unlimited time for finals
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.
Pages:
1
2 10:22 Wed 13 May 09 (BST) [Link]
just been in a final chaos and myself both DQd for obvious reasons a bit of touchy touchy in the second game, also neither 1 of us wanted to leave the game, as it was 2-2 i think there at least must be a winner or its just a total waste of a tourney!
10:25 Wed 13 May 09 (BST) [Link]
We really should have a chess clock system like we've discussed tons of times before. That would solve this, since each player is responsible for his own overall time consumption and the first player who runs out of time is the one getting DQed.
Curling total game time per team is a perfect example to follow here.
Curling total game time per team is a perfect example to follow here.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
15:26 Fri 15 May 09 (BST) [Link]
Mate to be honest you really should fininsh it in that time, also the time is there for a reason;to finish the game and for it not to clash in with other tournies.
15:46 Fri 15 May 09 (BST) [Link]
"for it not to clash in with other tournies": but surely that's of concern only to the two finalists? Plus, evrey tournament (except a speed tourney) is going to run into a second tourney.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
15:52 Fri 15 May 09 (BST) [Link]
Tournaments early in the morning (GMT) are often over within an hour, but even so, clashing tournaments has never been a problem.
Tonight for example, there were three tournaments running at the same time.
(Straight, 8US, 8UK.)
clooneman said:
"for it not to clash in with other tournies": but surely that's of concern only to the two finalists? Plus, evrey tournament (except a speed tourney) is going to run into a second tourney.
Tournaments early in the morning (GMT) are often over within an hour, but even so, clashing tournaments has never been a problem.
Tonight for example, there were three tournaments running at the same time.
(Straight, 8US, 8UK.)
17:26 Fri 15 May 09 (BST) [Link]
I can see where Jan is coming from here with the chess clock system!! Why should someone who is trying to complete the game in the alloctaed time, suffer because his opponent is playing really slow, using up the alloctaed time for shots?
I have been DQ myself in a final playing a renowned slow player who has been DQ umpteen times in a final.
People who know me, know that I always play 10 secs so to be DQ for not completing in the alloted time is unfair.
janmb said:
We really should have a chess clock system like we've discussed tons of times before. That would solve this, since each player is responsible for his own overall time consumption and the first player who runs out of time is the one getting DQed.
Curling total game time per team is a perfect example to follow here.
Curling total game time per team is a perfect example to follow here.
I can see where Jan is coming from here with the chess clock system!! Why should someone who is trying to complete the game in the alloctaed time, suffer because his opponent is playing really slow, using up the alloctaed time for shots?
I have been DQ myself in a final playing a renowned slow player who has been DQ umpteen times in a final.
People who know me, know that I always play 10 secs so to be DQ for not completing in the alloted time is unfair.
18:20 Fri 15 May 09 (BST) [Link]
The best part about the chess clock system is that no one could accuse defensive players of doing anything wrong.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
01:52 Mon 18 May 09 (BST) [Link]
hmm...I could see problems with the chess clock, especially if someone is having major lag issues.
I think that FINALS should go for unlimited amount of time.
How many complain that soccer finals are decided on penalty kicks because they cant find a winner after 90 or 120 minutes??
its a final, the current system works fine - let it be an infanite amount of time.
But if nick needs the system to actually have a time limt, then put it to something way out there like 999 minutes or something.
I think that FINALS should go for unlimited amount of time.
How many complain that soccer finals are decided on penalty kicks because they cant find a winner after 90 or 120 minutes??
its a final, the current system works fine - let it be an infanite amount of time.
But if nick needs the system to actually have a time limt, then put it to something way out there like 999 minutes or something.
07:31 Mon 18 May 09 (BST) [Link]
You could still use a chess clock, the one struggling with bad connection and/or computer should of course be the one having the consequences as well.
You could still set the time each player has to finish the game quite high for a final, since no one else is waiting for the game to finish.
You could still set the time each player has to finish the game quite high for a final, since no one else is waiting for the game to finish.
08:29 Mon 18 May 09 (BST) [Link]
True
janmb said:
You could still set the time each player has to finish the game quite high for a final, since no one else is waiting for the game to finish.
True
12:44 Mon 18 May 09 (BST) [Link]
I think the chess clock is the best idea to go with.
15:23 Mon 18 May 09 (BST) [Link]
Especially since it gets the right player DQed instead of both.
keoghz said:
I think the chess clock is the best idea to go with.
Especially since it gets the right player DQed instead of both.
09:48 Tue 19 May 09 (BST) [Link]
keoghzI think the chess clock is the best idea to go with.
Especially since it gets the right player DQed instead of
i agree
Especially since it gets the right player DQed instead of
i agree
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
16:33 Tue 19 May 09 (BST) [Link]
but if there is unlimited time, then no one will be DQ'ed...
I would agree with the chess clock in the normal rounds - but there should be no such thing as a DQ in the final!!
I would agree with the chess clock in the normal rounds - but there should be no such thing as a DQ in the final!!
17:20 Tue 19 May 09 (BST) [Link]
There needs to be SOME kind of ceiling, to get the results in a reasonable time frame, avoid good snooker players from defending forever 'just for fun' etc. There needs to be *something* driving the game forward even in the finals, but that time limit can be very generous. Far more so than today.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
22:48 Tue 19 May 09 (BST) [Link]
yep, got me there - there does need to be something there.
I still think that the current system is still fine though. In the current system, even if there is one lagging player, well the other player with the fast connection still has all that time to win - so maybe they deserve to be DQ'd if they cant win 2 games in 22 minutes??
I just think that we dont need a massive revamp of the current timing system. It works fine, its fair, it still punishes for taking way too long with random shots and fouls....
Im not fully against the chess clock, but I just dont think that we need change from the current system; we just need a much longer final to avoid to double DQ.
janmb said:
There needs to be SOME kind of ceiling, to get the results in a reasonable time frame, avoid good snooker players from defending forever 'just for fun' etc. There needs to be *something* driving the game forward even in the finals, but that time limit can be very generous. Far more so than today.
yep, got me there - there does need to be something there.
I still think that the current system is still fine though. In the current system, even if there is one lagging player, well the other player with the fast connection still has all that time to win - so maybe they deserve to be DQ'd if they cant win 2 games in 22 minutes??
I just think that we dont need a massive revamp of the current timing system. It works fine, its fair, it still punishes for taking way too long with random shots and fouls....
Im not fully against the chess clock, but I just dont think that we need change from the current system; we just need a much longer final to avoid to double DQ.
00:28 Wed 20 May 09 (BST) [Link]
When considering the finals only, a chess clock is far from necessary.
That change is far more relevant for the other rounds, where the time limit is a much more important factor - particularly for the speed tournaments. Time is meant to be a factor, but a stalling player should never ever get the opponent DQed, only themselves.
aflumpire said:
Im not fully against the chess clock, but I just dont think that we need change from the current system; we just need a much longer final to avoid to double DQ.
When considering the finals only, a chess clock is far from necessary.
That change is far more relevant for the other rounds, where the time limit is a much more important factor - particularly for the speed tournaments. Time is meant to be a factor, but a stalling player should never ever get the opponent DQed, only themselves.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
00:33 Wed 20 May 09 (BST) [Link]
true, I think that a chess clock may be very beneficial, if not better in speed tournaments where the amount of time is so short.
So maybe giving players 4 minutes each, in a speed tournament is the best way to implement this chess clock, if at all??
So maybe giving players 4 minutes each, in a speed tournament is the best way to implement this chess clock, if at all??
Pages:
1
2Unable to post | |
---|---|
Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
unlimited time for finals
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.