I wrote this for Joe in a message but it is fine here too -- my feedback on the speedup mostly:
I thought it was handled well. The fact that Jason was there was definitely a help. Some players of course had more of a learning curve than others, and a kinder reaction than others too, for that matter.
The rules helped, but 4 hours a slot is still pretty long it turns out, because the way it went they still ran a whole day long. I am not sure how much of the end delay had to do with three players being left at the end, all with buy backs -- because that meant 5 rounds instead of potentially two rounds if nobody had a buy back.
My opinion is they need to simplify the speed up rule stages. So the ref doesn't have to make potentially 3 trips to the table with new explanations each time. Either play Grady Rule all the way from the start, or play regular rules 3 hours and then drastic rules at that point. With a waiver possible at the streamed tables if the streamed tables have a shot clock. Viewers actually like a long hard fought match if both players are getting to it, and not Wedging and dinking around or taking forever to shoot.
Scott Frost lost in one of the matches that came down to the 4 hour warning -- but he sold out a crazy shot before the rule actually kicked in I believe, knowing that being a little behind he was doomed at the 4 hour mark.
I don't think the spectators want to watch the Grady rules or anything like that, because of course they confuse even more easily than the players lol, which is why I would say let them play 3 hours standard One Pocket, but then bring the hammer down as necessary if they run over 3 hours.
Honestly every single table pretty much would benefit from a simple shot clock to keep the players shooting, instead on interminably looking things over. But that is impractical unless the players themselves toggle a clock of course. Although, a cadre of volunteers might help, at least on the streamed tales.
The Grady rule itself, although it prevents a wedge, it also in its own way slows down the flow of the game because of the stopping to measure balls, explain the rule changes, and go through the spotting effort, sometimes with critical consequences if there is a ball near the spot that creates a dead ball. That happened in one match I watched -- a big match too, although I am forgetting who the players were, but it was late in the tournament. A ball spotted dead and that ended up being the final turning point in that match.
I also wonder about making the "buy back" something players have to decide on either when they first register to play, or at the latest, when they go to pick up their player card at the start of the tournament. That way people still have the option of buying only the one chance if they want to enter that way, but the TD staff already knows and has in their system every player who has a buy back and who doesn't, from the very beginning of the tournament. So there would be no need to delay draws for the next rounds. Meaning if a table opens up froma quicker than average match, that table can always get an assignment of a "next available" match. I'm not sure what difference that would make, but it would have to be something.
The Derby is still quite a spectacle, and it looked like it had a good turnout both for players and spectators this year, so it seems like it should be working financially for sure. But the bugs it has are bad for publicity obviously, which you are seeing both in the forums and on Facebook. The better they can get at streamlining it, the better!!