A Ball on the break proposal

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,694
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 at the same time on your break
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
I believe this method of solving the scratch had the most consensus, BIH/BTL -1.
any other rule is uncivilized .......:D
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,312
Nobody wants another choice, however, this was suggested to me by a pretty good player and hasn't been mentioned so far.

Make one on the break and you have the option of "keeping the ball and turning the table over to your opponent" or "re-racking".

Do what you all like, I'll play by the rules.

Powerball
Scoring a ball and then sitting down just does not compute when also the breaker has sold out big time to the opponent's hole, so therefore I was never a fan of this.
I am more inclined to like this solution of having an option to either sit down and keep your scored ball, or re-rack/re-break. But if you also scratch then I like BIH/BTL ball spots -1 vs. re-rack. Whitey
 
Last edited:

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,135
Nobody wants another choice, however, this was suggested to me by a pretty good player and hasn't been mentioned so far.

Make one on the break and you have the option of "keeping the ball and turning the table over to your opponent" or "re-racking".

Do what you all like, I'll play by the rules.

Powerball
Damm, that's a pretty bad ass idea... This gives the breaker just about the right amount of reward for making a ball, while not giving him the whole game.. And it allows him choice of rerack if he opens the goldmine to the other side.. Could be the final solution, as someone once said.. I endorse it..
Yes it's better for the breaker and a fair option. I like it also.
 

cincy_kid

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
4,533
I've seen Cory Duel make the corner ball time after time on the break playing 8 ball. He gets to rack his own. You have to wonder if he has got some secret tweak!
Pretty simple solution, go back to playing OP by the rules, 'opponent racks', breaker inspects rack before the break, game on!
Or the next option; breaker racks and opponent inspects the rack, game on!

I am still wondering why no one has answered my question about how the break was played at the 2019 MOT! This is my 3rd time asking this question. Whitey
Hey Whitey!

At all of the yearly official MOT's, we have always used the official one pocket rules, pasted here on the site. Rack your own and re-rack is my preferred way of playing too so it eliminates any questions of a bad or good rack by your opponent.

edit - I thought our rules were rack your own and re-rack but I guess I was thinking of the derby.
 
Last edited:

JohnInNH

Verified Member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
149
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?

The rules for one pocket do not include a re rack for pocketing a ball on the break, so why do we change the rules?
Everyone talks about speeding up the game but what does the multiple re racks do to the the time constraints?

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.

Why have multiple breaks if you allow a pocketed ball and leave it at that, and continue with the game, how often are pocketed balls made on the break does anyone know, does it make any difference in the outcome?

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
Just my humble opinion.

John
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
8,716
How quickly we forget...

How quickly we forget...

Well, this is now the 4th time in the last 7 years that the 'ball on the break' topic has been debated...and here's my response from 1-1/2 years ago - in part, explaining why what is being called the "break and sit down" option would be a very bad change/unfair to the breaker.....and this re-posting from that 1997 thread also includes the posts of John Henderson, Dr. Bill, Steve Booth, LSJohn, etc. agreeing with my choice of rule change - if that is, any change was to be implemented ----->


I'm old school and I don't like a re-rack, for all the same reasons that have already been stated by others.

But, that said, if a new rule had to be made re. making the ball on the break (i.e. for a particular tournament for example), I believe that the rule change that I conceived, and have used on occasion, is the best and fairest way to go..and that is...

If the breaker makes the corner ball on the break he gets to keep the ball, but cannot pocket a second ball, and instead has to play a safety for his following shot...

This rule still rewards the breaker for breaking that particular rack well and making the corner ball, but it doesn't let him run several balls, or run out the game because of it, which can reasonably be considered as too great of a reward......but conversely, it's not at all a good idea/rule change option, to spot the ball, or let the breaker keep it, but allow his opponent to shoot right after the breaker makes that ball on the break - because the opponent may easily have a free, simple, game-changing cross-corner bank to shoot, or worse yet, a ball sitting if front of his pocket - so that particular rule change would unfairly favor him, very possibly enabling him to run several balls, or run out.........my rule change would be a 'happy medium' option to utilize - if a change had to be made.

- Ghost

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSJohn

Good compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhendy

This is a good option. I like it better than re racking or spotting the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve

I like your suggestion too Ghost

Quote:
Originally Posted by wincardona

I'm with the people that wants to keep the breaking rule the way it is, I feel that if a player hits the break good he should get rewarded, a rerack, or even losing your shot is not the way to go. Your suggestion on playing another shot as long as you don't pocket a ball is a good alternative. I'm all for your suggestion.

Dr. Bill
 
Last edited:

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,577
Hi John, As you probably saw in one of my other posts on this subject I am in favor of either player racking the balls which can then be inspected by the opponent and from that point on it's one break. Should that player pocket a ball into his pocket without scratching he should be allowed to continue his inning. This has been the rule for as long as I have been playing the game. A span of time which exceeds a half century. It is only recently that this rule has changed. (Racking for oneself is just not necessary in the game of One Pocket but I have no major kick against it.)

There are no secrets to pocketing a ball on the break. It just happens. Many odd things or lucky things happen during the course of a game of One Pocket Should we advance this re-break theme and play call all shots. Of course not!

If the powers that be in OP.org tournaments require a different approach then I will adhere to those rules. My initial post was just in response to having heard an interesting alternative to what I see as a severe penalty for having made a great break and pocketing a ball. It just doesn't happen that often anyway.

Ghost's option makes some sense if there must be an alternative to the continuation of a player's run. I would think those of you who claim to be "old school" should like to continue the old school ways.

Okay, I'm done. I think I said quite enough on this subject I rest my case.:)

Tom
 
Last edited:

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,534
A Ball on the break proposal

I think that your opponent should shoot after the break no matter what. If you make a ball you keep it but he shoots. Keep it simple.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,139
guys that make balls on the break also sell out on the break more.

take the chance i can make a ball away i will play a slightly different break and that game will definitely take longer to play out.
 

levartze

Verified Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
62
I like the Ghost's option of keeping the pocketed ball and being forced to play a safety shot. Having the break is supposed to be the advantage to the breaker.

Well, this is now the 4th time in the last 7 years that the 'ball on the break' topic has been debated...and here's my response from 1-1/2 years ago - in part, explaining why what is being called the "break and sit down" option would be a very bad change/unfair to the breaker.....and this re-posting from that 1997 thread also includes the posts of John Henderson, Dr. Bill, Steve Booth, LSJohn, etc. agreeing with my choice of rule change - if that is, any change was to be implemented ----->


I'm old school and I don't like a re-rack, for all the same reasons that have already been stated by others.

But, that said, if a new rule had to be made re. making the ball on the break (i.e. for a particular tournament for example), I believe that the rule change that I conceived, and have used on occasion, is the best and fairest way to go..and that is...

If the breaker makes the corner ball on the break he gets to keep the ball, but cannot pocket a second ball, and instead has to play a safety for his following shot...

This rule still rewards the breaker for breaking that particular rack well and making the corner ball, but it doesn't let him run several balls, or run out the game because of it, which can reasonably be considered as too great of a reward......but conversely, it's not at all a good idea/rule change option, to spot the ball, or let the breaker keep it, but allow his opponent to shoot right after the breaker makes that ball on the break - because the opponent may easily have a free, simple, game-changing cross-corner bank to shoot, or worse yet, a ball sitting if front of his pocket - so that particular rule change would unfairly favor him, very possibly enabling him to run several balls, or run out.........my rule change would be a 'happy medium' option to utilize - if a change had to be made.

- Ghost

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSJohn

Good compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhendy

This is a good option. I like it better than re racking or spotting the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve

I like your suggestion too Ghost

Quote:
Originally Posted by wincardona

I'm with the people that wants to keep the breaking rule the way it is, I feel that if a player hits the break good he should get rewarded, a rerack, or even losing your shot is not the way to go. Your suggestion on playing another shot as long as you don't pocket a ball is a good alternative. I'm all for your suggestion.

Dr. Bill
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,601
Well, this is now the 4th time in the last 7 years that the 'ball on the break' topic has been debated...and here's my response from 1-1/2 years ago - in part, explaining why what is being called the "break and sit down" option would be a very bad change/unfair to the breaker.....and this re-posting from that 1997 thread also includes the posts of John Henderson, Dr. Bill, Steve Booth, LSJohn, etc. agreeing with my choice of rule change - if that is, any change was to be implemented ----->


I'm old school and I don't like a re-rack, for all the same reasons that have already been stated by others.

But, that said, if a new rule had to be made re. making the ball on the break (i.e. for a particular tournament for example), I believe that the rule change that I conceived, and have used on occasion, is the best and fairest way to go..and that is...

If the breaker makes the corner ball on the break he gets to keep the ball, but cannot pocket a second ball, and instead has to play a safety for his following shot...

This rule still rewards the breaker for breaking that particular rack well and making the corner ball, but it doesn't let him run several balls, or run out the game because of it, which can reasonably be considered as too great of a reward......but conversely, it's not at all a good idea/rule change option, to spot the ball, or let the breaker keep it, but allow his opponent to shoot right after the breaker makes that ball on the break - because the opponent may easily have a free, simple, game-changing cross-corner bank to shoot, or worse yet, a ball sitting if front of his pocket - so that particular rule change would unfairly favor him, very possibly enabling him to run several balls, or run out.........my rule change would be a 'happy medium' option to utilize - if a change had to be made.

- Ghost

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSJohn

Good compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhendy

This is a good option. I like it better than re racking or spotting the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve

I like your suggestion too Ghost

Quote:
Originally Posted by wincardona

I'm with the people that wants to keep the breaking rule the way it is, I feel that if a player hits the break good he should get rewarded, a rerack, or even losing your shot is not the way to go. Your suggestion on playing another shot as long as you don't pocket a ball is a good alternative. I'm all for your suggestion.

Dr. Bill
I still agree here -- I prefer the original old school rules of continuing to shoot if I make a ball on the break. I understand if specific players are gambling and they want to rerack, but I don't think it is necessary for 99% (or more) of One Pocket.

I like "Break and Sit" better than rerack because it is simple.

I also like the idea of "Keep the Ball and Play Safe" if the breaker makes a ball on the break. The only thing I don't like about that idea for a rule is if you adopt it then you need another rule -- if the shooter pockets a ball in their own pocket on their "safe" then it spots. That goes against my "keep iot simple" mantra.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,459
I still agree here -- I prefer the original old school rules of continuing to shoot if I make a ball on the break. I understand if specific players are gambling and they want to rerack, but I don't think it is necessary for 99% (or more) of One Pocket.
Opinions galore about this. In the first place any rule is only for tournament play as outside tournaments players will decide how they play. Following that observation, in tournaments the player with the most breaks has a significant advantage. Any new rule is simply trying to offset that advantage somewhat which I think is warranted.

I like "Break and Sit" better than rerack because it is simple.
I like this rule. The objections seem to be that the breaker could sell out or because the ball fell into his hole he may have opened up some lanes for the incoming player. First, this is totally unpredictable, and it is fair to both players playing by the same rule. Then we also should think about what your first priority needs to be when breaking; it is to get the CB into a safe position where the stack provides protection. It is not to make a ball or even to move balls near your hole with out regard to whether you sell out or not. If you fail to do this, your break was not optimal.

I also like the idea of "Keep the Ball and Play Safe" if the breaker makes a ball on the break. The only thing I don't like about that idea for a rule is if you adopt it then you need another rule -- if the shooter pockets a ball in their own pocket on their "safe" then it spots. That goes against my "keep iot simple" mantra.
I dislike this option for the same reason you have stated. It further complicates things, and what are you gonna do if the breaker goes on to make another ball? It also does little to nothing to offset the advantage of having the break, as the breaker can easily improve his position, perhaps put you into a trap that may be worse than him making a few more balls.

I look at the break as being a "defensive" shot first (I must get the CB in the proper position and I must not sell out). I would ask anybody, do you break attempting to make a ball or move balls to you hole without regard for whether you sell out or not? I don't think so.

JMHO:)
 
Last edited:

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,635
then you need another rule -- if the shooter pockets a ball in their own pocket on their "safe" then it spots.
I don't think another rule is needed. Being required to play safe is the same as calling "safe" in 14:1, right? Make a ball it automatically spots (unless it goes in opponent's pocket. :smile: )
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,577
I was hoping to let this take it's own course without further input but I guess I just can't resist the temptation to go on. sorry to those of you who are tired of hearing from me about this never ending subject. What concerns me is this body happens to be very influential in how One Pocket is governed. The future of the game is subject to be altered with rules such as the ones we are discussing now. I see this rule has the potential of creating a drastic change in the game. Am I over reacting?

Really! What is the objective with these alternative rules and where did they originate from? Answer...Rack for yourself. Paranoia followed that rack manipulation was occurring when a player happened to make a ball on the break.
This all began when players in Nine Ball tournaments complained ad nauseam that the racker was giving mud racks to the breaker. TDs decided "screw it! Rack your own!"

Did the complains stop? No. Now players complain that the breaker is manipulating the rack to his benefit because he is now continually pocketing balls. Can't win either way. It goes on and on until now in some tournaments the Nine ball gets racked on the spot or the game becomes alternating the break. Who knows what will come next?

Now, for OP.org MOT events. Have we ever ran into this issue? I don't remember a single incident where a racking issue was not resolved quickly and to both player's satisfaction.

Why this has become so involved and with so many varying opinions I can't figure. I have read a few times on this thread..."Keep it simple." I agree, Let's keep it simple and return to the way the game was invented. Rack for each other' allow an inspection of the rack should the opponent wish it, and should the breaker make a ball into his pocket on a legitimate hit, he keeps shooting until he misses.

It is the same for all players. There is no advantage to either player before the flip of the coin or before the lag.

That the ball pocketed happened to be the result of the opening break made no difference until recently when players began to suspect some sort of manipulation was going on because at some point this idea of "rack your own" became the norm. All this is solved by going back to the original format of rack for each other and GO FROM THERE! Make a ball on the break and more power to ya! Shoot on Brother!
Now i ask ya, What could be more simple and straight forward than that?

Tom
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,312
Tom, I of course agree. I am a true time capsule for I haven't played OP since '73. During that era we always racked for the opponent.
Your comment along with my way of thinking is why I started the thread 'opponent racking vs. rack your own, I wanted answers, and so far there has been nothing posted to alarming that would suggest going away from opponent racking.

I played OP everyday in my daily practice. Which meant that I racked my own of course, and at that time I had the hardest time not leaking out the corner ball. I knew I was giving myself good racks, so it had to be my technique not the rack. I find that to be true today, for if the corner ball leaks out I feel that I definitely hit the break bad. thanks, Whitey
 
Last edited:

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,139
usually those that cant win and think they are the better player need to find a way to get the luck out of the game and propose all sorts of rules to accomplish that and all they do is end up with things that hurt them even more.

the truth is the better player wins no matter how you change the rules.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,694
usually those that cant win and think they are the better player need to find a way to get the luck out of the game and propose all sorts of rules to accomplish that and all they do is end up with things that hurt them even more.

the truth is the better player wins no matter how you change the rules.
i learned that the hard way when i thought i had the nuts playing new york blackie 10-4
I HAD NO CHANCE......:eek::eek::frus
 

cincy_kid

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
4,533
i learned that the hard way when i thought i had the nuts playing new york blackie 10-4
I HAD NO CHANCE......:eek::eek::frus
I think this is also true (up to a point)...

I may not have any chance playing Dennis 15-5, but he gives me 20-4 or something, I'm all over it! :)

Point being, the better player usually wins unless the game is just crazy and too far out of whack, then strange things may happen. ;)
 
Top