|
Start of Frame
|
| chuckles |
Posted on 10-06-2009 16:43
|
Home From Home
Posts: 214
Joined: 07.10.07
|
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to who does what at the start of the game.
May I suggest this?
Home team pay for the balls.
Away ref sets the rack, as he is the main ref,
Home team toss the coin for the away player.
All clear??
Edited by chuckles on 10-06-2009 16:44
Always have a plan 'B'
Even plan 'B' has failed |
| |
|
|
| miq |
Posted on 10-06-2009 17:00
|
Home From Home
Posts: 464
Joined: 05.10.07
|
We've been racking and coin toss for home games |
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 10-06-2009 17:11
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
All that time keeping has done so far is cause the two latest finishes we've ever had and cause arguments over who is doing what. This rule change has been ill thought out and ill implemented. We are two matches into the season and are only now deciding who is doing what. If I hadn't raised before the season started who is timekeeping and who is reffing we'd probably be discussing that too.
Timing has no place in local league pool and the sooner it is removed the better. |
| |
|
|
| Truey |
Posted on 10-06-2009 17:31
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 168
Joined: 08.10.07
|
I agree that the stopwatch has no place in a local league...
but it is not exactly rocket science the home team have the stopwatch & pay for the frame, the away team set the balls up & toss the coin to the away player
then game-on 
unless i am missing something....People will always find fault with things but the best thing is to just get on with it & in a few weeks all will be smooth
HOW LONG LEFT ? |
| |
|
|
| Fat-Dart |
Posted on 10-06-2009 18:12
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1308
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Sass wrote:
All that time keeping has done so far is cause the two latest finishes we've ever had
How? |
| |
|
|
| longshanks |
Posted on 10-06-2009 19:01
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 709
Joined: 07.10.07
|
We played without the watch last night and to be honest I wish we hadn't. We did use it last week and it definitely speeds the game up. A lot of people last week said it made no difference because no one got called, but that's because they knew they were on the clock so they didn't take as long as they might have done. |
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 10-06-2009 19:36
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
Several players have said that they stand and wait for 30 seconds to be called each time before they play they shot so its not called while they are cueing  |
| |
|
|
| longshanks |
Posted on 10-06-2009 19:44
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 709
Joined: 07.10.07
|
That's still quicker than players taking three minutes to decide what shot to play and then playing the one they first thought of. |
| |
|
|
| Bink286 |
Posted on 10-06-2009 19:53
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 38
Joined: 22.06.08
|
I'd agree with Sass that the whole stopwatch thing is just an annoying distraction that does nothing to improve the enjoyment of the evening. A ref and a spot ref is sufficient, and if a player is seemingly taking longer than 'necessary' in the opinion of the ref then they should be politely asked to get on with it.
The length of time of the games does not seem to have altered at all (the majority of players play well within a minute anyway), and it seems unlikely that anyone will over-run on any individual shot.
Perhaps if we made the time limit 30s it would have a dramatic effect upon the game, but a rushed shot will lead to more errors and a longer game because of that, so perhaps not.
Of additional (linked) interest is the 15 game proposal in the current poll/vote.
It may perhaps be appropriate to have a 15 game format in the top division, 13 in Div II, 11 in Div III, 9 in Div IV with league cup games and lower divisions playing a 7 game format.
Win bonuses could then be reapplied across the board, and lower division teams that do not clear the table in a single visit (and who therefore take longer to play an average game) can enjoy an evening of pool that doesn't necessarily result in being too bleary eyed the next day.
Just an idea from the floor! |
| |
|
|
| RasFas |
Posted on 10-06-2009 19:53
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 166
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Quite funny last night with the Warbank struggling to use some fancy stopwatch on a mobile phone. We also had our first time foul against us which wasn't nice. (Probably due to erroneous use of said stopwatch!  )
But, as much as I agree the stopwatch has no more place in local league pool than referee gloves, we are finishing earlier (10pm last night), and hopefully over the season most teams will find that to be the case.
 |
| |
|
|
| JugglingSpence |
Posted on 10-06-2009 20:11
|
Home From Home
Posts: 271
Joined: 05.10.07
|
I don't mind the stopwatches at all but then I don't hang around too much between shots so it suits my game- I was already playing most shots within a minute so I see it as being a hinderence for my opponent rather than a problem for me.
I think we should give it at least 1/2 a season to fully test it before passing judgment to see how it goes.
I don't miss the 11:30 finishes or having to wait for slow players between visits so I'm a supporter of it...
As happy as a single man living above a chip shop |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 10-06-2009 20:24
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
We havent used the stopwatch in either of our first two games.
Last week we had to stop at 9:10 after 40 mins coz we were already on frame 8 and the food was no where near ready.
Last night, no stopwatch was used, no player took longer than 20 seconds on a shot, apart from maybe 2 occasions where they took about 30/40 seconds.
We will happily use the watch if the oppo request to, but i can safely say that we will never have a time foul against us. So far the opposition have also agreed with us in not wanting to use the clock.
IF people are going to use the clock, PLEASE get a stopwatch that doesnt beep loudly every time you start/reset the dam thing. |
| |
|
|
| Fat-Dart |
Posted on 10-06-2009 20:32
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1308
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Bink286 wrote:
... if a player is seemingly taking longer than 'necessary' in the opinion of the ref then they should be politely asked to get on with it.
So how would that be enforced without a stopwatch?
All that would happen then is arguments, without a doubt. You can't leave timing up to a ref's 'opinion'. |
| |
|
|
| Bink286 |
Posted on 10-06-2009 23:36
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 38
Joined: 22.06.08
|
Fat-Dart wrote:
Bink286 wrote:
... if a player is seemingly taking longer than 'necessary' in the opinion of the ref then they should be politely asked to get on with it.
So how would that be enforced without a stopwatch?
All that would happen then is arguments, without a doubt. You can't leave timing up to a ref's 'opinion'.
We leave plenty of other decisions to a ref's opinion. A stopwatch should really be the last resort to resolve any argument about the unreasonable 'hurry up' a ref might be accused of making. |
| |
|
|
| Fat-Dart |
Posted on 11-06-2009 01:27
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1308
Joined: 05.10.07
|
What other decisions are left to a ref's 'opinion'', rather than application of the rules?
So you don't think the 'hurry up' from the ref will be quickly followed by a "go forth and multiply" from the player and probably his team mates, thus descending a night of pool into a full scale argument.
Playing a shot within 60 seconds is hardly tricky and doesn't rely on one person's opinion of whether or not they've taken too long. If it's over 60 seconds, it's too long, simple. The '30 second' call is the equivalent of the 'friendly hurry up' you're suggesting but with the consistency of a stopwatch to determine how long people get. |
| |
|
