I dont really agree with the way double DQ's are handled. Yes, there is plenty of time to finsih the game, but I think that there should be some kind of count back system to determine a winner.

Say for the 8 and 9 ball games (UK and US) - countback Games won, amount of balls potted in current game, amount of balls potted overall and then if it had too, who ever went to the game first.

Then its a no brainer in Straight - balls potted, who ever arrived at game first.

It may seem un fair for the person who may have had say a ranked game to finish...but it shouldnt never really go to that stage of countback.

I just think that a double DQ is not always the answer, as you may have two snookering players - and as discussed on another thread, the majority of us dont mind the snookering players.

And do finals still have a time limit?? If so, I think that should be lifted (if not already).

(end of polite rant )

I think the main reason finals have a time limit is so that people don't just mess around and see how long they can both stay there.

(Unlikely as that is, there are some people on here that would probably like to do that.)

but then what happens....no winner?

its their problem if the final goes for two hours, as one of them will have to go at one point or another...

(my countback idea is my main idea lol )

Oh yeah I realise what you were getting at, I was simply stating why I thought time limits were there on finals.

Personally I think a double DQ is the easiest and most simple way of dealing with it, especially in the earlier rounds.
(To avoid everyone else waiting ages for their games.)

There is generally enough time in finals for the maximum number of games possible to be played and finished, with a fair few minutes remaining.

It's a fairly rare occasion for a double DQ in the final, and if so it's only really the players' fault for playing slowly.

(Whether it be snookers or just bad play.)

Although it may not be fair on the player being snookered, it's partly their fault for not getting out of the snooker, and the player playing the snookers also gets DQd, so it's not as though they actually gain anything from it themselves really.

I saw a DQ-DQ in a final once. It was a marathon UK tourney final, and with about 5 minutes left and the score at 4-4, the two players faffed around and refused to attempt a breakthrough at the risk of making a mess of it. Safeties were all the rage in this frame. We all thought that, with time running out, one of them would go for broke, but no. They were happy to be both disqualified - even though it meant neither of them was ever gonna win the tourney. It was silly behaviour.

There should have been an attempt to win the frame. That said, if there were no time limit, the two players could have, and would have had to eventually, attempt a win by seizing their chance and going for it, as their own time limits (things to do, places to be) would have made it necessary.

Time limits exist in earlier frames so that two players don't contrive, intentionally or otherwise, to prolong the round indefinitely to everyone's disadvantage. I don't see how the harm in removing the time limit for a final could outweigh the good.

I had a marathon final just like the one described above!

Nice idea aflumpire

I saw a DQ-DQ in a final once. It was a marathon UK tourney final, and with about 5 minutes left and the score at 4-4, the two players faffed around and refused to attempt a breakthrough at the risk of making a mess of it. Safeties were all the rage in this frame. We all thought that, with time running out, one of them would go for broke, but no. They were happy to be both disqualified - even though it meant neither of them was ever gonna win the tourney. It was silly behaviour

Might have been me that actually haha.

But I agree, good idea!

Sounds like a fair suggestion to me. (thumbs up) (Y)

I think it was!!! It was back in the early days of the revived UK marathon tourney when it was only ever won by you or... not onua, that came later... anth0ny or someone I think??? Was it you who was winning all those tourneys?

yeah it was me and ste winnin' them all at the start lol

You the same guy? What brings you both back at the same time?

no we are bro's and i came back a long time before him

Brothers? Ah! I had a little issue with brothers in a forum tourney of mine once!!! Ah, the memories!

http://www.funkypool.com/viewTopic.do?topicid=11787&page=15 shows the height of the farce that went on

I just read a few pages of that thread, really rather entertaining, even if it was a little confusing


Back on topic: I see no problem with lifting the time limit on finals. (If I said I did in my earlier post I now disagree with myself )

I mean, about 99% of the time, the two people in the final are both wanting to win, so chances are they aren't going to purposely pro-long their game just to be annoying.

lmao priceless!

Yeah i was winning everyone i entered when they came back lol, must have racked up about 5 of the first 8 marathons, ant had the other 3.

Stopped entering them after a week or so lmao.

Edited at 20:37 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)

http://www.funkypool.com/viewTopic.do?topicid=11002&page=1

Ahh look what i dug out the closet lol.

what does that have to do with countbacks or time limits??

Middle of page 2 of that thread, comment just before mine, and then keep going on to page 3

By the way, well found, _st1even_

Edited at 22:55 Mon 29/12/08 (GMT)