't. So looking back up to Sav's suggestion for a possible wording: "scorer may call end of break" - that would pin it down nicely. What I highlighted is that without teeth that rule is no more than a guideline, however I like your wording with perhaps the option of a warning such as "If the scorer believes that 'timewasting' is being used to gain an unfair advantage then he/she may call 'end of break', this may or may not follow a verbal warning as seen fit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 20:19:01 GMT
Hi,
Sorry to get involved if it is only for the great and good - but my limited experience does lead me to one other small (and probably not insurmountable) issue with this.
In competitions, but more especially league games, scorers are rarely truly independant. In league games they tend to be from the 'home team'. I know that doesn't often cause an issue but in this case the timing of a shot (or a pause between shots) is likely to be more favourable to the 'home' player - particularly in tight situations.
My real experiance comes from playing in the Northants Open many years ago. It was a plate game over one leg with equal breaks.
I lost the toss and therefore my opponent went first. After a thousand or two he came off and I asked for the balls back, but the two 'local' scorers said that this was not the case. As there were no referees around and I was young and new to the game I ploughed on but was, obviously, at a distinct disadvantage.
I'm sure this would not be too common but I reiterate - scorers are rarely entirely impartial.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 20:19:42 GMT
...and yet, it has not shaken my faith in humankind you will be pleased to hear!!
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Feb 24, 2007 20:19:45 GMT
Good suggestion Sparky, As said we also have to watch for opposition scorers who could take advantage.
The rule has to have teeth, waste of time printing guidelines. Those that blatantly time waste would not be phased by it.
My hope would be that, if the rule exists, players would be less likely to blatantly time waste as they know there would be a penalty.
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 20:20:01 GMT
Yup, Sav's or Sparky's addition to the wording would tie it up. Don't forget that we already play under that rule when taking part in the World Championships (which probably many don't realise). ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 20:28:02 GMT
I'm sure this would not be too common but I reiterate - scorers are rarely entirely impartial. I have every sympathy on this, and have been trying to convey that from my experience, players rarely seek to gain unfair advantage (except when I was barged out of the way once in a Sussex semi-final) and it is the scorers if anyone who are a bit suspect. There's a lot to be said for the more important the competition, the more need there is for a marker AND checker (one from each side).
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Feb 24, 2007 20:46:45 GMT
Thinking about Sparky's black peg scenario.
The answer would be for the scorer to call last shot rather than end of break.
Time wasting is a particularly difficult one, but it is a timed game.
The big problem with the rule is in stopping deliberate timewasting, we also have to be careful of the situation where the oppostion's on the table and he is genuinely a bit slow, but your mate's scoring and chucks him off.
Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2007 21:20:04 GMT
we also have to be careful of the situation where the oppostion's on the table and he is genuinely a bit slow, but your mate's scoring and chucks him off. Sav Exactly. We also have to consider someone who's a novice and has to weigh everything up before playing a shot: There are many ladies like that in the lower division of the Redhill league - very difficult to play against. We would be waiving the rule more often than enforcing it.What's the point of having the rule at all, if that would be the case ?
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 25, 2007 12:46:04 GMT
Thinking about Sparky's black peg scenario. The answer would be for the scorer to call last shot rather than end of break. I'm not sure what you mean by 'last shot' Sav, please explain.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Feb 25, 2007 13:09:36 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by 'last shot' Sav, please explain. They would be told the next shot is their last, that way they would have to play the difficult shot
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 25, 2007 14:39:09 GMT
They would be told the next shot is their last, that way they would have to play the difficult shot I don't quite see how that would work as we would need to create a rule and it would still not stop the player from time wasting during that last shot and so, probably, still gain an advantage and this rule would need to cater for having more than one ball left on the table anyway so I still think that if we have a rule it should be 'end of break' and on reflection I think maybe a warning should be given anyway and then the offending player knows the situation. The main reason I see for debate on this topic is due to the fact that we are expecting such a rule to be adopted through all levels of the game. This shows up the different standards expected or accepted, for instance we expect high quality skills of playing and scoring at major events (Opens, County level, etc.) whilst accepting a lower standard from lower division/novice/social players and scorers (no offence meant). So is it more important to legislate for the Opens etc. or for grass roots leagues? Also should a good player be penalised by a poor quality player using such tactics in a major event (Open etc.) where a higher standard should be expected. Suggestion that gains from Jersey and our own thoughts: Rule: "Continuous play". a) As the object of the game is for continuous play, the scorer, bearing in mind the standard of players and competition concerned, may call 'End of break' if he/she considers that a player is deliberately 'time wasting' to gain an unfair advantage. This *may/will be preceded by a warning 'play up or loose this score (unregistered)'. (*we must choose which wording and I think that being given a warning that the break will end if you don't hurry up will sort out most slow play situations but does not address the situation facing someone who may loose their score/game if they do play a particular shot and should be covered by a different rule, perhaps called parts b&c.). b) Should the scorer believe that a player is deliberately time wasting because the only shot/s available are likely to cause the loss of score and/or game then a warning of 'play up or loose your entire score' can be said and if no attempt is made to play then that player shall loose their entire score. c) Should the scorer believe that a player has made a deliberate attempt to miss a dangerously placed object ball with the intention of avoiding the loss of either entire score or an unregistered potentially match winning score then the cue ball should be brought back to the 'D' and any other balls repositioned by the scorer and the shot replayed (coin/s will be supplied by the player if required) and if this happens three times then that player looses their entire score. and just maybe Jersey could adopt such a rule too as it seems to follow their thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.) on Feb 25, 2007 15:44:00 GMT
I too wrote a vey long post and in some ways very similar to yours Graham, but then did not post it. Each time I looked at it and at yours the same I could see many pitfalls. Hence why I didn't post it as I felt is unworkable, still too much emphasis on the scorer making the decision or not if maybe the friend of the person winning ! In (c) for example what about the person who is behind at the time, he also would not want to lose his score so this to me is in effect is putting all the emphasis against the player who is leading. We all know in any game and in many cases a ball can end up in the wrong place, that is 'part of the game', trying then to force an outcome is fool hardy IMHO.
Speed of play again is something of contention, I know I play probably 30% slower than I did when I was 20yo because I now realise (maybe not so much at Opens) that you are playing the clock and not the player. If I put 9000 up at a slow pace and give someone 6 mins to catch me the percentage of them doing so is pretty low. Are we saying that I should be made to play at 1200/min and risk missing, or 'control' my pace to win. I feel we are risking putting in rules to try and cater for very occasional happenings at the risk of confusing already doubtful scorers, particularly at pub level. Maybe rules applicable to Opens and other important events only as a sub section could be used is one possibility but not at league level.
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 25, 2007 16:09:22 GMT
I understand your comments KP as I too nearly didn't post but thought it best to debate the issues and do not mind if my suggestions are not used if at least they are considered.
Incidentally I doubt anyone would read this as a hurry up to players who are doing their best in difficult situations (or else I'll be one of the first to suffer ;D) and think it reasonably obvious from the wording that it is aimed at the player who deliberately tries to win by cheating >:(.
The entire idea is dependant on the principle of good scorers and if we cannot trust the scorers then we had better scrap this whole idea and review other rules too :-/.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2007 16:17:01 GMT
I find myself siding with KP in that it may be inadvisable to try and cater for such contingencies by bringing in a rule with might only serve to confuse scorers even further.
I can recall a bizarre situation of a few years ago, (in the Mid Sussex League against St Francis SC) when my opponent posted a winning opening break (of about 8k) and left me one easy ball and one difficult one right in front of the left hand peg but not quite touching. I cleared the easy one but missed the difficult one accidentally-on-purpose, going straight down the 20-hole. He did similar and we had three or four shots each at it, neither of us wanting to clear. The bar went soon after. He had a right old go at me afterwards, wanting to know why I wouldn't make any attempt to clear the ball. Why should I, I said, just to boost his ego so that he could go on and get 10k ? I stood to gain nothing out of it. In fact I considered HE was being the bad sportsman, having already won, it would have been no skin of his nose to clear the ball for me and allow me to get a few.
So I would like to ask Sparky this: Under a new ruling, how would any penalty be applied in such a circumstance ? Who would be punished, and how ?
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 25, 2007 16:30:13 GMT
Thanks Tommo as by talking it through as we can find out if it would be a good rule or not.(reworded for clarity)
Incidentally your 'situation' was not covered by the proposed rule as neither player was deliberately missing in order to win, or avoid loosing, the game as it was only a white peg and the game was already won (8k opening break). I will have quiet guess as to the other player ;D ;D ;D
|
|