A Ball on the break proposal

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,577
In watching yesterday's match between Scott Frost and Danny Smith I heard an interesting idea when it came to a player who makes
a ball on the break and the re-rack rule is in force. Did any of you catch this?

I don't know if this rule was implemented in this match but here is what was at least suggested:

Rack your own and if you make a ball on the break it calls for a re-rack.
Now here was the interesting part. Should you scratch on your follow-up break you can then have a third and deciding re-rack and break.

I think this is only fair considering how on the first break you would be in such a commanding position
and with having scratched on your second attempt you are now in deep guano. Seems like the two
breaks cancel one another out.
It will not happen often but it will happen.

What does the OP.org public think of this idea?
I suggest we include this rule in our OP.org tournaments.
This inquiring mind wants the know.

Tom
 

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
3,313
Sure. What a bummer that would be - to scratch on the re-break!
 

oldschool1478

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
125
A couple of weeks ago, in the first game with a friend who comes over weekly,
I broke and made one. I suggested we start going by OP.org rules and re-rack.
My friend reluctantly agreed. I broke again and scratched in his pocket. :frus
This sounds like a good idea to me.:eek:
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
At Cal. Billiards 2018 MOT players meeting, the making of a ball on the break never came up. Therefore it was of little importance to the member players! Whitey
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,091
It was Tres Kane that said that is the rule he has used in events he has run. Every time this topic comes I always used the example of what happens if on the 2nd break you either scratch or sell out the corner ball. My feeling this is not fair. I think Tres' solution moves toward a fairer solution but I don't think solves the case where the breaker sinks a ball on the break and then sells out the corner ball on the 2nd break. Here in this example the breaker has been penalized for his good break and now has to live with his 2nd break where his opponent has a chance to run out or at least take control of the table

Expanding on Tres' rule I would like to see the breaker have the option of a 3rd break if he sells out that ball. Its the only truly fair solution if your are going the repack if the breaker makes a ball.

The best solution is 1 break and whatever happens, happens. Keith
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,577
It was Tres Kane that said that is the rule he has used in events he has run. Every time this topic comes I always used the example of what happens if on the 2nd break you either scratch or sell out the corner ball. My feeling this is not fair. I think Tres' solution moves toward a fairer solution but I don't think solves the case where the breaker sinks a ball on the break and then sells out the corner ball on the 2nd break. Here in this example the breaker has been penalized for his good break and now has to live with his 2nd break where his opponent has a chance to run out or at least take control of the table

Expanding on Tres' rule I would like to see the breaker have the option of a 3rd break if he sells out that ball. Its the only truly fair solution if your are going the repack if the breaker makes a ball.

The best solution is 1 break and whatever happens, happens. Keith




Keith, This is the way I see it too. Rack for yourself or rack for each other. the opposing player has the option to inspect the rack. What could be more fair than that? Unfortunately, times have changed. So what is to be done to make this new re-rack rule be more fair. Tres' option is one solution. There are others.

In speaking to Jakie, he mentioned the possibility of giving the breaker the option of spotting the ball and surrender the inning to the opponent or risking a re-rack and break the balls again, taking whatever comes.

As I see it, this is not a bad alternative.
Something to consider leading to the next event.

Tom
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,091
Im tired of always hearing about the "Grady Rule" so if my suggestion is ever put in place I deem it the "Sappo Rule". K
 

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
5,016
Why not break and sit down, no matter what happens, then your opponent shoots..
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
I think this only serves to complicate and further lengthen the game of one pocket.:frus

My first preference is to get rid of this obsession to "rack your own", which is how all this discussion came up in the first place. Seems to me this is a recent development that started with 9 ball rack mechanics. I see nothing wrong with having the opponent rack the balls for the breaker, and the breaker certainly has the right to inspect the rack. I have seen people argue over this though, claiming the racker just can't get the rack right. If that were so, how you gonna let him rack his own?:confused:

If we got to go with the "rack your own" obsessors, then I prefer that if you make a ball on the break you spot it and sit down. Nothing could be simpler, more fair to both players, and faster.:)
 

Jakie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
181
Ball on the break

Ball on the break

Let me start by saying that I totally disagree with the re-rack rule. To me, it goes completely against the grain of all other pocket billiards games. Even straight pool, whose rules are used in the game of one pocket, allows the breaker to continue his inning after a called/made ball.

Although it seems a majority of players now favor the re-rack,I feel negating a good break is a stiff penalty for making a good shot. Especially if you scratch or leak the corner ball on the second break.[big swing there]. My proposal to make this situation less penal to the breaker would be:

1. Spot the made ball

2. After the made ball is spotted the breaker has the option to re-break or keep the first break as it lies and your opponent shoots from there.

It seems that most breaks where a ball is made are usually very good breaks so the breaker would not be so severely penalized.
 

Mkbtank

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
5,280
A Ball on the break proposal

Let me start by saying that I totally disagree with the re-rack rule. To me, it goes completely against the grain of all other pocket billiards games. Even straight pool, whose rules are used in the game of one pocket, allows the breaker to continue his inning after a called/made ball.



Although it seems a majority of players now favor the re-rack,I feel negating a good break is a stiff penalty for making a good shot. Especially if you scratch or leak the corner ball on the second break.[big swing there]. My proposal to make this situation less penal to the breaker would be:



1. Spot the made ball



2. After the made ball is spotted the breaker has the option to re-break or keep the first break as it lies and your opponent shoots from there.



It seems that most breaks where a ball is made are usually very good breaks so the breaker would not be so severely penalized.


That’s a good idea Nick 👍
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,635
Expanding on Tres' rule I would like to see the breaker have the option of a 3rd break if he sells out that ball. Its the only truly fair solution if your are going the rerack if the breaker makes a ball.
That's a step in the right direction, Keith, but now we're getting even deeper into time issues. I think a much simpler solution is for the breaker to break and sit down whatever happens. If he makes a ball he keeps it, if he scratches or sells out, he pays, but no matter what, it's opponent's turn at the table.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,635
you spot it and sit down.
The only thing I don't like about spotting it is that since it doesn't go on the spot, it will sometimes go someplace in the back where it's shootable or bankable for the opponent, who might not have had a shot otherwise.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,091
That's a step in the right direction, Keith, but now we're getting even deeper into time issues. I think a much simpler solution is for the breaker to break and sit down whatever happens. If he makes a ball he keeps it, if he scratches or sells out, he pays, but no matter what, it's opponent's turn at the table.
I too feel the best solution is if you make the ball it stays down and the breaker continues shooting. If racking for your opponent solves this problem then that is a great solution. But my secondary recommendation would not take up enough extra time that the match would be delayed. Hell stop smoke breaks and you would save enough time to repack one rebreak a dozen times.

Time should not be the issue here, fair play for both players is the issue as I see it. K
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,690
my 2 cents (worth less...:eek::()
having your opponent rack
with you inspecting the rack
eliminates all this nonsense
jmho
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,690
more 2 cents
if we are going to let the breaker have a 3rd break
if he makes one
then scratches
then we need to make THIS rule official
that if you make a ball and scratch
THE BALL GETS SPOTTED
YOU OWE ONE
AND YOU OPPONENT HAS BALL IN HAND BEHIND THE HEAD STRING
how can we let someone break again if they scratch on the break ?????

jmho
 

Billy Jackets

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
1,141
In watching yesterday's match between Scott Frost and Danny Smith I heard an interesting idea when it came to a player who makes
a ball on the break and the re-rack rule is in force. Did any of you catch this?

I don't know if this rule was implemented in this match but here is what was at least suggested:

Rack your own and if you make a ball on the break it calls for a re-rack.
Now here was the interesting part. Should you scratch on your follow-up break you can then have a third and deciding re-rack and break.

I think this is only fair considering how on the first break you would be in such a commanding position
and with having scratched on your second attempt you are now in deep guano. Seems like the two
breaks cancel one another out.
It will not happen often but it will happen.

What does the OP.org public think of this idea?
I suggest we include this rule in our OP.org tournaments.
This inquiring mind wants the know.

Tom
I think it's the only fair thing to do , all the "fast" fast, faster, people will want to say no.
 
Top