Rules Update Conversation

[Island Drive]

Humm....the intentional break scratch....Here's a thought, from a different perspective....how about giving the incoming player the option of taking it, or giving it back?

 

[darmoose]

Yes but doing it all the time would be a gigantic change — on the break is incremental

But where is the “exception” you speak of?

Steve, Yes, I realize it would be a significant change, but you have to admit that your logic for considering what you are suggesting on the break shot is directly in line with what i am saying. You don;t want the incoming player to be disadvantaged by an "illegal" shot, and neither do I. I just have arrived at the place where I realize it is just as unfair at any time that it happens, maybe even moreso.

example: "A"(spotting me 9/7) has several balls near his hole, but has me hooked so that I can't get to them. I make a great legal shot and rehook him on those balls while putting a ball near my hole. He, now touches the CB taking an intentional forcing me to do likewise to avoid him running many balls. By the time it's over we have taken 4 fouls and now the game is 11/9 and he has to take the risky shot he wouldn't take four innings ago. Your concern for the illegal break is not as detremental to the incoming player as my example, do you think?

The exception was for a different rule change, sorry.

 

[Tobermory]

I feel fairly strongly that if you make a ball and scratch and the rule is if you make a ball on the break you rerack it should be a rerack. My thinking is the game does not start until a break is made where a ball is not made . Also if you have to rerack after you make a ball it seems kinda overly penalizing the breaker if they only get the disadvantage and don't get any advantage from the rule

Can somebody explain why the breaker who makes a ball on the break should have to rerack and rebreak? If the point is to prevent a break and runout possibility, then the simplest and fairest solution is to give the breaker the ball but then turn the table over to the opponent. The rerack rule penalizes the breaker for a good and legal, albeit lucky, break.

Consider the break that sends a ball into the jaws, but it hangs up. Also a lucky outcome for the breaker, but in this case the breaker is rewarded.

Game 39 between Duell and Busty is a perfect example why the rerack rule is dumb.

 

[sappo]

Can somebody explain why the breaker who makes a ball on the break should have to rerack and rebreak? If the point is to prevent a break and runout possibility, then the simplest and fairest solution is to give the breaker the ball but then turn the table over to the opponent. The rerack rule penalizes the breaker for a good and legal, albeit lucky, break.

Consider the break that sends a ball into the jaws, but it hangs up. Also a lucky outcome for the breaker, but in this case the breaker is rewarded.

Game 39 between Duell and Busty is a perfect example why the rerack rule is dumb.

Tap, Tap, Tap

 

[darmoose]

Can somebody explain why the breaker who makes a ball on the break should have to rerack and rebreak? If the point is to prevent a break and runout possibility, then the simplest and fairest solution is to give the breaker the ball but then turn the table over to the opponent. The rerack rule penalizes the breaker for a good and legal, albeit lucky, break.

Consider the break that sends a ball into the jaws, but it hangs up. Also a lucky outcome for the breaker, but in this case the breaker is rewarded.

Game 39 between Duell and Busty is a perfect example why the rerack rule is dumb.

Tobs, I am sooooooo pleased to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. There is no reason to require a rerack given the goal as stated. This was discussed at length more than once in the past. Not sure why the rerack option prevailed, other than it was already being used in some tournaments. We called what you are talking about "break and sit down" (if you make a ball you keep it)

 

[Bob Jewett]

The break at one pocket is just like the situation at 14.1 in the middle of the game

Bob I don't understand your meaning of the above statement.

Each rack in one pocket is a beginning.

Thee ONLY beginning in 14.1 is after the lag, when the score is 0/0.

Suppose you leave both cue ball and break ball in the rack at the end of a 14.1 rack. The situation that results is the same situation as for the break at one pocket.

There is no need to complicate the break at one pocket. There is no problem to solve. Leave it alone.

 

[Tobermory]

I've never been to the DCC so I haven't played a game where the DCC 45 degree rule was in effect. Because that rule would permit players to use that standard (or fudge it by 5 or 10 or 15 degrees) and get away with high crimes and misdemeanors, I don't think it is the solution to the frozen/near-frozen ball situation. I've learned to live with the rule that allows you to fire away when the CB is frozen to an OB, mostly because it helps avoid arguments, but I've never really felt like it solved the problem either because it is a push shot, anyway you slice it, and that violates the spirit of the game, in my view.

I like the moose's general idea that the solution involves aiming the cue stick so that the cue tip is not aimed so that it could hit the OB on a follow through. Interestingly, and you can perform your own geometric calculations, his idea would require that the cue stick be aimed at least 45 degrees off the line to the OB. At that angle, the cue stick is aimed at the edge of the OB. Maybe that is the 45 degree rule that the DCC rule makers thought they were imposing.

In post # 5 I thought I explained pretty well what my proposal was. The primary problem with this type of shot is that it is all but IMPOSSIBLE to see or even hear any evidence of the foul that the shooter will be compelled to agree with if he has larceny in his heart. What I have proposed is to determine that the shooter is aimed in such a way to avoid the foul PRIOR to shooting. Your discussion of all those angles 1 to 84 degrees or whatever seems to miss my point, sorry. The shooter is REQUIRED to aim his cue stick in such a direction so as to avoid hitting the OB on his follow through, whatever angle that requires. I don't see how that could be any easier, and the shooter and the opponent can predetermine if the shooter is complying before he shoots.

Shooter to his opponent: "how does this angle look to you?"
Opponent to shooter: "looks good, fire away", or "looks like your stick could contact the OB, give it a bit more angle".

It is the PREDETERMINATION of this shot that solves the problem. And, for those who just can't bring themselves to follow the rules, and think they are special enough to execute a "CB close to OB" shot, which we can't stop them from attempting, we need a more objective way to determine if a foul was committed. If the CB travels past the point of contact with the OB it is a foul. There are still going to be rare occasions where the rule can be questioned, but far less than we have currently. IMHO

ON the DCC 45 degree rule it is my understanding that on any shot, whether frozen or just close to frozen, so long as the shooter is jacked up 45 degrees, no foul can be called. I could be wrong. That is a terrible rule in my opinion that allows all kinds of unscrupulous behaviors. C'est la vie.

 

[Tobermory]

This would be my revision of this rule:

2.2 The opening break: The breaker may place the cue ball anywhere behind the head string. The cue ball may be stroked directly, or indirectly by hitting cushion(s) first, into any ball in the rack. A legal break requires the cue ball or at least one object ball to be driven to a rail, and it is a foul if neither occurs. All scratches or fouls on the opening break result in a one ball penalty. In the case of a pocket scratch, the incoming player has ball-in-hand fully behind the line, and the object balls are played as they lie. The object balls are played as they lie in the event of all other fouls.

One of the rule tweaks we are working on addresses if a foul is committed on the break. We are still working on final wording in this section, so it is still somewhat in flux, but I want to address your attention to the last sentence or two actually, which I have highlighted in bold red font:

 

[NH Steve]

I am fine with leaving the object balls to always be played as they lie after the break, even if the breaker fails to contact the rack, and even if they foul. If that is the sentiment of the forum. It's been the way One Pocket has been played as far as I know, and certainly is the way it is written in our current rules. But what about some kind of foul stroke (but not a pocket scratch) that leaves the incoming player in a nasty predicament, which was essentially arrived at illegally?? That is why I added the re-break option on a foul. In general, I hate the idea of a re-break, but how else do you address that, or is it simply not necessary to address? Only egregious fouls? Then you would have to define those. Only give the incoming player the option of a re-break when the rack is not contacted at all? That would be nice and easy to write, which is a plus

I am looking for input.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Darmoose;
If I understand your foul option to accept or deny, it then could result in this scenario. Player A commits an intentional, Player B denies, Player A commits another intentional, Player B once again denies. Is this a correct scenario?
------------
If so, Player A is now on 2 fouls, and now must make a legal shot or loose the game! Correct?
------------
Do you prefer the foul option over foul moving forward?
Thanks, I do not like an intentional, and I highly respect your efforts to thwart them! Whitey

 

[LSJohn]

But what about some kind of foul stroke (but not a pocket scratch) that leaves the incoming player in a nasty predicament, which was essentially arrived at illegally??

I am looking for input.

For starters, I don't like using the term "illegal" for simple fouls. I think it should be reserved for situations for which a referee might impose an "unsportsmanlike" penalty. I don't know what term is better -- maybe "valid" and "invalid" ? It's not really illegal to scratch.

For the substance of your question, I think the only condition that requires a response is one we consider "unsportsmanlike." If we consider intentional fouls proper, it makes no sense to me to consider unintentional fouls somehow improper.

This discussion made me wonder whether it's possible to gain an advantage on the break by kicking two rails to freeze on the back of the stack. If so, I think it is legal, and even proper and valid.

Also, let me endorse once again the idea of "break and sit down" with no new treatment for pocket scratches.

edit: One more thing: I don't think we should let the fact bother us that one of our standard rules has a special impact in handicapped gambling situations. That is for the participants to negotiate when settling terms for their match, and I think intentional fouls are an important part of the game.

 

[darmoose]

Darmoose;
If I understand your foul option to accept or deny, it then could result in this scenario. Player A commits an intentional, Player B denies, Player A commits another intentional, Player B once again denies. Is this a correct scenario?
------------
If so, Player A is now on 2 fouls, and now must make a legal shot or loose the game! Correct?
------------
Do you prefer the foul option over foul moving forward?
Thanks, I do not like an intentional, and I highly respect your efforts to thwart them! Whitey

Whitey,

You have it exactly correct. This rule would eliminate the incentive and potential reward for taking intentional fouls. It would also stop a superior player who is giving a spot from changing the game from 9/7 to 11/9 for example.

Also consider that it would not stop anybody from lagging to get behind balls (if they make a good hit, no option applied, if they don't make a good hit the opponent can apply the option if he wants to). Sometimes he will apply the option and sometimes he won't depending on how the balls lie. On a pocket scratch where the opponent gets BIH BTL it is unlikely he will give that shot back to the fouling player.

I think this option would have less impact on the game than some are worried about, but it will solve several problems and foster more "legal" and more creative shots. It will also add value to traps applied legally, and for what it's worth, I think it will help to balance the trend today of the game being dominated by run out artists and the "movers" of the world being pushed out of the game.

 

[darmoose]

Whitey,

I neglected to answer your second question. Yes, absolutely, this rule change I think is so simple and has only good effects on the game. I also think it could speed up the game as intentional tap fouls that lengthen the game would no longer be played.

i appreciate your supporting comments, I know you think about these things and work out any unintended consequences that might come out of suggestions like this. I wish others would think about this without the bias of just refusing to entertain any change because, afterall we have done it this way "forever". We could have a better game than the "great" game we already have.
Any negative comments you have about how this would work, please bring them forward.

Thanks

 

[darmoose]

For starters, I don't like using the term "illegal" for simple fouls. I think it should be reserved for situations for which a referee might impose an "unsportsmanlike" penalty. I don't know what term is better -- maybe "valid" and "invalid" ? It's not really illegal to scratch.

For the substance of your question, I think the only condition that requires a response is one we consider "unsportsmanlike." If we consider intentional fouls proper, it makes no sense to me to consider unintentional fouls somehow improper.

This discussion made me wonder whether it's possible to gain an advantage on the break by kicking two rails to freeze on the back of the stack. If so, I think it is legal, and even proper and valid.

Also, let me endorse once again the idea of "break and sit down" with no new treatment for pocket scratches.

edit: One more thing: I don't think we should let the fact bother us that one of our standard rules has a special impact in handicapped gambling situations. That is for the participants to negotiate when settling terms for their match, and I think intentional fouls are an important part of the game.

LSJ,

You know I am a fan of the usual thoughtful comments you come up with. However, I think you are wrong about intentional "tap" fouls being an important part of the game. I would also say that the gambling scenario in one pocket probably accounts for a huge percentage (75% or better) of the total amount of one pocket played worldwide, and I see nothing wrong with solving a problem for that type of play. You will find that if left to "negotiations" the superior player, giving up the spot, will not agree to the option rule. Yet the same player, if on the other side of that coin (getting the spot) will gladly agree. Left to negotiations will not create the impetus to make the change needed.

So, knowing your considerable wisdom, share with me (us) what the "tap" intentional adds to the game and why eliminating it would be problematic, if you would?

P.S. Incidentally, I agree the use of illegal is improper to define an intentional or any foul, I like your suggestion of valid or invalid.

 

[NH Steve]

For starters, I don't like using the term "illegal" for simple fouls. I think it should be reserved for situations for which a referee might impose an "unsportsmanlike" penalty. I don't know what term is better -- maybe "valid" and "invalid" ? It's not really illegal to scratch.

For the substance of your question, I think the only condition that requires a response is one we consider "unsportsmanlike." If we consider intentional fouls proper, it makes no sense to me to consider unintentional fouls somehow improper.

This discussion made me wonder whether it's possible to gain an advantage on the break by kicking two rails to freeze on the back of the stack. If so, I think it is legal, and even proper and valid.

Also, let me endorse once again the idea of "break and sit down" with no new treatment for pocket scratches.

edit: One more thing: I don't think we should let the fact bother us that one of our standard rules has a special impact in handicapped gambling situations. That is for the participants to negotiate when settling terms for their match, and I think intentional fouls are an important part of the game.

In red, yes, it is legal now. It would still be "legal" but your opponent would have the option of requiring a re-break as it is written/proposed above

 

[LSJohn]

LSJ,

what the "tap" intentional adds to the game

Good judgment regarding when to use it and when to force your opponent to using it is an important strategic and tactical part of the game. It gives some people who don't have a naturally good stroke and aim a second possible weapon to fight back: good judgment. And it's not just the tap; there are roll-outs that require a lot of skill to execute well enough to achieve the desired result, and that's after judging well that it's a good idea.

I'm not nearly as much traditionalist as some, but I wouldn't like to see major change to the game. It seems to me that making your rule 50 years ago would have made more sense than making it today.

 

[BOX]

Suppose you leave both cue ball and break ball in the rack at the end of a 14.1 rack. The situation that results is the same situation as for the break at one pocket

There is no need to complicate the break at one pocket. There is no problem to solve. Leave it alone.

Bob I agree with you there's nothing wrong with the brake. To continue your inning you must pocket a ball. One pocket is the only game that's required not to make a ball not good. In tournament play use a tournament director or referee or the opponent to rack the balls. The rack can be challenged at that time. The rules were designed to protect the sport not change it. Let's create a new rule no extensions allowed in one pocket learn how to use the bridge. No Cues allowed over 60 inches. Just for starters. My two cents just a thought. Thanks in advance as always

 

[darmoose]

Good judgment regarding when to use it and when to force your opponent to using it is an important strategic and tactical part of the game. It gives some people who don't have a naturally good stroke and aim a second possible weapon to fight back: good judgment. And it's not just the tap; there are roll-outs that require a lot of skill to execute well enough to achieve the desired result, and that's after judging well that it's a good idea.

I'm not nearly as much traditionalist as some, but I wouldn't like to see major change to the game. It seems to me that making your rule 50 years ago would have made more sense than making it today.

I have explained over and over that this rule would not stop a player from using his good judgement to lag anywhere on the table to get behind balls. Those shots DO have value and are not deterred. If he does it validly without fouling there is no option available, but if he does it invalidly and fouls, I should not be disadvantaged. In the case of him lagging behind some balls near my hole, even if I have the option, I will not likely apply it because he may have shots to his hole from there. I think this option would only be applied on a small portion of fouls committed, actually.

This rule does nothing but remove the advantage that a superior player can get by tapping the CB and changing the game. You know as well as I, that players who run balls easier care less about needing to make more balls to get out. One pocket is currently being dominated by sharpshooters and has become a game about little more than who can run balls faster. Not that I am against players running balls, but the subtle parts of the game involving moving and trapping are disappearing. The current rules reward this growing imbalance, and stymy the need to come with creative shots to escape a trap.

As to your last comment, "better late than never", "no time like the present", and "every trip starts with the first step".

 

[BRLongArm]

I am fine with leaving the object balls to always be played as they lie after the break, even if the breaker fails to contact the rack, and even if they foul. If that is the sentiment of the forum. It's been the way One Pocket has been played as far as I know, and certainly is the way it is written in our current rules. But what about some kind of foul stroke (but not a pocket scratch) that leaves the incoming player in a nasty predicament, which was essentially arrived at illegally?? That is why I added the re-break option on a foul. In general, I hate the idea of a re-break, but how else do you address that, or is it simply not necessary to address? Only egregious fouls? Then you would have to define those. Only give the incoming player the option of a re-break when the rack is not contacted at all? That would be nice and easy to write, which is a plus

I am looking for input.

You are creating what we call in the law "a parade of horribles", the worst case hypothetical that never happens. Who actually sees this as a problem we have to address?

 

[Island Drive]

Who first complained about making a ball on the break then a rerack?

This rule implementation has all the ''feelings'' of being created by $takehorses and their ability to control their $ituation better and remove luck, when in fact, this feels like a skill.

If it was created to protect someones CASH, then that's fine for them, but is the implementation of this really how this game must be played? In ten ball, 10 on the break does not count, tho in 9 ball it does, but sometimes in 9 ball the ball counts ONLY if it goes into the upper 4 pockets. Hummmmmmmmm.

Rule changes are good, if they are for the game or the sport, but when its change was created becau$e of some other reason, then it has that taste of Rounders.

Mid point may be this. If you make a ball on the break, you keep it/sit down and then it's your opponents shot.