New rule of rules.

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
For reasons explained in the other thread about wedging a CB against the rail by "trapping the CB, I think this solution needs it's own thread. Not going to go through the explanation again, but just quote the rule. Hope you will make reasonable and logical comments and criticisms.

After ANY foul and after the penalty is assessed by spotting a ball, the opponent has the option of returning the table to the fouling player, and as many times as is necessary for the player to make a shot without fouling.

What do you think?

:)
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose, to be clear, your rule suggestion is after 'any foul' and not isolated to just intentionally trapping/wedging the balls. Right? Whitey
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,688
darrell
i appreciate your time and effort considering rule changes and ways to make tournaments play faster
and you do have valid points to your point of view
but i dont think the small number of regular posters and an aggressive presenter should rock the world of one pocket and change the official onepocket.org rules
jmho
icbw
that being said it would be interesting to try it out in a game
 
Last edited:

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,134
Not a bad idea ! Although I'm a lucky player, it probably wouldn't help me.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,590
For reasons explained in the other thread about wedging a CB against the rail by "trapping the CB, I think this solution needs it's own thread. Not going to go through the explanation again, but just quote the rule. Hope you will make reasonable and logical comments and criticisms.

After ANY foul and after the penalty is assessed by spotting a ball, the opponent has the option of returning the table to the fouling player, and as many times as is necessary for the player to make a shot without fouling.

What do you think?

:)
After any foul, the opponent has the option of passing back the position? So any "intentional" or on purpose -- not just illegal things like squeeze shots or ferule touches, etc?

Interesting idea -- I have to think about it a bit more. One thing that always concerns me with any new rule idea is, what are the unintended consequences?
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
Darmoose, to be clear, your rule suggestion is after 'any foul' and not isolated to just intentionally trapping/wedging the balls. Right? Whitey
Whitey,

I know you pay attention to rules discussions and have valuable thoughts to offer.The answer to your specific question is "yes", it applies to ALL fouls, no exceptions (that is the best kind of rule, no exceptions). Consider what I explained in the other thread as to the problems this will solve, and consider that the pool world already uses this rule in the case of nine ball when we allow a "pushout" and give the opponent the option of shooting or giving the table back to the opponent. And, yes, I know that in this case the pushout was not a foul.

There is no good reason why a player should be allowed to commit a foul, intentionally or otherwise, and it penalizes his opponent.

darrell
i appreciate your time and effort considering rule changes and ways to make tournaments play faster
and you do have valid points to your point of view
but i dont think the small number of regular posters and an aggressive presenter should rock the world of one pocket and change the official onepocket.org rules
jmho
icbw
Larry,

Appreciate your considerations re rules also. And, as I am sure you agree, all sports/games are, and always have been, subject to rules changes.

This particular rule change, whatever it stems from has merit and should be considered as part of what this One Pocket.org has a mandate to do, write the official rules we play by.

This idea is already used in some other games, albeit in limited situations, but it is not a completely new or unheard of idea that we've never heard of or used. I don't see how it necessarily "rocks our world". It only has any effect on accidental fouls in that the opponent has an option to shoot or return the table. If he has a shot, he's gonna shoot, if not, the fouling player gets to shoot again which could very well end up being advantageous to him depending on what he does.

In the case of an intentional foul this new rule keeps a player who got legitimately trapped from being rewarded by forcing his opponent to also foul, thereby, eliminating most of the penalty for getting trapped. It also gives the player who created the trap his full reward for doing so. I cannot imagine anyone, given an opportunity to get rid of the intentional foul rule we use today, which is unfair and has a much bigger impact on the game than what I am proposing, not wanting to get rid of it.

Just my guess, but I think the way we play intentional fouls today, where each player commits two fouls before the original fouler is forced to make a legitimate shot is simply the result of the "three foul rule" which is being misused and was not the intent of that rule.

And, you are right, this new rule would also speed up the game.

:)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
After any foul, the opponent has the option of passing back the position? So any "intentional" or on purpose -- not just illegal things like squeeze shots or ferule touches, etc?

Interesting idea -- I have to think about it a bit more. One thing that always concerns me with any new rule idea is, what are the unintended consequences?
Steve,

Understand and totally agree. Thanks for giving this some thought. To be clear for you, I mean ANY foul, intentional or otherwise. As is obvious the best rules have no exceptions.

After a CB scratch, ball in hand behind the line, your choice of who shoots. Failure to hit a rail, your choice where they sit. Intentional foul of any sort, your choice where they sit.

etc,etc

Happy to discuss further.

Darrell
 
Last edited:

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
Of all allies, who knew it would be me :heh

Look, one pocket is a beautiful game. I can appreciate a player who first sees, then executes a good intentional to strengthen his position.

The problem is, let's just use an example so we can visualize something, a player bunts the cue ball two inches and freezes on a ball. Great shot! His opponent is trapped now. But, in my opinion, when I mentioned how beautiful a game one pocket was before, the only more beautiful thing would be if that player had to do that shot but legally.

Guys are also able to get out of traps way too easy with fouls. It really lessens the value of traps! This is why you see great players always trying to scrape balls in, because strong moving/ball positions are minimized by the ability to take scratches. I think what would happen if we used this rule, is traps would be much more likey to result in open shots, which I know everyone in here would like that. That may also result in faster games, but we'd have to try it to know of course.

On a more personal note, I have always completely loathed the flying balls off the table purposefully shots, and the following the cue ball in behind the ob shots. I have not had as much a problem with standard intentionals, but I definitely see the point here. Why make a "gutter ball" of a shot an advantage?!
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
After any foul, the opponent has the option of passing back the position? So any "intentional" or on purpose -- not just illegal things like squeeze shots or ferule touches, etc?

Interesting idea -- I have to think about it a bit more. One thing that always concerns me with any new rule idea is, what are the unintended consequences?
I would ask you to look at that logic in reverse. If we played under some different criteria historically, then the "unintended consequences" of a new rule change - to our current rules - could be ridiculous things like players gaining an advantage by following a cueball into a pocket, or by launching cueballs and object balls off the table.

I just don't believe "we have always done it that way" (not that this was your argument) is EVER a valid reason, for anything in life. Women would not be able to vote, the earth may still be flat, people could still light up a cig on airplanes if we used that same criteria in our everyday lives, so you can see the harm thinking like that can do. "We have always played like that" mentality necessarily keeps you in the stone age. It is necessary to clear one's mind and think openly and objectively about these potential rule changes. I feel like I can say with confidence we simply refuse to do that in the one pocket community.
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
Of all allies, who knew it would be me :heh

Look, one pocket is a beautiful game. I can appreciate a player who first sees, then executes a good intentional to strengthen his position.

The problem is, let's just use an example so we can visualize something, a player bunts the cue ball two inches and freezes on a ball. Great shot! His opponent is trapped now. But, in my opinion, when I mentioned how beautiful a game one pocket was before, the only more beautiful thing would be if that player had to do that shot but legally.

Guys are also able to get out of traps way too easy with fouls. It really lessens the value of traps! This is why you see great players always trying to scrape balls in, because strong moving/ball positions are minimized by the ability to take scratches. I think what would happen if we used this rule, is traps would be much more likey to result in open shots, which I know everyone in here would like that. That may also result in faster games, but we'd have to try it to know of course.

On a more personal note, I have always completely loathed the flying balls off the table purposefully shots, and the following the cue ball in behind the ob shots. I have not had as much a problem with standard intentionals, but I definitely see the point here. Why make a "gutter ball" of a shot an advantage?!
El Chapo,

Ha Ha :lol, yes, who knew. I appreciate you comments and your honesty, and I know we've had words in the past. I hold no grudges with anybody, and have no idea what our previous disagreement was about. I may have said something that offended you and if so I am sorry.:sorry That was not my purpose in whatever we were arguing about.

Anyway, thanks again, It looks like you agree that this rule would be a good thing, and how simple, huh?

I often think that when some idea comes along that solves a problem that previously seemed to be unsolvable, "why didn't I think of that", so simple. Usually though I'm thinking about an idea that some other yokel had and made a million bucks off of.:lol:lol

I hope others, especially Steve, will honestly consider this, and your points are well taken about blindly sticking to what we've always done.

We'll see...
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
The other day I was talking to a player/friend in town about express OP, and he stated that any intentional foul should be ball in hand. He further stated that; you darn well know that when they do a full length of the table kick their intention is not to hit the ball but to put the cb behind those balls by the opponents pocket. I told him no one has brought up this idea of ball in hand, as of yet!
I then stated; "well during my MOT match against Scrzbil I kept trying to kick into the side rail and into the stack to drive a ball to the rail, but I was unable to get a clean hit on my intented ob thus did not get the connection to drive a ball to a rail. He responded; "you did not hit it hard enough". I said; "I did, but did not get a clean hit". He argued some more, and could not comprehend.

But I said I was glad the Darmoose Moving Forward rule was not enforce for my skill level has dropped for I can no longer get clean hits on my kick shots. And giving a ball to my opponent would of quickly doomed me, but if my skill level was higher I would not have a problem playing by that rule.

But keep your progressive ideas coming, and trust me they are not for not, because OP tournaments are growing and the numbers have to be pushed through. Tournament rules can become the rules, as we have seen happen in express 9-ball.

I really do not have a problem with whatever the player's meeting decides at these MOTs, for all the players are playing under the same rules! Whitey
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
Dennis "Whitey" Young;25060 But keep your progressive ideas coming said:
Whitey,

As your considering this suggestion please don't refer to it as a "progressive" idea, I'll lose my NRA card,:lol:lol and please, this is not "express one pocket"

Some may be "ascared" of this option thing. But, understand, after the foul the opponent gains NO offensive advantage. If he has a shot at his hole, he would have had it under today's rules. If he does not have a shot, he simply gets an option. He may not want to give the table back because the fouling player may have a shot to his hole. So, the primary effect of this suggestion is to put an end to intentional "touch" fouls by eliminating the incentive to do them.

Consider the case of scratching the CB in a pocket, CB in hand. Not too often is the incoming player gonna give away BIH.

I really think we all can agree "touch" fouls add nothing to the game except time to complete the game.


:)
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,688
the intentional scratch around the stack is used to try to manipulate the combos that are on or off for you or him by more experienced players
you never know what a player will do after an intentional
a kick to an intentional is a skill shot
just some examples
in 9 ball going from push out to what they have now killed the game
killing the intentional foul may kill aspects of the game that is part of the nuance of onepocket
jmho
icbw
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,688
darrell
i will say again
we have a dozen at most regular posters
you want such a small number to put a stamp on your idea that will go forward as endorsed by onepocket.org that will then influence onepocket around the world???
at the minimum a trial over time seeing how it works would be alot better
but i still would be against it because i am old fashioned
and think the game is fine the way it is
nothing personal
i think your idea is a very interesting idea
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose, I am a fan of your any foul OP shoot-out rule option. I never was a proponent of intentionals. Intentionals was never a part of my game anyway, not that I got to play much OP. But I did not play them nor did my opponents. I will play by most any rule in a tournament, except I will not play breaker racks their own in 9-ball.

I have floated the idea of only allowing two consecutive intentionals (one by each player) then if another is played then the opponent gets ball in hand option. I did not get much response.

Rules such as Darmoose is proposing is and always will be an alternative rule that tournaments could adopt. But, if the rule becomes main stream then eventually it will become a standard playing rule.

One example comes to mind; the CSI 8-ball break rule when the 8-ball is made on the break, is pretty popular. It is where the breaker has the option to spot the 8 and continue or re-rack and re-break. The old original rule was 8-ball on the break was a loss. But most every where players played it as a win. Another rule that has become somewhat main stream is a scratch on the break is ball in hand anywhere, not behind the line. Not a fan of this rule at all!

The 3 foul rule in OP is a wonderment as to when it started and why. Through these threads I learned it was not a rule at Johnston City. Whitey
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
darrell
i will say again
we have a dozen at most regular posters
you want such a small number to put a stamp on your idea that will go forward as endorsed by onepocket.org that will then influence onepocket around the world???
at the minimum a trial over time seeing how it works would be alot better
but i still would be against it because i am old fashioned
and think the game is fine the way it is
nothing personal
i think your idea is a very interesting idea
Hey Larry,

I imagine Steve isn't too happy to know he only has a dozen (at most) regular posters. :lol

Don't worry, I would never take your honest opinion personally, however as was said by EL Chapo, I would hope any opinion was supported by reason rather than "I'm just against all changes".

To answer your question, of course, that is what I want. I love OP as much as anybody. I play and gamble at it 3, 4, sometimes 5 times a week, but it ain't perfect. I think intentional fouls add nothing to the game and simply slow it down by subtracting from the score. I think simply that no one has ever figured out a way to get rid of them. In 30 or so years of playing, I have never seen anyone, amateur or professional, attempting to manipulate the balls in the stack to create a dead ball while taking an intentional foul. I have never heard anybody discussing anywhere that this is what they were doing. Maybe I am just dense. In any case if what you say were true, wouldn't that player love to have the next shot so he could score with that dead ball combination he created?

Likewise when a player pushes the CB up against an OB, intentionally fouling, or when he intentionally traps the CB against the inside of a pocket facing, he is not deploying some skill that adds to OP. He is simply trying to avoid the full penalty of being legitimately trapped, hoping that his opponent will make a mistake and sell out, or at least he will return the foul twice and the score will change enough to dilute the effect of the original trap. This is not a good thing for OP and I can't imagine it will be missed.

As for how rules come into existence, this is a rulemaking organization. How else would one pursue a rule change? I do hope that more than a dozen members comment and support their view with reason.

I agree with you that nine ball was ruined when they got away from pushout. I also agree that unintended consequences need to be explored. If you or anyone else sees any, they should be discussed and weighed against the benefits of this proposal. On balance, I see nothing right now that could outweigh the benefits of this rule change.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions, hope we can discuss further. I wanna change your mind.:heh:heh
 
Last edited:

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
For reasons explained in the other thread about wedging a CB against the rail by "trapping the CB, I think this solution needs it's own thread. Not going to go through the explanation again, but just quote the rule. Hope you will make reasonable and logical comments and criticisms.

After ANY foul and after the penalty is assessed by spotting a ball, the opponent has the option of returning the table to the fouling player, and as many times as is necessary for the player to make a shot without fouling.

What do you think?

:)
Only two times, not “as many times”... 3 foul rule needs to be used imo...

Other than that, I see no downside to the change, other than it takes a very strategic advantage away from the better player who is giving up weight to a lesser skilled player in a gambling game...

In a tournament format, it looks like it would work and help speed up games, if the 3 foul rule was used in conjunction with it...

However I’m sure there will be some deep thinkers who will come up with reasons why it might not be plausible, but that’s what you’re looking for, correct?

Until proven otherwise, I’m in the group that’s not opposed to giving it a strong consideration... I like it 👍 Good idea Darrell...
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
Only two times, not “as many times”... 3 foul rule needs to be used imo...

Other than that, I see no downside to the change, other than it takes a very strategic advantage away from the better player who is giving up weight to a lesser skilled player in a gambling game...

In a tournament format, it looks like it would work and help speed up games, if the 3 foul rule was used in conjunction with it...

However I’m sure there will be some deep thinkers who will come up with reasons why it might not be plausible, but that’s what you’re looking for, correct?

Until proven otherwise, I’m in the group that’s not opposed to giving it a strong consideration... I like it �� Good idea Darrell...

Thanks Jeff,

We can always count on you to give an honest and thoughtful comment to questions/suggestions like this and others.

Yeah, the three foul rule would still be in effect, and so it would end the game if the shooter failed to make a legal shot on the third try. Of course, as you explain the incentive to even play the first intentional foul is gone, which is a good thing.

I know, at first, when you hear about this option to make a fouling player shoot again, it can be a little difficult to process. But, if members will just think about it a bit, I think they will reach the same conclusion as you.

Similar to how we used to play push out nine ball (when nine ball was a great game), this rule would eliminate a lot of luck from the game and emphasise skill, and as you observe, fix a long existing unfair strategy of using intentional fouls to change a game when gambling, and water down the results of a well played trap.

A little disappointing that so few have weighed in thus far on a serious idea that could do so much good for the game. The game of OP is a great game, but it would be even better with this rule change. You are right, it would also make the game go faster.

I hope the "deep thinkers" you refer to will take their shots and provide reason. Of course, I hope those that can see the benefits would express their opinion too.

Appreciate the input.:)
 
Last edited:

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,310
The problem with passing the intentional foul back to your opponent without you losing a ball is problematic. In many situations, that is all you can do to potentially save or extend the game. That is, to get your opponent on fouls as well. For example, your opponent hits the opening break terrible and you end up in the stack and all the balls are open to his pocket. You have nothing else but to take a foul. If you can get him on two fouls you might stop him from running eight and out and just maybe put yourself where at least you can make a game of it. I can think of a lot of situations where your opponent just got lucky like corner hooks and etc. and there is nothing you can do. I DON'T LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME ANY LONGER.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose, you have stated you play and/or gamble 3-5 times a week. Do you guys play by this rule? Have you brought up this suggestion to them? Also what do they think of your Darmoose Moving Forward, and do they play by it?

I brought up a rule suggestion of when the cue ball is in motion and interfered with then it should be an option to accept the cb in position or ball in hand, instead of no option and the opponent must accept the table as is.

The reasoning being if a player interferes with a cb in motion then it could end up in a horrible lock up position for the opponent, with no recourse other than to accept the next shot as is.

I received very little response. I think one person said it seemed reasonable. To me it is just common sense. Whitey
 
Top