New rule of rules.

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
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.
Kick as best you can to a safety, or roll out to the best spot where he will not give you the shot back...

Seems it works both ways for both players, and that’s fair...

just don’t take an intentional where you know he will refuse the shot and it’s your turn again...

I don’t see how it’s a problem, it looks like a solution to an age old problem...

Or perhaps I’m to dim to understand how it changes the game for the worst...
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,132
Kick as best you can to a safety, or roll out to the best spot where he will not give you the shot back...

Seems it works both ways for both players, and that’s fair...

just don’t take an intentional where you know he will refuse the shot and it’s your turn again...

I don’t see how it’s a problem, it looks like a solution to an age old problem...

Or perhaps I’m to dim to understand how it changes the game for the worst...
Seems a good idea, maybe we're both dim Bulbs (or Boobs)
 

Frank Almanza

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,394
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.
I agree with you Jerry. Sometimes a player positions himself where he will get some balls no matter what you do. So by you taking a couple of fouls and he does the same you know that unless he runs out he will have to put a couple of balls back on the table and maybe prolong the game a bit to give you a chance.

If we're not playing with the three foul rule I'll take more fouls.
I had a game with Billy Teeters a good while back where he already had four balls to the good and all the balls were within a foot and a half next to his pocket and I was corner hooked at the other end of the table on his side.
I took four or five internationals and he did the same. He spotted all his balls back on the table and then I pushed the cue ball out to what I thought was the hardest shot for him but it still was fairly easy. He shot and missed it and I wound up winning the game and then his backer pulled out. His backer said if you can't win that game I'm out.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
Seems a good idea, maybe we're both dim Bulbs (or Boobs)
Rod,

Thanks for your honest opinion. Like Jeff, you are a well respected and experienced player with a reputation for competing at a level that most of us here can only dream of achieving. You and Jeff are certainly not dim bulbs in any sense of the word.

To have members like you two guys agreeing that the use of intentional fouls to force an opponent to also foul, as a strategy to change the game or avoid the penalty for being legally trapped, is not a positive aspect of the game and should be eliminated. Using intentional fouls in this way serves to lengthen the game as well.

To be clear though, this rule does not eliminate intentional fouls. One can still shoot or kick into the stack, or kick to get behind balls without getting a rail after contact. The incoming player just has an option to accept the shot or have the fouling player shoot again.

Today I was discussing this idea with a friend of mine where I play, and he suggested that I reword this rule as follows:

After any foul and after the penalty is assessed, the incoming player has an option to "accept" the shot or return it to the fouling player.

He said that "accepting or returning" the shot was more in line with the way we played and about thought pushout nineball so many years ago. Maybe he's right, so perhaps people should think of this rule suggestion in that way.

Thanks for weighing in and giving your honest assessment and opinion.:)

Darrell
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
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.

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, 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? Whitey
Whitey,

Thanks for you honest assessment and opinion on this rule suggestion. Appreciate your support, as I know you pay attention to the rules discussions.

I find that guys gambling at OP (even if only for $10 or $20) won't try anything new. Hard enough to get them to even discuss it.

Three foul is a good rule, as without it this strategy of taking intentionals to lengthen games could be a lot worse.

It would be good if more members would join in with their thoughts.

We'll see....:)
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,576
Whitey,

Thanks for you honest assessment and opinion on this rule suggestion. Appreciate your support, as I know you pay attention to the rules discussions.

I find that guys gambling at OP (even if only for $10 or $20) won't try anything new. Hard enough to get them to even discuss it.

Three foul is a good rule, as without it this strategy of taking intentionals to lengthen games could be a lot worse.

It would be good if more members would join in with their thoughts.

We'll see....:)
A game like One Pocket, which has been played for many years with essentially the same rules, doesn't lend itself to a lot of innovation in rules. Most of onepocket.org's role in writing the rules has been simply to clarify and put in place standards to the common questions and practices we already see every day in the game as it is commonly played -- not reinventing how it is played.

The time issue for tournaments is a problem that even there -- the emphasis always seems to be, how can you deal with that problem without really changing the game? The time saving rules that are the most popular seem to always be the rules that change the game the least -- like shot clocks for example. And I've worded that wrong lol, I should have said, "the time saving rules that are the least unpopular" -- because no matter what our players don't seem to universally like anything that changes the game.

All of this is just what I see from my point of view.

The option of passing back the table after a foul could be a big game changer. It would really come into play when the position of the cue is such that both players are in trouble from there. Suddenly the player that put the cue ball there is the one most penalized as opposed to the opponent. That's a major flip, and I'm trying to visualize how that would change play.

Like early in the game, when the stack is intact and balls are open on both sides and sometimes the only place to hide the cue is the top of the stack.
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
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...
Thanks.

Here is my honest opinion. But I am usually honest so that was a wasteful way to start off :heh

I think this is a waste of time. I think one pocket players as a group need to progess a bit and be more open minded, and then I would be all for jumping in and having a fruitful discussion based in logic.

I personally do not tink there is any merit whatsoever to the scenarios that have been brought up to this point. Anything that comes up, you get to "push out" (my term) if i am understanding your rule correctly. So, if you are corner hooked or in the stack, put the guy in a spot where he has a really tough choice, just like a nine ball push. The arguments seem to assume moving a cueball to locations on a pooltable is impossible.

I think another assumption was made in those scenarios that was poor. In pool we have to just assume incoming player is where they are because of a skillful shot. If we don't, no clarity can come from anything, and various arguments can be made that players just got lucky. In my opinion, if we assume as we should that players put their opponents in tough spots via their skill, then maybe those games where an extreme advatage is aboit to be gained by oitgoing player are warranted. Ie, he deserves to win the game.

This is such an important point in my opinion, because if we assume or state luck was the basis to putting people in the difficult positions they get in on a pool table, you get into player intent before the shot, and that is a very dubious way to decide over rules changes.

I am at the point quite honestly if people can't see and understand that pushing a cb 2mm 8 times in a row between two players is not good one pocket, then there is just no use discussing it further.

Thanks for bringing this up though. I think you should copy the post and repost it in about 10 years, maybe 15 :heh
 
Last edited:

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,683
A game like One Pocket, which has been played for many years with essentially the same rules, doesn't lend itself to a lot of innovation in rules. Most of onepocket.org's role in writing the rules has been simply to clarify and put in place standards to the common questions and practices we already see every day in the game as it is commonly played -- not reinventing how it is played.

The time issue for tournaments is a problem that even there -- the emphasis always seems to be, how can you deal with that problem without really changing the game? The time saving rules that are the most popular seem to always be the rules that change the game the least -- like shot clocks for example. And I've worded that wrong lol, I should have said, "the time saving rules that are the least unpopular" -- because no matter what our players don't seem to universally like anything that changes the game.

All of this is just what I see from my point of view.

The option of passing back the table after a foul could be a big game changer. It would really come into play when the position of the cue is such that both players are in trouble from there. Suddenly the player that put the cue ball there is the one most penalized as opposed to the opponent. That's a major flip, and I'm trying to visualize how that would change play.

Like early in the game, when the stack is intact and balls are open on both sides and sometimes the only place to hide the cue is the top of the stack.
nice post steve
well thought out and well written
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,683
darrell
how come no love for jerry and frank???:heh
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
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.
I agree with you Jerry. Sometimes a player positions himself where he will get some balls no matter what you do. So by you taking a couple of fouls and he does the same you know that unless he runs out he will have to put a couple of balls back on the table and maybe prolong the game a bit to give you a chance.

If we're not playing with the three foul rule I'll take more fouls.
I had a game with Billy Teeters a good while back where he already had four balls to the good and all the balls were within a foot and a half next to his pocket and I was corner hooked at the other end of the table on his side.
I took four or five internationals and he did the same. He spotted all his balls back on the table and then I pushed the cue ball out to what I thought was the hardest shot for him but it still was fairly easy. He shot and missed it and I wound up winning the game and then his backer pulled out. His backer said if you can't win that game I'm out.
here we have 2 members who also have attained a high level of skill and have many years of experience .
darrell
shouldnt you thank them too for their opinions like you did for rod and jeff
even though frank and jerry dont agree with you??:D
Can always count on you Larry to demand consistency and keep people honest. That's a good thing. So, Yes, thank you both Jerry and Frank for your honest input. If I may also be honest without offending anyone (and if I am wrong please correct me), both Jerry and Frank play well, both play very deliberately, and both use every possible option available to them to win a game. Both seem to me to make good use of defensive tactics (compared to today's newer players who take more risks and shoot at their hole more often). Both their games are more similar than not to how I play (although maybe not as well). Both have said that they will take as many intentional fouls as needed, seemingly without regard for what venue they are in, and presumably without regard for other players (say in a tournament situation). I actually don't blame anyone for doing exactly that, play by the rules.

That's why the rules need to be changed. Jerry and Frank don't know if playing OP by the new rules would be better or worse, more or less enjoyable, more or less suitable to their styles of play. They simply are against change, seems to me. I would love to hear some reasoning behind their opinions, like what is the downside of rules proposals compared to the benefits.

One of the things I have noticed about nine ball players today is that they are willing to lose a game quickly, let it go, and get on with the next game. Some of the best players that I play OP with (getting a spot) play aggressively and have the same attitude, if in trouble they will want to move on to the next game.

While I can relate to Jerry's and Frank's playing styles because of lack of firepower on my part, I refuse to be restricted to "this is the way we have always played", when there is a problem to be resolved like OP is too slow, takes too long, tournaments can't be run without shortening races, etc. I happen to think Jerry and Frank are wrong.

No one knows how any of these rules changes will overall affect the game of OP. When all is said and done, gamblers and tournament players will develop their strategies and play within the rules in effect. I know some will say "look what they did to nine ball, they ruined it". I would say that's why we can't ignore the problems and let venues like the DCC write the rules of OP, I see OP.org as being the foremost authority on OP and it should (must) have some input into how the game evolves.

I think we all want OP to be a game of many skills, and we want to minimize the "luck" factor while we know we can't eliminate it.

I think we penalize fouls because they are something to be avoided, not promoted for whatever reason. Allowing a player to intentionally foul and then benefit from it makes no sense, and is counter productive when we want to shorten and speed up play.

So, again, thank you Jerry and Frank for your opinion. Can we hear some reasoning that is in tune with the DCC's, the Memphis Melee's, the Hard Times Td's desire to solve the problems. If we don't exercise our perogative to have some input, we can only blame ourselves when others go forward without us. What baffles me is the reluctance of too many here to participate in discussions like this, and let others make decisions about OP without our input.

Thanks Larry, hope that helps.:D
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
A game like One Pocket, which has been played for many years with essentially the same rules, doesn't lend itself to a lot of innovation in rules. Most of onepocket.org's role in writing the rules has been simply to clarify and put in place standards to the common questions and practices we already see every day in the game as it is commonly played -- not reinventing how it is played.
You mean like Golf that has been around a lot longer than OP. The USGA introduced 15 new rules for this year, as I understand it. I think you may be selling yourself and the members of this group short, Steve. Maybe our role needs to evolve as well, I can't imagine we can call ourselves OP.org and not wish to have a strong voice in how the game evolves, as it does with or withut us.

The time issue for tournaments is a problem that even there -- the emphasis always seems to be, how can you deal with that problem without really changing the game? The time saving rules that are the most popular seem to always be the rules that change the game the least -- like shot clocks for example. And I've worded that wrong lol, I should have said, "the time saving rules that are the least unpopular" -- because no matter what our players don't seem to universally like anything that changes the game.
I agree. That's why discussions on here are necessary. We can't know the long term effect, but our experienced members can anticipate and eliminate unintended consequences better than anybody, wouldn't you agree?



The option of passing back the table after a foul could be a big game changer. It would really come into play when the position of the cue is such that both players are in trouble from there. Suddenly the player that put the cue ball there is the one most penalized as opposed to the opponent. That's a major flip, and I'm trying to visualize how that would change play.

Like early in the game, when the stack is intact and balls are open on both sides and sometimes the only place to hide the cue is the top of the stack.
First, intentionals are not eliminated, for example you might want to kick from nearby your pocket to nearby the opponents pocket (without making a legal hit as we do today) just to get behind the OB's.

In your example above you have it backwards, the player who creates a trap with a legal hit is not the one who is penalized by this "option" rule. It is the player who is caught in the trap created with a legal hit that is penalized because he now has nothing to gain by taking two intentionals, thereby changing the game, he will need to take his best shot at getting out of the legally applied trap and pay the full penalty if he fails to get out of it, he will not be able to lengthen and slow down the game.

Let's take the example of you playing and moving very well, you've got a ball hanging in your hole and he can't get to it from where he is, so, he takes a foul by freezing you against a ball up table. You can't make a legal shot up there without selling out, so here we go with the touch fouls extending the game that's gonna end with him trying to kick or make a legal shot because of the three foul rule. He could have and should have done so in the first place and been incentivised rather than decentivised to do so.

When the CB scratches in a hole, it's BIH, not likely the shot is going to be returned. When a legal hit is not made, the next shot is played from where they lay, and the opponent has a choice. Depending on the decision the fouling player may get a second chance to improve his position from a different layout. How could he object to that?

The biggest effect of this rule is to not reward an illegal shot and keep the game shorter, that's the only changes I see. Why would we want to incentivise something that we already penalize, especially if it is used to lengthen and slow down the game.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
nice post steve
well thought out and well written
Larry,

Now you know, the game of OP is being changed (reinvented) currently, with or without us. You don't want to have any say? You don't think a group called OP.org, with our experienced members should participate?

:confused:
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,683
Larry,

Now you know, the game of OP is being changed (reinvented) currently, with or without us. You don't want to have any say? You don't think a group called OP.org, with our experienced members should participate?

:confused:
darrell
i dont think the game of onepocket is being changed
grady's rules for tournaments has been around for a long time
in your response to frank and jerry's posts you said
" Both have said that they will take as many intentional fouls as needed, seemingly without regard for what venue they are in, and presumably without regard for other players (say in a tournament situation). I actually don't blame anyone for doing exactly that, play by the rules.
That's why the rules need to be changed. "
i disagree with your logic
taking as many intentionals as necessary is ok with me and i dont see the need for a MAJOR rule change because of it .:sorry
you want some new rules for tournament play to "speed the game up"
go promote it among tournaments
see how it goes
and if it gets positive feedback
publish your new rules as" darrell's rules ".:)
rather than make them onepocket.orgs new rules
jmho
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
Thanks.

Here is my honest opinion. But I am usually honest so that was a wasteful way to start off :heh

I think this is a waste of time. I think one pocket players as a group need to progess a bit and be more open minded, and then I would be all for jumping in and having a fruitful discussion based in logic.

I personally do not tink there is any merit whatsoever to the scenarios that have been brought up to this point. Anything that comes up, you get to "push out" (my term) if i am understanding your rule correctly.[/] So, if you are corner hooked or in the stack, put the guy in a spot where he has a really tough choice, just like a nine ball push. The arguments seem to assume moving a cueball to locations on a pool table is impossible.


No, the option for the incoming player to accept or return the shot is only applicable after a foul (any foul).

I think another assumption was made in those scenarios that was poor. In pool we have to just assume incoming player is where they are because of a skillful shot. If we don't, no clarity can come from anything, and various arguments can be made that players just got lucky. In my opinion, if we assume as we should that players put their opponents in tough spots via their skill, then maybe those games where an extreme advatage is aboit to be gained by oitgoing player are warranted. Ie, he deserves to win the game.

This is such an important point in my opinion, because if we assume or state luck was the basis to putting people in the difficult positions they get in on a pool table, you get into player intent before the shot, and that is a very dubious way to decide over rules changes.
I, and this rule, make no judgement about luck vs. skill on any shot at all, don't care how what happened, happened. Only judge whether it was a legal shot or a foul, which in the case of the latter, an option is in order. Hope that is clear.


I am at the point quite honestly if people can't see and understand that pushing a cb 2mm 8 times in a row between two players is not good one pocket, then there is just no use discussing it further.

Thanks for bringing this up though. I think you should copy the post and repost it in about 10 years, maybe 15 :heh
Unfortunately, you may be right about this, based on the participation in this discussion so far. But, hope springs eternal.:D
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
As we now have noticed DCC is going to a form of the Grady rule. Which of course is an alternative playing rule. For me this just signals the start of ways to speed up the game!

IMO OP.org needs to stay a head of the curve and not be a johnny come lately on the establishment of alternative playing rules.

Currently we have our standard playing rules w/Grady's added input, and this is listed under the heading 'The Game'. Click on it and numerous subtitles come up.

OP.org welcomes tournaments to use our written game rule, and there are those that choose to, but also of course can and do if necessary also have alternative playing rules.

I feel we need to develop a new category under 'The Game' --- 'Alternative Playing Rules'. Over the last few years or so we have discussed many alternative ways to play the game. Why not list them to not only keep us in the game, but lead the way.
Just my opinion. Whitey
 

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,310
I understand why players want to speed up the game and try new rules out. That could be considered progress by some. But be careful what you ask for because we never go back. DCC never dealt with why the last years event was run so poorly. So, blame it on the rules, not the personnel running the event. My bitch now is all about timing. Why change the rules after all of us booked our rooms, airfare and entries? Why didn't DCC post this rule change two months ago? My belief is that they were concerned about losing entries and thusly revenue. So let me draw some comparisons; So in professional sports we are using instant replay. This is to get it right but what happened? The games take longer to play. What was accomplished? Nothing....... In professional tennis some great matches are decided by tie breakers but at Wimbledon they play it out to win by two games. Some of those matches last five hours. Who likes that? Us fans do. In Golf some like one hole playoffs others like eighteen hole playoffs. Same for Soccer. So what's going to happen when balls aren't spotted (which is going to occur) are the players going to be honest about it and spot the ball even though it might cost them the game? Yeah right. Maybe its a sign of my age and playing this game for over 50 years but One Pocket unlike the other games has stood the test of time. Next batter up please. Over and out.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,683
As we now have noticed DCC is going to a form of the Grady rule. Which of course is an alternative playing rule. For me this just signals the start of ways to speed up the game!

IMO OP.org needs to stay a head of the curve and not be a johnny come lately on the establishment of alternative playing rules.

Currently we have our standard playing rules w/Grady's added input, and this is listed under the heading 'The Game'. Click on it and numerous subtitles come up.

OP.org welcomes tournaments to use our written game rule, and there are those that choose to, but also of course can and do if necessary also have alternative playing rules.

I feel we need to develop a new category under 'The Game' --- 'Alternative Playing Rules'. Over the last few years or so we have discussed many alternative ways to play the game. Why not list them to not only keep us in the game, but lead the way.
Just my opinion. Whitey
whitey
i couldnt find grady's rules under the game when i clicked on it.
could you provide a link where its posted please
having a section on "alternative rules" is an interesting idea.
the ten commandments written in stone can continue unchanged....:)
(ie THE RULES as they are now )
and an app for alternative rules could be available for those that want something new....:D
(ie grady's rules/darrell's rules etc )
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,449
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[/quote]

darrell
i dont think the game of onepocket is being changed
grady's rules for tournaments has been around for a long time
in your response to frank and jerry's posts you said
" Both have said that they will take as many intentional fouls as needed, seemingly without regard for what venue they are in, and presumably without regard for other players (say in a tournament situation). I actually don't blame anyone for doing exactly that, play by the rules.
That's why the rules need to be changed. "
i disagree with your logic
taking as many intentionals as necessary is ok with me and i dont see the need for a MAJOR rule change because of it .:sorry
you want some new rules for tournament play to "speed the game up"
go promote it among tournaments
see how it goes
and if it gets positive feedback
publish your new rules as" darrell's rules ".:)
rather than make them onepocket.orgs new rules
jmho
Larry, my friend

Are you banashing me?:eek: I didn't know you could do that, pls take me back.

Your opinion seems to be congeling from your first post here, where you were appreciative of the idea, and simply thought our group was too small to "rock the world.

Now, you wanna deny there is or ever was any problem and then deny that anybody else is making changes to the game. All of these discussions, as far as I am concerned are about tournament play. Obviously, private matches between gamblers can be played by any rules they agree to.

And I do appreciate your opinion disagreeing with me and my logic, I just wish you could provide reason other than it's always been this way, or it's just fine, but that's just me.

You seem to think my motives are fame and fortune:lol:lol You have never heard me suggest Darrel's rule (I hope) and I am sure you'll will search. If I ever did inadvertently, I apologize in advance.

:)
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,683
i think just like grady has his rule
your rule if ever adopted should carry your name
dont be shy about it...:heh
and no i am not bashing you...:) i still wuv you...:D
you seem hell bent on making a seismic change to the onepocket rules
with no sample size or does it work
we should not be setting in stone a major change to the way the game is played when we dont even know how it will change the game
go do some research and development
come back and let the players /tournament directors that use your rule
let us know how it goes
if reasonable
it could become an "alternative rule "
just like grady's rule is not part of the main rules but an asterisk / addendum
as an option not the law
jmho
 
Last edited:
Top