Cue Ball Tap Fouls

[darmoose]

One pocket is one of the few games where the game can be equalized by thoughtful play but it seems pointless to try to prevent the Better player from taking advantage of their ability to run more balls by trying to not allow them to lengthen the game.

Really..........i can't imagine why anybody would want to create rules that favor one player over another. You did say the Better player, didn't you?? You didn't say the Weaker player, did you?

 

[LSJohn]

You think I'm STUPIDER than the guy who took the first tap foul for what i did?

No, the brainwork came while matching up if the weaker player is particularly concerned that tap fouls disadvantage him

you abjectly refuse to consider a change that would eliminate tap fouls which cost each player 2 balls

First, I hope your definition of "abjectly" is different than I use the word but I haven't refused to consider, I considered and refused. For me the deal is in defining tap fouls in a way that is appropriate for a set of "official" rules. We can define it well enough when you and I play, and probably even when hardcore enemies play, but to put it in a set of rules would be unprofessional IMHO.

 

[catkins]

There are two reasons to favor the weaker player. for leagues and handicapped tournaments(both of these are to encourage weaker players to start playing pool or enter tournaments). neither of these should be in the main rules for a game .

 

[darmoose]

No, the brainwork came while matching up if the weaker player is particularly concerned that tap fouls disadvantage him

Well,
As tuff a sell as it is here just to get anyone to even admit that there exists a unintended consequence that works against the weaker player, imagine trying to negotiate that with a gambling opponent. I think you may be being disingenuous about that just a bit.

First, I hope your definition of "abjectly" is different than I use the word but I haven't refused to consider, I considered and refused. For me the deal is in defining tap fouls in a way that is appropriate for a set of "official" rules. We can define it well enough when you and I play, and probably even when hardcore enemies play, but to put it in a set of rules would be unprofessional IMHO.

Really, how do we define a frozen ball to the rail, or a frozen CB to an OB, or whether or not you got a rail on a shot, or whether or not you double hit that OB that you were 1/8" from, or whether or not you "pushed" on that frozen ball shot, etc., etc. Try as we might in a righteous effort to eliminate subjective judgement in pool or OP, it is impossible. I would argue it is easier to recognize a tap foul than any of these, wouldn't you agree?

 

[darmoose]

There are two reasons to favor the weaker player. for leagues and handicapped tournaments(both of these are to encourage weaker players to start playing pool or enter tournaments). neither of these should be in the main rules for a game .

I don't think I have ever suggested anything to "favor" the weaker player. I am just trying to level the playing field. There is NO doubt that today the rules favor the better player.

If we somehow find a way to eliminate tap fouls, that will in NO way favor the weaker player. It will no longer favor the better player either.

 

[LSJohn]

I would argue it is easier to recognize a tap foul than any of these, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, most of them, but the two frozen ones are objective and decided before the fact. Your tap-foul idea is fine for gambling, but I don't think it belongs in the rules because of the difficulty of an objective definition.

imagine trying to negotiate that with a gambling opponent.

Negotiate this way: "OK, I'll take 9-7 if you agree to 2 consecutive fouls will be loss of game for you. No, OK, I'll take 10-7." This is what weaker players can do if they fear fouls being used to run the balls-required up to their disadvantage. If they don't know, or don't think about it, or don't want to negotiate/demand, it's not the rule-makers' job to protect them.

 

[lll]

I don't think I have ever suggested anything to "favor" the weaker player. I am just trying to level the playing field. There is NO doubt that today the rules favor the better player.

If we somehow find a way to eliminate tap fouls, that will in NO way favor the weaker player. It will no longer favor the better player either.

Yeah, but then you wouldn't have anything to "troll" about over and over and over and over.............

I don't have any ability to change any rule. I simply seek to ferret out injustice wherever I find it. It's the same as driving all the ridiculous socialist progressive liberals from any public office. On second thought, fixing this disparity in the rules of OP is probably more important.

Besides, I am providing "food for thought" for you and other "sticks in the mud"............a public service........

since you think it is unfair to the weaker player if the game is extended via fouls i interpret your proposal as favoring or trying to ferret out the injustice to the weaker player
i am not trolling
i am just voicing my opinion
you admonished me on azb when i told you to "get over" your quest to change the rules
and you said had every right to voice your opinion
i agreed with you about that right
well
i have that right too.....

 

[darmoose]

Yeah, most of them, but the two frozen ones are objective and dedided before the fact. Your tap-foul idea is fine for gambling, but I don't think it belongs in the rules because of the difficulty of an objective definition.


Negotiate this way: "OK, I'll take 9-7 if you agree to 2 consecutive fouls will be loss of game for you. No, OK, I'll take 10-7." This is what weaker players can do if they fear fouls being used to run the balls-required up to their disadvantage. If they don't know, or don't think about it, or don't want to negotiate/demand, it's not the rule-makers' job to protect them.

Dam it, I never thought of that,.......great idea. ........problem solved...........goin back to

 

[darmoose]

since you think it is unfair to the weaker player if the game is extended via fouls i interpret your proposal as favoring or trying to ferret out the injustice to the weaker player
i am not trolling
i am just voicing my opinion
you admonished me on azb when i told you to "get over" your quest to change the rules
and you said had every right to voice your opinion
i agreed with you about that right
well
i have that right too.....

Larry,

don't be so defensive, you're a grown f**king man
just spit it out
it's fine...........

It's not always the weakest player that is offended with this stupid tap..tap..tap..tap.. (that is 4 taps before anybody shoots) rule. For people who idolize shooting at your hole, this seems a dichotomy at the very least.

I play plenty of people that can give me 7 & 8 at nine ball, or some other big spot at 14.1 or any rotation agame, but they rarely win at OP. Who is the weaker/stronger player?

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Instead of a 2 pt. penalty for a 2nd stack tap how about players option of BIH-BTL.
Also,
At times a player does an illegal tap by using a push and pushes the cb further within the stack, and now you are very much buried. This option would take care of this. I am also in favor of beefing up our trap/wedge rule to also include an option of BIH-BTL which would also take care of this illegal stroke bury a guy within the stack! Whitey

 

[darmoose]

Instead of a 2 pt. penalty for a 2nd stack tap how about players option of BIH-BTL.
Also,
At times a player does an illegal tap by using a push and pushes the cb further within the stack, and now you are very much buried. This option would take care of this. I am also in favor of beefing up our trap/wedge rule to also include an option of BIH-BTL which would also take care of this illegal stroke bury a guy within the stack! Whitey

I'm with you Whitey...............course I'm with anybody that will support any suggestion to help eliminate all that tap, tap, tapping.......

But,.....duck for the incoming flak............

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I'm with you Whitey...............course I'm with anybody that will support any suggestion to help eliminate all that tap, tap, tapping.......

But,.....duck for the incoming flak............

Thanks, but now now on the duck, just keep your own ducks in a row. Remember it is a discussion, which can lead to a progression of ideas. Whitey

 

[Skin]

The solution to the tap fouls in classic 1p is just to invent a new game of 1p where each guy gets his own cb. Game starts w/ each player having their opening shot with BIH in the kitchen (order alternates like the break now). Opponent's cb is a neutral non-scoring ball for the shooter. Sink the opponent's cb and he gets BIH in the kitchen. Sink your own cb, you owe one and your cb goes to the head spot at the end of your inning. Everything else stays the same unless.... Fire away!

 

[Island Drive]

The solution to the tap fouls in classic 1p is just to invent a new game of 1p where each guy gets his own cb. Game starts w/ each player having their opening shot with BIH in the kitchen (order alternates like the break now). Opponent's cb is a neutral non-scoring ball for the shooter. Sink the opponent's cb and he gets BIH in the kitchen. Sink your own cb, you owe one and your cb goes to the head spot at the end of your inning. Everything else stays the same unless.... Fire away!

Fire, and that mask, and these above reactions....make me not comment on your above thread
I know your Avatar picture gets you ATTENTION, is that what you want with us 70 yr old?....It doesn't enhance your credibility.

Plus changing the game....comments........................make no sense.

It's like your mocking what we're trying to accomplish.

 

[Skin]

Fire, and that mask, and these above reactions....make me not comment on your above thread
I know your Avatar picture gets you ATTENTION, is that what you want with us 70 yr old?....It doesn't enhance your credibility.

Plus changing the game....comments........................make no sense.

It's like your mocking what we're trying to accomplish.

Well, I plan to try the cb-apiece when I get down to the PH to see how it goes. It's a serious idea although it may not turn out to be a good one. It would stop those tap fouls, etc. in principle. What's to lose by thinking outside the box to see where the idea goes? - except one might turn out wrong (GASP!). I'm not saying retire classic 1p, just look at maybe a new game if it's viable.

Everyone is free to spread their real identity all over the interwebs (which never forget a single post) as much as they like. Some folks, like me, maintain anonymity as a matter of policy because we have lives and jobs outside pool that may be damaged by posting our real identities. You apparently don't, but that's your business. I never knew a person who ever had a problem with somebody keeping their identity anonymous on the web.

And I don't mock anybody. It ain't my style. Live and let live is the way I roll. To each his own, even the grumpy!

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Island Drive,
Why not simply make a rule like this:

A shot must be an attempt of sufficient force to be considered an accepted attempt to make legal shot, otherwise it is a BIH-BTL opponent option.
An illegal attempt: Simply tapping the cue ball, stroking the cue ball into an object ball with no obvious intent on making a legal shot, or directly rolling the cue ball to an open space without an obvious or perceived attempt to contact a rail and then an object ball.
Note: The cue ball after object ball contact and/or an object ball contacted or balls subsequently contacted that just does not quite make a rail will be considered a valid attempt to make a legal shot.

I believe you guys should get a developed consensus, and attempt to write up a rule. Whitey

 

[lll]

So a handful or less of people want to make an official rule to change the game and make it an official rule
when the thousands of players around the world don’t seem to be complaining
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME
this is a better joke than on the comedy hour

 

[darmoose]

Island Drive,
Why not simply make a rule like this:

A shot must be an attempt of sufficient force to be considered an accepted attempt to make legal shot, otherwise it is a BIH-BTL opponent option.
An illegal attempt: Simply tapping the cue ball, stroking the cue ball into an object ball with no obvious intent on making a legal shot, or directly rolling the cue ball to an open space without an obvious or perceived attempt to contact a rail and then an object ball.
Note: The cue ball after object ball contact and/or an object ball contacted or balls subsequently contacted that just does not quite make a rail will be considered a valid attempt to make a legal shot.

I believe you guys should get a developed consensus, and attempt to write up a rule. Whitey

Because you have just put a boat load of SUBJECTIVITY into making all those decisions, which when two players are playing they are likely to disagree, argue, fight, or shoot each other over.

I have a suggestion (purely for purposes of this discussion and in NO way am I suggesting we should change any existing rule or create any new rule........so help me God).

" After ALL fouls (to be determined EXACTLY the way we do so today), the incoming player has the option to accept the shot or return it to the opponent."

That's it, No subjectivity that doesn't already exist. All tap fouls will be eliminated, and NO games will be lengthened by the 25% per tapping battle, as you noted. Games will be more exciting to watch because players will be forced to shoot away after being caught in a legitimate trap.

Once again, for Larry and Vapros, I am not advocating ANY change to any rule, just running my mouth....whew (almost forgot)

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Because you have just put a boat load of SUBJECTIVITY into making all those decisions, which when two players are playing they are likely to disagree, argue, fight, or shoot each other over.

I have a suggestion (purely for purposes of this discussion and in NO way am I suggesting we should change any existing rule or create any new rule........so help me God).

" After ALL fouls (to be determined EXACTLY the way we do so today), the incoming player has the option to accept the shot or return it to the opponent."

That's it, No subjectivity that doesn't already exist. All tap fouls will be eliminated, and NO games will be lengthened by the 25% per tapping battle, as you noted. Games will be more exciting to watch because players will be forced to shoot away after being caught in a legitimate trap.

Once again, for Larry and Vapros, I am not advocating ANY change to any rule, just running my mouth....whew (almost forgot)

I have already explained to you why this foul option does not work, so to progress the thought you need to become flexible, but instead you keep harping on your initial singular thought, you have to combine it with 'moving forward' IMO. I hate having to repeat myself, but when you ignore me without a clear explanation then I guess I once again have to repeat myself.
IMO you need to take a step back and reason out what I suggested. I respect you and your thought process but being unwilling to discuss other options and continuing to harp on your idea does not progress ideas. The progression of ideas is the assents of rule writing. One progressive thought begets another progressive thought. Without the initial progressive thought then nothing transpires, and you are highly commended for this, but if you are not willing to accept further progression of thought then all progression of thought ends as far as you are concerned. Thus you have just short circuited your thought, get me! Whitey

 

[LSJohn]

All tap fouls will be eliminated,

Just an observation: There will still be some intentional fouls that are taps or very similar. Once in a while you'd be able to wiggle to a slightly better angle for you to escape a trap that still wasn't any good for your opponent to shoot.