IN all seriousness, Tom
IN all seriousness, Tom
You would be mistaken if you thought I have not tried to think of all pitfalls that could occur. I know of a few from experience that would cause me pause .....
I don't expect you to answer with any practical knowledge because you lack the experience. You have made that perfectly clear through the numerous posts you've made.
Tom
do you expect others with differing opinions from yours to simply shut up because you say so. Tyler nor I started this thread. Someone with perhaps more experience than you and who is perhaps a better player than you did. He, and many others have acknowledged that the game, under certain circumstances might could use some tweaking.
I have played one pocket for about 40yrs or so. I will not play for fun, I bet my own money and I don't like to lose. I enjoy the game in its present state very much, for the same reasons you do. I do not want to change or ruin the game.
The part of the game I enjoy most, if I had to pick is the "moving" part. For me one pocket is a mental war of wits. Nothing pleases me more than manuevering my opponent into a position he don't like and watching him struggle before giving in. Nothing I hate more than being on that hook myself.
I know its a cliche, but I do believe in taking care of Whitey above all else. I also understand one must have an appropriate amount of offense to be successful. I am considered an excellent banker amongst my peers. I understand the use of the uptable game to protect a lead.
I only say these things, so maybe you will get off the "you got no experience" routine.
AS I have said before, scratches and fouls are to be avoided, thats why they carry penalties, no? And yes, intentional fouls can be strategically useful, but overuse is boring and does lengthen the game, and this favors ballrunners (if you don't agree with that, you aren't all that experienced).
I think the current penalty for scratches and fouls (even the intentional kind) don't provide the proper disincentative, you may disagree.
My idea of changing the rule on penaltys for fouls to make the game shorter is at the very least a very good beginning towards solving the problem being discussed (slow and long games). It does this by lowering the number of balls needed to get out and it does this throughout the game each time a foul is committed (I think you understand this).It does not change any of the current strategies inherent in the game, except to make fouls increasingly more important as the game goes on applying more pressure to control Whitey. The game gets shorter each time you don't. We even addressed the strategy of following in a ball you pocket into your opponents pocket when he's on the hill, so as not to lose this option.
Up above, I have used only what I considered a pertinent part of your post and for a reason.
You cllaim to have given all this considerable thought, and have some "pitfalls"
that you are keeping a secret. You chastise us for carrying on this many page discussion out of ignorance. You'd rather that everyone endure all this rather than enlighten us with your experience and knowledge.
I, and I'm sure Tyler, and perhaps many others, would once and for all like to hear your reasons why this idea won't work, why it will ruin current strategies and the game, share some examples with us all and respond to this admittedly long winded description of my point of view (sorry).
You can't say that I haven't explained the rule and what it does as well as how it does it... so here's your chance.. you could put an end to this if you know what you say you know.
EITHER PUT UP OR COP OUT ONCE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!