Cue Ball Tap Fouls

[Island Drive]

Thought I'd create a new thread to Focus on just this topic.

Some are warming up too.... two intentional Tap Fouls back to back ='s loss of rack.

Makes me wonder in 14.1 how they eventually came up with this rule, that's stood the test of time.

"14.1/Straight pool....''Three break scratches in a row'' Beginning of game when score is zero to zero.

First Scratch....player goes -2 and gets a rerack/rebreak , second scratch your now -4 and another rerack/rebreak, Third scratch your docked-2 + -15 and you get another rerack and again you break.

Your score now would be -21 and your now breaking your fourth rack. Your opponent also has the option on any of these illegal breaks to take the shot and start the game.

 

[Bob Jewett]

That's not the rule. A 2-point break violation is not the first of three fouls.

 

[Island Drive]

How about this idea? It's simple and CLEAR.
Fouls in the Mosconi era always Cost you balls either 1, 2 or 15 +2.
In tournament play, if you intentionally have two tap fouls in a row....it will cost YOU, the shooter 3 balls not 2. It's simple and Effective for obvious reasons.

 

[Island Drive]

That's not the rule. A 2-point break violation is not the first of three fouls.

Ok it's been decades since I played 14.1, but lets not get away from the Subject. I actually like the idea above the best. Nothing has to change, but the shooter is penalized when he intentionally takes a second tap.

 

[vapros]

It would only make the game even longer. Both players might double-tap and now are going to 11. Am I missing something?

 

[lll]

The tap tap rule proposals as i understand it
Is to protect the weaker player in a handicapped game

 

[jrhendy]

I like the idea of a two ball penalty on the 2nd intentional foul. Not a big rule change, but effective. You still lose the game on three fouls, but an extra ball penalty on the 2nd foul seems like a great idea to me.

It probably would not work in gambling matches where some players take multiple intentionals, but would work very well in tournament play IMO.

 

[lll]

the way i see it the weaker player
needs to get a spot he thinks is fair
we are not the ones to protect him
jmho

 

[Island Drive]

It would only make the game even longer. Both players might double-tap and now are going to 11. Am I missing something?

Not really....think about it. So you tap first and owe one, then I tap and owe one, now You tap and owe two more, why then would I tap, when I am now going to 9 and you would then be going to 11 if you do the second tap First. What it would do, is it would make the first player reposition the tapped ball to avoid getting the 2 stroke penalty, would it not?

 

[vapros]

Okay, I am sitting here thinking about it . . . and my same question comes to mind - am I missing something? This proposed change to the game of one-pocket, if I understand what I have read about it, would increase the penalty for a second tap foul and force the action to come one tap sooner. But I don't see that it forces me to change my usual reaction to the situation. If I was a tapper before, I am still a tapper. For this we would change the rules of the game? Again, am I missing something?

 

[Island Drive]

Okay, I am sitting here thinking about it . . . and my same question comes to mind - am I missing something? This proposed change to the game of one-pocket, if I understand what I have read about it, would increase the penalty for a second tap foul and force the action to come one tap sooner. But I don't see that it forces me to change my usual reaction to the situation. If I was a tapper before, I am still a tapper. For this we would change the rules of the game? Again, am I missing something?

 

[Island Drive]

Lets say you were in an Even skill level match/or not. Both going to 8. Your opponent taps first now he's going to 9 and your still on 8. If you decide to tap your both going to 9, games still Even.
If you opponent decides to tap again (He would be The first player to tap twice in a row) then he's going to 11.

Now, it's your shot and Your are still going to 9. Would you then Want to take that 2 foul penalty and join him in a race to 11????

What will happen, the first tapper, knowing he's gonna get a 2 ball penalty on the second Tap if the shot is given back, they will do their tap in such a way, that if you give it back, they will create a better position to possibly get out of the trap and avoid the 2 ball penalty.

Now, it will put YOU, the second shooter in the same position as your opponent just got out of, would you then want to take the tap/2 stroke penalty?

In the beginning of full rack pool/Mosconi days, these guys Lived off of winning/loosing and fair play.

Any foul from that era always cost you one ball, two balls or 17 balls depending on the situation.

This penalty for the ''dbl tappers first'' would change Nothing about the game other than making the first guy who taps, think about his next move if it was tapped back and he was faced with a 2 stoke/ball penalty.

 

[vapros]

Okay, I'm with you. I am not against making the guy think about his next move. That's what we do now. But I don't see that it resembles in any way the 17 point penalty from a different billiard game - that's quite a stretch.

 

[Island Drive]

Okay, I'm with you. I am not against making the guy think about his next move. That's what we do now. But I don't see that it resembles in any way the 17 point penalty from a different billiard game - that's quite a stretch.

I'm just trying to illustrate that there should be a Cost to one player More than the other is all.
Who came up with that 3rd scratch and a rerack and a -17 was the players themselves.
The working players, felt you should be penalized on the third foul like we do.

In one pocket, 3 in a row....loss of game. That's a Concern

Depression era players attached a co$t to fouls, it made em "think'' about what they did Before they did it.

If you tapped whitey to a better angle, and got it back, then got outta your tap, your opponent is now in a tough spot. He has to make a legal hit, other wise he's just taken his second foul in a row and it will cost em 2 more balls is all.

 

[LSJohn]

How about this idea? It's simple and CLEAR.
Fouls in the Mosconi era always Cost you balls either 1, 2 or 15 +2.
In tournament play, if you intentionally have two tap fouls in a row....it will cost YOU, the shooter 3 balls not 2. It's simple and Effective for obvious reasons.

Well, you're claiming that I just made a tap foul, but I didn't.

 

[LSJohn]

I like the idea of a two ball penalty on the 2nd intentional foul. Not a big rule change, but effective. You still lose the game on three fouls, but an extra ball penalty on the 2nd foul seems like a great idea to me.

It probably would not work in gambling matches where some players take multiple intentionals, but would work very well in tournament play IMO.

Darn it... I made a mistake giving you a like on this John. Sorry, but I belatedly realized it would mean we still have to define intentionals in a way that isn't a matter of disputable opinion. I think we need to shy away from that.

 

[darmoose]

How about this idea? It's simple and CLEAR.
Fouls in the Mosconi era always Cost you balls either 1, 2 or 15 +2.
In tournament play, if you intentionally have two tap fouls in a row....it will cost YOU, the shooter 3 balls not 2. It's simple and Effective for obvious reasons.

I'd like to know who likes the tap foul enough to reduce the penalty, I guess by removing the "3 consecutive fouls you lose rule", or maybe make it 4 or 5 fouls you lose. I personally can't imagine anyone, even in a gambling match, " agreeing to unlimited consecutive fouls, what would be the point?

If we can consider changing the penalty for tap fouls, I'd like to suggest the first player to tap foul should be penalized 2 balls, the responding player can tap back for a 1 ball penalty, and if the original tapper commits a second consecutive tap foul he is penalized another 2 balls. The responding player can once again reply with his own 2nd tap foul for another 1 ball penalty. And lastly, should the original "tapper" commit another foul of any sort (his 3rd consecutive foul) he has lost the game.

OP is supposed to be a game of infinite subtle strategies, moving, and defensive as well as offensive play. You only need to read Ghost's Manifest or Tom Wirth's book to realize that. The games best players used to employ a variety of strategies.The game is being dominated today by aggression and offensive play (ball running) and other facets and approaches to the game are being pushed out. Some like to say that eliminating the tap foul is "protecting" the weaker player. I say that the rule as it is favors the superior player even in tournament matches where there is no handicap.

How about getting the guy who's the victim of a well played legal trap to think about the game being changed 2 balls in his opponents favor if he doesn"t come with a shot. What's wrong with that for a change? Doesn't the player who created the trap (legally) deserve to be rewarded?

 

[LSJohn]

Some like to say that eliminating the tap foul is "protecting" the weaker player.

I've not noticed anyone saying or implying that. I think the taps clearly work to the advantage of the better player, as long as the weaker player isn't an order of magnitude smarter.

I'm still needing an objective definition of a tap foul to seriously consider any of the changes being suggested. How about this: If you don't move an object ball at least 7 3/8", it's a tap?

 

[Island Drive]

To simplify ones thinking....

I'd just call it the ''One Two Three'' foul rule.

One foul costs you a ball, second in a row costs you two more, and the third foul loss of game.

 

[LSJohn]

To simplify ones thinking....

I'd just call it the ''One Two Three'' foul rule.

One foul costs you a ball, second in a row costs you two more, and the third foul loss of game.

I'm satisfied with the way the rules are now, but if we were to make a change regarding taps or other fouls, I could tolerate this one without complaint. Some of us would need to experience playing with that change to see how it works before we consider adopting it officially. I also think several of the top players' opinions should be solicited and taken into consideration if we still like it after experimenting with it.