Yeh so therefore the playing conditions are the same - penalties are used to bring a result - where there isnt one


Nothing wrong at all in playing safety or cautiously - no reason why you shouldnt still be able to win within a time limit

I see your point, and now thinking about it, I see no real disadvantage to removing the time limit, other than it would make it possible for there to be a large number of finals being played at the same time, but that's barely a real problem as I see it.

or else ask nick why

Nick! Get on here!

and put my win on my profile x x lol

Yeah!

Seriously though... my last point demonstrates it brilliantly, I think

presumably in a timeless final the shot limit should not exist either? or be raised up to, i dont know, 60/90 secs so that each player can fully evaluate each shot - particularly awkward ones?

why restrict players from having time to fully consider each shot in a vitally important final?

Good work, Can't wait for the first never-ending final!

It'll all be like the Graeme Dott v Peter Ebdon final in the worlds at this rate, come 5am, and the 8ball UK Marathon final is still locked at 3-3

Hmmmm.....! Interesting!

No need for a 90-sec shot in my opinion, although that would be interesting. But I hope you see my point: time limits exist in tournaments only to allow the tournament to make progress from round to round. This necessity ceases to become one in the final.

lol

That is highly unlikely But at least it wouldn't be a semi-final at 2-2 with the finalist waiting for the final!

Na, the way I see it is that you have to have the bottomless pit of time, yet keep it to a short time limit.

Dont forget, people dont normally have hours to waste. So they dont really want to be playing 45 minute finals.

I doubt that many finals will go into what would be extra time - I think it should be there just in case there are 2 extreme defenders, or if both players are lagging.

Remember, you just want it there so players are not rushing at the end, and so you do get a result - so pushing in more time is not whats needed.

it should only be seen as a safeguard.

Hmmm.. good point. Maybe add an extra half hour to the finals, and an extra 10 mins to the speed finals?

Or just accept the rules as they are and play to win within them

Hmmmmmmmm....!

no, unlimited time is good.

but you just dont need the time limit, and you dont need longer per shot.

then you are garanteed a winner for every tournament.

I seem to remember it used to happen in test cricket - timeless test matches, guaranteed to produce a winner - think that didnt catch on


I for one would rather play a game knowing it was going to be over after a certain time.

You can be the most defensive player in the world but you wont win (and neither should you) unless you know how to attack too - time limits encourage the right balance of play.


Going back to the start of this thread the tournament in question was a straight final. Allowing for an average 10 secs per shot that is probably approx 145 shots in total to pot at the absolute most 69 balls (forgetting losses for fouls ).

That requires a success rate of less than 50% by both players. That ought to be achievable in almost every game played. You can get problems with persistent lag but then it really comes down to the common courtesy and sportsmanship of the player suffering it to 'bite the bullet' and walk away (something sadly lacking on here in my experience).

My original post on the subject still stands though. There is a fault in the program if the result stands on your profile but not in a tournament page. They must surely synchronise with each other. Either there is a game result or there isnt.

Edited at 09:37 Fri 27/02/09 (GMT)

I don't like getting disqualified in finals, or any other game, due to someone 'deliberately' taking the full time their allowed to take their shots in the closing five minutes.

However, the time limit is there to be used, and if someone wishes to get themselves disqualified rather than give their opponent an opportunity to win the game thats their perrogative. (I don't agree with this attitude, but each to their own).

It's occured to me three times in the last few weeks, one of which was a straight final, and it's obvious whats happening.

I'd like the final to be limitless, but this could be more frustrating than anything if a savagely defensive player makes it a 'tippy-tappy' affair.

ok then....

well surely you should never have a double DQ final.

so I think another way to keep a defensive player on his toes and is to do the following...

have a countback system to determine a winner in a timeed out final.

so count back on - games won, balls potted, fouls commited and then finally first to pot.

it would take a bit to implement, and i have suggested this before - but if you want a time limit on finals, then you should have the countback system so there can not be a DQ-DQ final.

infact i think the countback system should be in place for all tournament matches.