Rule changes????

[Tom Wirth]

Well, I think the subject of intentional fouls has run it's course and then some but for those who wish to belabor the point a little longer I wish to run along a tangent for a moment. I hope you don't mind but if you do... Oh well, stop here and read no more.

In the previous thread regarding intentional fouls there are a couple of proponents of additional penalties for certain fouls which are primarily used to stall the game out and increase the number of balls each player needs to win to game. First of all, how do you know that is the shooter's intention? Are you a mind reader and a member of the thought police?

It is my belief that instituting a rule like this will cause nothing but trouble for TDs and players alike. Spectators too will be bewildered by what just happened and why one player has just been hit with a doubling fine. It is my contention that a foul is a foul is a foul. The only exceptions are fouls which include unsportsmanlike conduct.

Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject.

"It is true that extending a game with fouls favors the better player but I don't see this as a tactic which is used all that frequently to make an issue out of it. It all equals out in the end doesn't it? They do it to you; you do it to others. It just becomes another arrow in the quiver to be used when needed. Additional penalties for these foul would only create a multitude of arguments. I will give you an example in a new thread:"

How many of you remember a time when we played pool and found ourselves snuggled close to but not frozen to an object ball we wished to shoot straight ahead. In all the rooms I played in this was a legal shot as long as one continuous stroke was used and the cue ball traveled slower than the OB. No one argued these shots. No one came up to inspect whether the balls were frozen or not. For a while they tried to introduce an idea that you were allowed to shoot straight ahead if the separation between the two balls was greater than the width of a piece of chalk. Now that was pour genius. No one insisted that your cue stick had to be elevated x number of degrees before the shot was legal. No one felt the need to call a ref. over to challenge the legality of the shot you were about to shoot. And at the conclusion of the shot no one claimed the shot was a foul because the cue ball rolled two inches forward.

Where have the old days gone? Tell me, someone, what is the difference between then and now in the scope of things. What was good then for one player was equally good for the other. Nothing has changed except now we are laden with ever increasing restrictions. Why have we all become so thin skinned and act like old ladies? This is not good for the game. Give the players room to expose and expand their imaginations. Stop trying to confine and stifle their abilities with more rules which solve nothing.

Tom

 

[bstroud]

Tom,

We don't need to change the game.

We need to make the pockets bigger.

Bill S.

 

[Tom Wirth]

I could live with that, Bill.

 

[darmoose]

H i Tom

H i Tom

Well, I think the subject of intentional fouls has run it's course and then some but for those who wish to belabor the point a little longer I wish to run along a tangent for a moment. I hope you don't mind but if you do... Oh well, stop here and read no more.

In the previous thread regarding intentional fouls there are a couple of proponents of additional penalties for certain fouls which are primarily used to stall the game out and increase the number of balls each player needs to win to game. First of all, how do you know that is the shooter's intention? Are you a mind reader and a member of the thought police?

It is my belief that instituting a rule like this will cause nothing but trouble for TDs and players alike. Spectators too will be bewildered by what just happened and why one player has just been hit with a doubling fine. It is my contention that a foul is a foul is a foul. The only exceptions are fouls which include unsportsmanlike conduct.

Here is a quote from the previous thread on this subject.

"It is true that extending a game with fouls favors the better player but I don't see this as a tactic which is used all that frequently to make an issue out of it. It all equals out in the end doesn't it? They do it to you; you do it to others. It just becomes another arrow in the quiver to be used when needed. Additional penalties for these foul would only create a multitude of arguments. I will give you an example in a new thread:"

How many of you remember a time when we played pool and found ourselves snuggled close to but not frozen to an object ball we wished to shoot straight ahead. In all the rooms I played in this was a legal shot as long as one continuous stroke was used and the cue ball traveled slower than the OB. No one argued these shots. No one came up to inspect whether the balls were frozen or not. For a while they tried to introduce an idea that you were allowed to shoot straight ahead if the separation between the two balls was greater than the width of a piece of chalk. Now that was pour genius. No one insisted that your cue stick had to be elevated x number of degrees before the shot was legal. No one felt the need to call a ref. over to challenge the legality of the shot you were about to shoot. And at the conclusion of the shot no one claimed the shot was a foul because the cue ball rolled two inches forward.

Where have the old days gone? Tell me, someone, what is the difference between then and now in the scope of things. What was good then for one player was equally good for the other. Nothing has changed except now we are laden with ever increasing restrictions. Why have we all become so thin skinned and act like old ladies? This is not good for the game. Give the players room to expose and expand their imaginations. Stop trying to confine and stifle their abilities with more rules which solve nothing.

Tom

good to see you over here. At the risk of being called a belaborer, I must offer this reply. And I, like you, don't mind going on, what else does a retired old fart have to do.

You certainly have, it seems, gone off on a tangent here.

I have never advocated different penalties for different fouls, the only exception being that at the end of the game, I agreed that the game should not end on a foul. To keep that from happening I agreed that when your opponent is on the hill and you foul or scratch, the penalty would be only loss of a ball for you and not add a ball to your opponent, thereby ending the game. This modification keeps in tact the move of scratching behind a ball you pocket in your opponents hole when he is on the hill.

As for intentions, when your opponent commits a "touch" foul, they are obvious when you look at the results. For the penalty of one ball (which B Stroud could care less about) he has, temporarily at least, subverted a potential sell out eminating from being trapped. He has also stalled or delayed the progress of the game.

I have said all fouls are to be avoided, thats why they carry penalties. You surely can"t disagree with this. I just happen to believe the current penalty doesn't provide the proper discouragement, as evidenced by the current usage of intentional fouls.

The game would be better and quicker if a player were encouraged more to shoot his way out of a trap (we'd see some great shots)

Finally, I don't understand your comments regarding changing times and changing rules. You seem to be saying all is fair, as long as the goose and the gander can both do it. Does this include sharking and disrupting your opponents, perhaps cheating a lil bit ,etc. You know, he does it to you, you do it to others, it all evens out in the end.

The reason, I believe, that the rules have evolved is that some players have gotten better at taking advantage of loopholes while othere have not, thereby creating inequities not intended.

I'd like to hear your objections to changing the penalty for all fouls to adding a ball to your opponents score (with the noted exception), a one ball penalty still?

 

[bstroud]

A shot is a shot. What's the difference between an intentional foul and a great shot in the pocket.

The greatest one pocket shot I ever saw was when Efferin was corner hooked with one ball on the table and his opponent had it very near his hole.

He took an intentional and rolled the cue ball on the spot putting a ball behind it. Think that's hard? Try it a few times. Try it under the gun.

Bill S.

 

[fred bentivegna]

A shot is a shot. What's the difference between an intentional foul and a great shot in the pocket.

The greatest one pocket shot I ever saw was when Efferin was corner hooked with one ball on the table and his opponent had it very near his hole.

He took an intentional and rolled the cue ball on the spot putting a ball behind it. Think that's hard? Try it a few times. Try it under the gun.

Bill S.

Seen it! That was pure genius in thought and action.

Beard

 

[Tom Wirth]

good to see you over here. At the risk of being called a belaborer, I must offer this reply. And I, like you, don't mind going on, what else does a retired old fart have to do.

You certainly have, it seems, gone off on a tangent here.

I have never advocated different penalties for different fouls, the only exception being that at the end of the game, I agreed that the game should not end on a foul. Excuse me but please explain how you are not advocating a different penalty for touch fouls when you wish to double the fine? Isn't that your position?To keep that from happening I agreed that when your opponent is on the hill and you foul or scratch, the penalty would be only loss of a ball for you and not add a ball to your opponent, thereby ending the game. This modification keeps in tact the move of scratching behind a ball you pocket in your opponents hole when he is on the hill.

As for intentions, when your opponent commits a "touch" foul, they are obvious when you look at the results. the penalty of one ball (which B Stroud could care less about) he has, temporarily at least, subverted a potential sell out eminating from being trapped. He has also stalled or delayed the progress of the game. This is where you lose me again. Why are you so fixated on this idea that delaying the progress of the game is so bad a thing? There are ample examples of great players who are in difficult situations who's current motivation is to survive the moment. What's wrong with that.

I have said all fouls are to be avoided, thats why they carry penalties. Pease excuse me again but I could not disagree with you more. Not all fouls are to be avoided and most every game from football to basketball, soccer, you name it use fouls in constructive ways during the course of games.You surely can"t disagree with this. I just happen to believe the current penalty doesn't provide the proper discouragement, as evidenced by the current usage of intentional fouls. The idea is not to discourage but to penalize. There is a big difference.
The game would be better and quicker if a player were encouraged more to shoot his way out of a trap (we'd see some great shots) This is your opinion not mine.

Finally, I don't understand your comments regarding changing times and changing rules. You seem to be saying all is fair, as long as the goose and the gander can both do it. Does this include sharking and disrupting your opponents, perhaps cheating a lil bit ,etc. You know, he does it to you, you do it to others, it all evens out in the end.Now you are becoming obsurd. Of course cheating and sharking are not things I advocate. Taking a foul is well within the rules of the game. The idea is insulting.

The reason, I believe, that the rules have evolved is that some players have gotten better at taking advantage of loopholes while othere have not, thereby creating inequities not intended. loopholes?

I'd like to hear your objections to changing the penalty for all fouls to adding a ball to your opponents score (with the noted exception), a one ball penalty still?

Where do you propose to find this mysterious ball?

Your ideas though they may be well intentioned are like many Government programs. They are filled with unintended consequences.

Tom

 

[darmoose]

Seen it! That was pure genius in thought and action.

Beard

Fred I agree totally, fantastic thought and execution, a shot 99% of players would never think of, let alone pull off.

But, no justification for encouraging intentional fouls as opposed to didscouraging them.. No argument for keeping the old rule instead of going to the proposed rule, as he would still have done it, and the penalty was still the same.

 

[darmoose]

Where do you propose to find this mysterious ball?

Your ideas though they may be well intentioned are like many Government programs. They are filled with unintended consequences.

Tom

I said the same thing when this modification to my original idea was first suggested. I personally think the one ball transfer from fouler to foulee is fine, and not too much. However, to satisfy those who thought two balls was too much, I agreed that simply adding one ball to the foulee's side was fine also, and served the same purposes.

If that's your hang up, I'm OK with simply denoting the added ball with a coin (as that will be the coins only use and should cause no confusion)

The government thing is a cop out, you could have said that about all the rule changes made the past hundred years. Well, you kinda did. We have to many rules. Players should be left to their "exposed and expanded imaginations" even at their opponents expense, the whole GOOSE and GANDER thingy.

Oh well, at least you got the same penalty for all fouls part now.:frus

 

[Tom Wirth]

I've said my piece. I'll leave it to others to respond further.

Tom

 

[bstroud]

The intentional foul is a thinking mans' shot. You put the cue ball where you feel you can do more from that position than your opponent. I consider it an offensive shot. Perhaps that's why I use it so often.

To penalize it more than an ordinary shot just seems unfair.

Scott is one of the smartest practitioners.

Bill S.

 

[darmoose]

The intentional foul is a thinking mans' shot. You put the cue ball where you feel you can do more from that position than your opponent. I consider it an offensive shot. Perhaps that's why I use it so often.

To penalize it more than an ordinary shot just seems unfair.

Scott is one of the smartest practitioners.

Bill S.

Ahhh Bill,

I couldn't agree with you more. Putting the cue ball somewhere that it ain't currently at to foil your opponent is a great move, even tho it is a foul and must be penalized. Being a "thinking man" I'm sure you'll get this.

The point of my proposed rule change is to reconfigure the said penalty to provide more discouragement to ALL fouls (take care of whitey), and in particular those pesky "touch" fouls that serve no purpose but to stall in an attempt to not sell out after being trapped. These fouls are lengthening the game unduly, and we wanna make the game go faster, right?

Fortunately, it is so simple to fix. Instead of just taking away a ball from the fouler, we either transfer this same ball to the foulee,(or for those who want to encourage the art of fouling, we just add one to the foulees score and leave the poor fouler alone).

You do agree that fouls are unintended or at least undesirable, don't you? You don't foul if you have a better choice, do you? Of course not. Not a thinking guy like you.

And so, I can't imagine anyone defendeing the status quo, encouraging fouls, except "the foulers". And since they are just causing problems for TD's and causing spectators and players to complain about the slowness of one pocket, why would we listen to them. I don't know.

 

[bstroud]

I take an intentional foul many times when there are other shots available without taking a penalty.

You just need to decide whether the foul will produce a better position.

Sometimes just lagging the cue ball to the end rail is a good shot that puts a lot of pressure on your opponent. Especially if you shoot well off the end rail and he does not.

I like tight pockets to gamble on but think bigger pockets for tournament play would avoid those very long games.

The best players will win no matter what size pockets they play on. With very few exceptions it is the shooter that will win, not the safety player.

Bill S.

 

[lll]

why do we want texas express one pocket???
still confused

 

[lll]

for those that played in the days of bigger pockets as routine (if thats true)
were the games faster or about the same as today??

 

[Tom Wirth]

Players who's defensive skills outweigh their shooting skills are far easier opponents for me. The more defensive they become the more aggressive I feel I can play the game. The best defense is a strong offense.

If you look at it another way; Players who you know can run out from anywhere on the table are a threat with every occasion they spend at the table and against any player regardless of their skills. That creates a great deal of pressure and pressure eventually creates error. These players may be suicide kings but they remain dangerous.

On the other hand a player you know has not the offensive skills to run the game out clears the way to take more chances because the risk is limited and the likelihood that a single error will cost the game is remote. Even when down substantially I feel I can still win these games.

Bottom line; build up your fire power. It is fine to have great moving skills and defensive strengths but these skills must be backed up with a solid offense.

Tom

 

[bstroud]

Players who's defensive skills outweigh their shooting skills are far easier opponents for me. The more defensive they become the more aggressive I feel I can play the game. The best defense is a strong offense.

If you look at it another way; Players who you know can run out from anywhere on the table are a threat with every occasion they spend at the table and against any player regardless of their skills. That creates a great deal of pressure and pressure eventually creates error. These players may be suicide kings but they remain dangerous.

On the other hand a player you know has not the offensive skills to run the game out clears the way to take more chances because the risk is limited and the likelihood that a single error will cost the game is remote. Even when down substantially I feel I can still win these games.

Bottom line; build up your fire power. It is fine to have great moving skills and defensive strengths but these skills must be backed up with a solid offense.

Tom

What a mouthful.
You are completely right.

I love it when people can't run balls and play defense hoping to win.
They simply have no chance no matter what size the pockets are.

Bill Stroud

 

[OldSchool]

Ahhh Bill,

I couldn't agree with you more. Putting the cue ball somewhere that it ain't currently at to foil your opponent is a great move, even tho it is a foul and must be penalized. Being a "thinking man" I'm sure you'll get this.

The point of my proposed rule change is to reconfigure the said penalty to provide more discouragement to ALL fouls (take care of whitey), and in particular those pesky "touch" fouls that serve no purpose but to stall in an attempt to not sell out after being trapped. These fouls are lengthening the game unduly, and we wanna make the game go faster, right?

Fortunately, it is so simple to fix. Instead of just taking away a ball from the fouler, we either transfer this same ball to the foulee,(or for those who want to encourage the art of fouling, we just add one to the foulees score and leave the poor fouler alone).

You do agree that fouls are unintended or at least undesirable, don't you? You don't foul if you have a better choice, do you? Of course not. Not a thinking guy like you.

And so, I can't imagine anyone defendeing the status quo, encouraging fouls, except "the foulers". And since they are just causing problems for TD's and causing spectators and players to complain about the slowness of one pocket, why would we listen to them. I don't know.

Listen up Mr. bored retiree with too much time on his hands. It's quite obvious that you're not a very skilled, or experienced one pocket player. That being the case, and also with your being a new member to this site, you should show some respect, quit flapping your lips, with poor suggestions that you're not qualified to give, and listen to what far more experienced, high level playing one pocket players are telling you.

Old School

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

Listen up Mr. bored retiree with too much time on his hands. It's quite obvious that you're not a very skilled, or experienced one pocket player. That being the case, and also with your being a new member to this site, you should show some respect, quit flapping your lips, with poor suggestions that you're not qualified to give, and listen to what far more experienced, high level playing one pocket players are telling you.

Old School

You tell em' Old School, lol.

- Ghost

PS, I don't tangle with Old School - he's almost as tough as Clare...:heh

 

[Tom Wirth]

Listen up Mr. bored retiree with too much time on his hands. It's quite obvious that you're not a very skilled, or experienced one pocket player. That being the case, and also with your being a new member to this site, you should show some respect, quit flapping your lips, with poor suggestions that you're not qualified to give, and listen to what far more experienced, high level playing one pocket players are telling you.

Old School

MY hero!