SNOOKER NEEDS SHOT-CLOCK

The first thing that got me in love for snooker some fifteen years ago was how it is a clever game and how you need to find the correct shots to play.

But shot-clock has always been a talking point in snooker. The most common argument against it being that not every player is naturally fast and some shots need more time than others to be thought about before you play it. 

As a traditionalist, I've never really wanted a shot-clock in snooker. Each shot requires different amount of time to be played and I've always been happy with the referee being able to warn a player if he finds that the player is taking more time than needed. But I fear we might get to a point where the shot-clock will be inevitable.

During this year's World Championship, world number one Judd Trump said he feels 25 seconds is enough to play your shots and he'd like a shot-clock to have that time since players who average longer than that per shot are being too slow.

That came after Mark Selby's semifinal against Stuart Bingham. In frame 19 of that match, after Selby saw Bingham win the first two frames of session three and level scores at 9-9, Selby took over three minutes to play a shot and referee had to warn him to take his shot. By the end of that session, Selby played on for five snookers even though inevitably Bingham was going to end the session leading 13-11. Selby's average shot time in that particular session was 40 seconds.

And there is where I have a problem with it. It's not the first time there's controversy about Selby slowing down his shots when his opponent starts winning frames (biggest example from the past is the 2016 final against Ding Junhui when Selby was heavily criticised too). Selby defended himself after the match by saying that his and Bingham's average shot time was the same at 28 seconds, but in my view that only highlights his use of slow play comes particularly when his opponents find some rhythm.

It's up to the referee to judge whether Selby must be warned or not, but that generated a discussion that I loved to have on Twitter. I saw several fans - and some pros too - saying that a player should be entitled to take as long as they need to play a shot and the referee shouldn't be allowed to warn the player, but that would then allow a player to simply stand there for over 6 minutes (that's precedent of Selby's) beofore taking a shot, in order to break his opponent's rhythm. Selby calls these brain-freezes but regardless if it's on purpose or not, we have to remember that snooker is a product to be sold.

Of course I love the sport for the game it is and not for the TV content it makes, but if players are travelling around the world (not this year, but you get me) and playing millionaire events, that's because BBC, Eurosport, ITV and other channels are out there interested in the viewing figures snooker generates. And the general public is not interested in seeing someone taking over three minutes a shot or playing a frame for an extra 30 minutes when you need five snooker (that's topic for another time though).

Alright if you don't care whether other people are interested or not, but I personally don't want snooker to become a sport like billiards where there's no public interest and tournaments aren't near as lucartive as snooker's even though I find billiards require a lot of skill (have heard people that believes it's even harder than snooker). With that in mind, I am now in favour of shot clock in snooker - but only if it prevents slow play in a way that it doesn't also change the structure of the game what is the beauty of it.

It's easy to sit here and say I want change and not do nothing, so whenever I say things that I think should be done, I like to express ideas that can be discussed and improved.

First thing is that I wouldn't like a loud beep in the arena like we have in the Shoot-Out or the pool events. Just a large enough timer with numbers getting red when you enter your final ten seconds would do.

As for the time, I think 45 seconds per shot, with the right to take three 90 seconds shots and one 150 seconds shot per frame. Probably a few rest-extensions available for shots played with the rest could come handy as well. 

In my idea of shot-clock, players wouldn't need to ask for an extension. As soon as you hit your 46th second one of your 90 seconds shots is automatically used and if you hit the 91st second your 150 seconds shot is automatically spent as well. In the arena's timer, players would be able to see how many "extended shots" they have left and when limit time is reached, then it's a four-points foul and lose of turn.

I think that wouldn't change the structure of the game (like the shoot-out does) but would do enough to prevent deliberate slow play and controversies for when the refs should or should not warn players for slow play. Also, I think whatever the shot you have to take, three minutes is just too long for any - both from a player's perspective and from a fan's.

Still without my shot-clock though, this year's World Championship is coming to an end this Sunday with Mark Selby himself playing Shaun Murphy - who's a fairly surprising finalist this season. I'll be talking through that final on Twitter, so hit that follow!

Follow Down the Rail on Instagram and like our page on Facebook for all things snooker!