alex and chip no 3 foul rule

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
This is probably not the right time or place to bring this up, but one of the huge areas that needs improvement in one pocket rules is foul penalties in my opinion.

One thought i have had is what do you guys think about addressing this with potentially much greater offensive opportunities. The cool thing about this potential rule is, depending on how fast you want a tournament to go, you can have different "levels"...

A player gets ball in hand behind the head string as it stands. Why not let the incoming player have that same opportunity, but, if he wants to shoot from further up the table at a ball across the middle string for example, he can.

The rule would essentially be the same as it is now, must shoot a ball that is in front of the headstring, but you could move the cb up the table. So whichever the td chise as the limit, lets say the middle string of the table, he could now shoot with the cue ball in the middle of the table, as long as the ball he was shooting was beyond that line. He could also decline that ability, and shoot a ball with the cb behind the headstring if he wanted to shoot a ball that was laying just past the headstring. I made that sound confusing, but if you got it I think it is a good rule. And, the each tournamnet could place the maximum line as far as they wanted. I suppose you could use the foot string as the maximum line if you wanted, as long as the ball you were shooting was beyond it. You could always choose a line string "below" the max line, but never one above as the incoming shooter.
 

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
5,002
I That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket...

To me it's analogous.. Just like in baseball, there no limit to how many times a pitcher can throw over to first base to try to pick off a runner.. But he takes a chance too.. It takes something out of him to do it.. He can hit the runner with a ball, throw it away, balk, etc..Chris Welsh, the reds broadcaster talked about how he threw over 17 times to try and pick off Vince Coleman. Then when he finally went to the plate, Coleman stole second. First inning... It's not exactly the same, but to me it's analogous.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,667
el chappo and darmoose
you are passionate in your point of view.
it seems to me the majority of posters dont see a problem where you do.
therefore they see no need to make good gooder....:D
have a nice day......:)
this is my last post in this thread
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
el chappo and darmoose
you are passionate in your point of view.
it seems to me the majority of posters dont see a problem where you do.
therefore they see no need to make good gooder....:D
have a nice day......:)
this is my last post in this thread
You and Jimmy are both probably right. I do not see it like you guys. I suppose nobody is right, and nobody is wrong is the truth.

I just feel like it is so clear. If there was a rule in golf where the players could take advantage of by tapping their golf ball 1mm three shots in a row, everyone would be in immediate agreement.

The players, the advertisers, the fans would all be in concert and say, hell yeah, these are the best ball strikers in the world. Who wants to see them tap their ball 1mm like any old schmuck can do? So, they would make a simple rule change to preclude them from doing that, and there ya go. Advertisers happy, fans happy, players even after they play this way a while. But in pool the analogous situation just seems to put everyone into a stupor.
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,528
alex and chip no 3 foul rule

El chaps, how about scratches just being BIH anywhere?
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
3,702
I remember hearing long ago RA say the third time/nudge.....one of the two balls has to go to another rail, or loss of game.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,399
I would love to see a roll out 9 ball match between two top players. One former top player friend of mine speaks very passionately about that style and said it was the only way he’d bet significantly.
I agree with your friend. Roll-out was the best (and fairest) way to play 9-ball. We used to play you could roll out anytime you couldn't see the full object ball. Took a lot of the luck (good & bad) out of the game, and promoted good shot making.

Don't want to hijack this thread...

~Doc
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
I That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket...

To me it's analogous.. Just like in baseball, there no limit to how many times a pitcher can throw over to first base to try to pick off a runner.. But he takes a chance too.. It takes something out of him to do it.. He can hit the runner with a ball, throw it away, balk, etc..Chris Welsh, the reds broadcaster talked about how he threw over 17 times to try and pick off Vince Coleman. Then when he finally went to the plate, Coleman stole second. First inning... It's not exactly the same, but to me it's analogous.
I was a big vince coleman fan.

I could see this analogy working, as far as an example I was looking for, if there were no chance for the pitcher to make a mistake. He can take as many shots as he would like at the runner, with no ill effect, and he had no chance to make an errant throw to advance the runner. But, he can make a bad throw, so he is taking a slight risk every throw over, and he has got to execute. Not anybody could do that, it takes great physical execution to step off the mound, trick the runner, all fast enough throw him out or scare him and shorten his lead. A scratch in pool an old granny could do... and we are making that an advantageous shot.

I think what you are getting at is players take advantage of rules. Of course they will, and that is a big part of my point. The players are taking advantage of scratches. We see this right in our fave when a ball runner like frost takes five scratches and then just runs those five at the end no problem. My point is, in all sports the governing body see,s to mold the rules so the players can't take advantage of the rules, or to the least extent possible. I do not think we are even close to that in one pocket myself.

To me the silence is deafening. I know I am the only one who sees it that way, but what other sport is there where rules promote poor shots? The lack of answers to that question is the decider. You do not see answers to that question, and I believe it is because rules in sports like golf change constantly... their rule book is an ever morphing animal, kinda like the kaleesi's dragons who are gonna come in and do some damage here in a couple weeks...
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
El chaps, how about scratches just being BIH anywhere?
That would not work, although i like the idea personally. I think the evolution of the kitchen bih in one pocket came about because you do not want guys jamming the cb in between the rail and a ball that is about a ball off the rail, which would happen if you played ball in hand. See what i mean? The guy would try to almost freeze the cb behind a ob close to the rail, then there could be a push shot and it would be a nightmare.

I am telling you, that is why i proposed the moving headstring scenario. Player could place it behind head, foot or middle string (or if td wanted a more conservative approach, maximum could me middle string only). Middle string being the line between two side pockets of course. And just shoot as normal, only at balls "above" the line.

That would make amateur one pocket tournaments go seriously i am talking twice as fast!! Don't you guys think? The amount bad players scratch in a pocket, combined with them now being able to run serious balls behind almost any scratch in a pocket. I think that right there is the answer to speeding up one hole at an amateur level... not sure how much faster it would make pro events... but pro events on tight pockets it would make it way faster as well.
 

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
5,002
That would not work, although i like the idea personally. I think the evolution of the kitchen bih in one pocket came about because you do not want guys jamming the cb in between the rail and a ball that is about a ball off the rail, which would happen if you played ball in hand. See what i mean? The guy would try to almost freeze the cb behind a ob close to the rail, then there could be a push shot and it would be a nightmare.

I am telling you, that is why i proposed the moving headstring scenario. Player could place it behind head, foot or middle string (or if td wanted a more conservative approach, maximum could me middle string only). Middle string being the line between two side pockets of course. And just shoot as normal, only at balls "above" the line.

That would make amateur one pocket tournaments go seriously i am talking twice as fast!! Don't you guys think? The amount bad players scratch in a pocket, combined with them now being able to run serious balls behind almost any scratch in a pocket. I think that right there is the answer to speeding up one hole at an amateur level... not sure how much faster it would make pro events... but pro events on tight pockets it would make it way faster as well.


At least you put a lot of thought into this.. Have to respect it.. Just like when somebody like Ronnie suggests a rule change, like Bill M. mentioned, you ought to consider it... I listen to Marty Herman stream rants sometimes while I'm playing cards, or reading message boards, or eating.. He played a lot of money one pocket in his past.. He says the game is not good now.. Says it would take not only a shot clock, but also a game clock, to be worth a shit.. In other words, a game could end 5-4 or even 1-0.. And he's not liberal with the amount of time in a game, either.. It's SHORT.. Many ideas...
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
I can't believe all you guys stay up all night to argue bout this, resolve nothing, and only succeed to complicate it further to the point that absolutely NO agreement can even be seen with high powered binoculars on the horizon.

These analogies say nothing about the question at hand and only serve to create more argument trying to twist them into relevancy.

For me, the only improvement OP needs is to fix the scenario that allows players to deliberately take intentional CB tapping fouls to dilute the effect of having been put in a trap. All else is fine with the game, period. And, the solution couldn't be simpler, just give the incoming player the option to either accept or refuse the next shot after any foul. There is "justice" in that, and it serves to move the game along, compared to today's rules. Nothing else needs to change,

Fact is, with this change, all incentive to take an intentional by tapping the CB disappears. Other intentional fouls still remain available like lagging behind balls or lagging to a safe spot on the table, just know you may be shooting again from there.

Deliberate scratches and knocking the CB off the table at the end of a game, cannot be distinguished from those events happening accidently during the game and under different circumstances, and so, can't be legislated against, which is obvious to those who think about it. Those types of fouls also have strategic value in keeping the game alive, and therefore are worthwhile.

The ONLY target I am aiming at is the tapping the CB strategy, because it adds nothing to the game, slows the game down, and only provides a way for a player to change the score and dilute the consequences of being put into a trap.

IN all the posts from this overnite marathon discussion, nobody addresses this problem directly, but only complicates and goes off on tangents that make little or no sense.:sorry

Others, pop up out of the sand, to say for the umteenth time "no changes" with no support for why what we are doing currently makes any sense. No contribution to the discussion there.:frus

I suppose it is just impossible to get people to objectively think about a topic, and provide honest open commentary to either defend the status quo or rationalize any change needing to be made. Too bad, but understandable, as it is the same with our politics today. Don't read, or don't understand, and if you accidentally do so, pretend you don't and continue talking past anyone who you don't agree with, just RESIST.
:(
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
There is watching , and there is playing. Watching involves no consequences, while playing with intentional fouls has significant consequences. If the three foul rule was created to speed up the game, it only follows that we could speed up the game today by going to a one foul rule, or disincentivizing intentionals through this rule change. In an environment where everybody feels free to criticize slow play and slow players, and there exists very little that can realistically be done about that, one would think that be mandated to play out of the trap without being able

Well I thought that was a thoughtful response I agree with some of it and I disagree with some. I can play with it or without it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. As for these great players it isn't used that much with them. hell they make it look like an 8-point game straight pool. As to watching and playing I watch I play. I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist I don't like to see the game change. you and I will never convince each other. and I type too slow to argue with anyone:) anyways thanks for the response take care my friend


Thank you too, Bindleman. Let me assure you that I am very much the traditionalist in every way, but, that just doesn't stop me from seeing and recognizing a problem that needs addressing and attempting to come up with a solution. I love OP, play nothing else, and only see this one problem which I think hurts the game and can be so easily fixed.

Honestly, I don't think it affects or hurts the pros that much because of their ball running abilities. I am looking mostly at the effect it has on "matchup" games between amateurs where the better player can use it to change the sore, change the game to his favor.

Appreciate your response also.:)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
I That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket...

To me it's analogous.. Just like in baseball, there no limit to how many times a pitcher can throw over to first base to try to pick off a runner.. But he takes a chance too.. It takes something out of him to do it.. He can hit the runner with a ball, throw it away, balk, etc..Chris Welsh, the reds broadcaster talked about how he threw over 17 times to try and pick off Vince Coleman. Then when he finally went to the plate, Coleman stole second. First inning... It's not exactly the same, but to me it's analogous.
Jimmy B,

You and I agree on a lot of things. But, I just fail to see your point here. True enough, your pitcher takes some chances and even tires himself out when throwing to first base that much, I agree.

So, do you think Chip was taking a chance or expending his energy tiring himself out when he took that intentional by tapping the CB and starting that whole sequence??
...:)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
I would love to see a roll out 9 ball match between two top players. One former top player friend of mine speaks very passionately about that style and said it was the only way he’d bet significantly.
Mark,

Tv and their "need for speed" ruined 9 ball and ended the Roll out or push out rules. Most old timers who played 9 ball will tell you that in those days 9 ball was
much closer to how we see OP today, much more a game of skill where you could challenge your opponent in a shot making contest Also the jump shot was almost unheard of then.

On the good side, a lot of OP players were fostered out of that evolution.:lol:D
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
el chappo and darmoose
you are passionate in your point of view.
it seems to me the majority of posters dont see a problem where you do.
therefore they see no need to make good gooder....:D
have a nice day......:)
this is my last post in this thread
Well, brother Larry, that's great, so now I can post without fear of retribution.;):D

All I wish to say is please don't lump me in with El Chapo (nothing against him), but we are talking about vastly different things. I am talking about only one teenie weenie little change that has NO down side, rationally and logically speaking, and ONLY has an up side for the game. Whether you or anyone else wants or don't want to see a change, that fact ought to be clear.

I am not sure what he is talking about, but I defend his right to do so all he wants.
...:D
 
Last edited:

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
5,002
Jimmy B,

You and I agree on a lot of things. But, I just fail to see your point here. True enough, your pitcher takes some chances and even tires himself out when throwing to first base that much, I agree.

So, do you think Chip was taking a chance or expending his energy tiring himself out when he took that intentional by tapping the CB and starting that whole sequence??
...:)


Lol.. You bet.. We agree on the important stuff, don't we... Don't pay me any attention on these off the wall one pocket comparisons.. I'm about out of it now.. The politicians queered it around here for pool, and It makes me bitter at them.. We had a couple of good rooms and a couple of second tier, and as long as the guys could run a few poker machines, they could make out and even earn a pretty nice livin.. First they bumped the licenses to several thousand dollars (per machine) each year.. They withstood that... Then politicians limited each room to 5 machines.. The room owners said fine, we can live with that too.. Then they decided they wanted it all and totally outlawed them. And that was that..

That seems like a pretty big change you have in mind.. I have to think about it more.. Folks can always match up and play the way they want to.. The members here can change it and play shoot again, if they wish.. I would enjoy watching it, to be honest.. I have an inkling that with the larger percentage of old heads on here, it might be the hardest place ever to get changes instituted. I might talk to Greg S about it.. If he changes it there, that would get the ball really rolling on this..Good luckk.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
Lol.. You bet.. We agree on the important stuff, don't we... Don't pay me any attention on these off the wall one pocket comparisons.. I'm about out of it now.. The politicians queered it around here for pool, and It makes me bitter at them.. We had a couple of good rooms and a couple of second tier, and as long as the guys could run a few poker machines, they could make out and even earn a pretty nice livin.. First they bumped the licenses to several thousand dollars (per machine) each year.. They withstood that... Then politicians limited each room to 5 machines.. The room owners said fine, we can live with that too.. Then they decided they wanted it all and totally outlawed them. And that was that..

That seems like a pretty big change you have in mind.. I have to think about it more.. Folks can always match up and play the way they want to.. The members here can change it and play shoot again, if they wish.. I would enjoy watching it, to be honest.. I have an inkling that with the larger percentage of old heads on here, it might be the hardest place ever to get changes instituted. I might talk to Greg S about it.. If he changes it there, that would get the ball really rolling on this..Good luckk.
Thanks Jimmy,

That's a bummer about all the rooms drying up. We're down to two rooms around here, I don't know what I'd do with myself if they went away.

I've tried to explain that what I am suggesting won't have much effect on playing the game. Certainly, when you have BIH after a scratch, you ain't giving the shot back to your opponent. When he lags behind some balls if he now has a shot to his hole, you ain't giving it back to him. There'e only a very few circumstances where you would have him shoot again, maybe once or twice per game, my guess.

And yeah, you're right about "old heads", but Rome wasn't built in a day. Til then, I'll just ask anyone to make a legitimate argument for 'tapping out":lol


Good luck, maybe somebody will open a room near you....:)
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
At least you put a lot of thought into this.. Have to respect it.. Just like when somebody like Ronnie suggests a rule change, like Bill M. mentioned, you ought to consider it... I listen to Marty Herman stream rants sometimes while I'm playing cards, or reading message boards, or eating.. He played a lot of money one pocket in his past.. He says the game is not good now.. Says it would take not only a shot clock, but also a game clock, to be worth a shit.. In other words, a game could end 5-4 or even 1-0.. And he's not liberal with the amount of time in a game, either.. It's SHORT.. Many ideas...
Everone has got some good ideas. And i did put a little thought into that one, thanks for noticing. I believe still that could be an answer to all the "speeding up one hole" threads a while back.

Here da truth, i dont give a f--------k (that was the f-----k from friday at the end where he says "you got knocked the f out!). I really don't. They could implement every change i like tomorrow, and i still would not play a game of one hole. waste of time. But, if i was president of one hole (you see, i got this watch on, that makes me the president, ha, you remember this line?) or somethin, i would do some things.

Bohemian rhapsody is still on my tube, i cant take it this flick is horrible. they need to shove this flick somewhere deep and give me some got already.
 
Last edited:

sneakynito

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
440
What the hell happened here?
I leave a thread alone for a day or two and it instantly becomes another changing the game speeding up play who moved my cheese free for all. :lol:lol:lol

This is why we can't have nice things.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,624
knocking the CB off the table at the end of a game, cannot be distinguished from those events happening accidently during the game and under different circumstances, and so, can't be legislated against,
Yeah, you could include that in the fouls that don't cause the opponent's ball to come up.
 
Top