wow cant believe how many people actually like the idea of changing the time i think the 15 minutes is fine i dont think it is too long at all i have and others have got 4 breaks in during that time *two for me two for my opponent * which i actually hit three cents and missed in the 90's on the 4th one so i dont believe the changing of the time should be changed in any capacity make it 5 minutes ? why so one person gets a break and takes teh mick with his shots so he or she wins not really fair .. ten minutes you can hit a cent straight off your break .. opponent can get unlucky on theirs and bang its game over cos u count clock down but hey whatever the powers that be want in my opinion it is not a clever idea at all ... now i think changing the time limits in tournaments thats an idea ill jump on the bandwagon for :D

We don't want to change the time. The option to have different length games based on shot time would be better.

Edited at 12:44 Fri 15/07/11 (BST)

Double post...

cant people read that i said have a option of choosin time limit.. not changing the whole time lmao

If I'm getting it correctly, you're talking about giving different options of game times: 5, 10, or 15 mins for example.
Only trouble I see with that is the ranking. Since this is a time-based game (in contrast to all the others), time limit makes a difference!
If a player can win by wasting time without the other player ever getting a shot, that shouldn't really be an option.

Put if the time is lower the time limit per shot would be lower, say a 10 minute game, going by calculations on a 15 minute game would be around a time limit of around 13 seconds.

you could have a 7 and half minute game meaning 10s per shot.

That's as low as I think it should go or you wont get many frames in.

yes that is exactly correct

True, the math works out, but I'm still against it.
If someone clears while taking the max amount of time in the last example (10 secs/shot), it would take a bit more than 4 mins, leaving the other player just over 3 mins to come back.
So after that first frame, if the player snookers himself on the breakoff, the other player can run down the clock to finish the game. This sounds like crap to me. It changes the whole complexity of the game, reduces it to luck, and I'm not in favor of it.
Really, not even enough patience to play 15 mins, especially given the option to flag?

*maths

hate it when people say math I'm always sitting there waiting for the s to appear

Not sure that's the only way to say it. Just looked up the harvard mathematics department website. They offer "math" courses. Same with yale. The British unis on the other hand all say maths.
Oh well...

they all wouldn't know the first thing about maths!!!

Exactly the same applies with 20 seconds, as a 10 second shot limit with 7:30 time limit is just the same as 20 seconds and 15 minutes.

9 reds + 9 colours = 18 balls plus 6 colours = 24 balls x 20 seconds = 480 seconds which is 8 minutes, say you miss first break off shot that is 8 minutes 20s.

on 10 seconds it works out to 4 minutes/4 minutes 10s.

You still have the same time scale to pot the same balls, to return from the same defecit.

I could understand you if you was to raise the shot time limit to say 40 secs etc but this would be just the same.

Going by my calculations anyway, if they are wrong please correct it.

The people who don't like it tho could still play 15minute games, so i can't really see what the big problem is?

15minute games are too long for me thats why i never play it.

exactly, would be good to have a option

I still like this

The rank has been mentioned , but I'm going to build on that point, as there is a very very good reason why this just can not work.

Simply, you would need a ranking table for each length of time for the game.

If you think about it, regular and original are the same game, albeit different size tables. The ranking scale is higher on original, which sees higher ranks obtained due to it (the contrary works too, where ranks can get lower a whole lot easier).

So basically, if you had, lets say for power, 5 min, 10 min, 15 min and 20 min game lengths with raking scales of 1, 2, 3 and 4 (these are completely wrong, but just for an example). To get the highest rank you would simply play the 20 minuite games all the time. 900 on 20 min games would be a whole lot easier than 900 on 5 min games. Which would mean the ranks would not be a true reflection of the ability of the player(s). Which in turn would mean you would need a different rank table for each time scale to sort this problem out, which to be honest would not work at all!

Also tournaments would be a slight issue as to what time they would be at, but that is quite irrelevant considering the big flaw in the idea anyway.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea, I'm just saying it has a major loophole.

well done damien i understood completely .. now get back on to pool and play straight stay away from snooker :-D

Notice how its the players who ONLY Play Arcade that want it changed? Nuff said.

I play arcade.

yep i understand damee, fair enough i see why is shouldnt be changed now