New rule of rules.

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
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 )
OP.org as far as I know does not have a written depiction of the Grady Rule pertaining to 4 balls down table.

But, I think it is pretty simple and sell explanatory. When 4 balls are past the side pocket towards the head of the table (down table) then when other ball is also sent and remains down table, the nearest ball to the head rail is then spotted.
If you score a ball, plus send a 5th ball down table then I would assume the ball nearest the head rail gets spotted at the end of the inning.
Correct me if I am wrong. Whitey
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
Darrell,

I’m curious how the thought originated...
When did you first think of passing the shot back to the person who fouled?
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
Darrell,

I’m curious how the thought originated...
When did you first think of passing the shot back to the person who fouled?
Jeff,

I'm not completely sure. I pay attention to rules discussions and I was reading another thread about trapping the CB in the face of the pocket and something about escalating this foul, I think at the DCC to unsportsmanlike and loss of game, the usual guys were involved (even you), I thought what a ridiculous idea, just adds to our rules, this needs to be stopped. I thought what if you had nothing to gain by doing that, or committing any intentional foul for that matter.

How to do that? In order to make it a simplification rather than a further complication, it has to apply across the board? How about after any and all fouls you can give the table back if you want? That made me think of the way we used to play pushout nine ball, yeah, why not?

So how and where will this apply? CB scratches (BIH) not likely. Failure to get a rail, maybe, the incoming guy ain't gonna complain and the guy that committed the foul, wouldn't he like another shot? The only guy that may complain is the guy who is caught in a trap and can't get out, and he deserves it (that's OP)

So, I wrote post #28 in that thread on 1/9/19 (right after your post). Then thought this could be good, should have it's own thread. (fat chance)

To be honest, I've lost some interest. There seems to be very little interest in doing anything about anything, just lots of talk and argument (which I am guilty of too).

Anyway, that's where it came from, thanks for asking and showing some interest, Jeff.
 

Scrzbill

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,502
darrell

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

I remember a time when you came to OPORG to do WWYD’s. Does anyone still do WWID, not WYWD? Now another thread has popped up to do Grady’s rule. The reason Grady’s rule isn’t the rule is because more people than not like the end game. You can’t just play it in tournaments to learn it, you would have to gamble too. No one wanted to gamble playing with a rule change that would significantly change the end game of one pocket. No one likes the wedge either. After the wedge was shattered, fewer and fewer players played it, unless they wanted to play a game that lasted five hours and a match a day. There is a guy who plays like that out here and he’s a big time gambler. It’s his stik. There is no action between us.
It is aggravating at all the proposed rule changes people want to the MOT. We can make one change and see if that works. Forget changing the break. The last day, four players. Two winners. Two losers. That’s it. If it goes to three am, we shoot them both, or all four. That’s two changes, but WTH.
 

Scrzbill

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,502
Frank 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.[/QUOTE said:
Funny thing about Billy. If something rubs him the wrong way,he will quit. Baby Frank and quite a few of the boys were at CB’s when the scientist owned it. It was recently reopened and the players were all out to see if they could get action. Apparently Baby Frank and Teeters had had some previous incounters and the acrimony was thick. It was typical pool room banter only a bit harsher than normal. I wanted to play both but there was no way while these two were going at it. Off to the John I goes and who came busting in afterwards?, baby Frank. He said he would put me in against Billy. Now that’s a prop that could be had. So baby Frank disappears long enough for Billy and I to make a game. I win the first two. Frank comes back but for some reason Frank can’t keep his mouth shut trying to irritate Billy. There is no way to quiet him without blowing the partnership. Teeters is no one to mess with, as far as anyone knew, he always carried. Right in the middle of the next game Billy is tired of Frank and abruptly quits. I say forget about the game not wanting to blow a score down the line. My chance to score with Teeters is gone and now my opportunity to snap off Baby Frank is gone. We played by the rules of one pocket. Rotate breaks, owe one if you scratch. Cue ball fouls only and any ball touching the line is in. No re rack. No five ball bull. No time limit. All three games lasted under an hour.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
Jeff,

I'm not completely sure. I pay attention to rules discussions and I was reading another thread about trapping the CB in the face of the pocket and something about escalating this foul, I think at the DCC to unsportsmanlike and loss of game, the usual guys were involved (even you), I thought what a ridiculous idea, just adds to our rules, this needs to be stopped. I thought what if you had nothing to gain by doing that, or committing any intentional foul for that matter.

How to do that? In order to make it a simplification rather than a further complication, it has to apply across the board? How about after any and all fouls you can give the table back if you want? That made me think of the way we used to play pushout nine ball, yeah, why not?

So how and where will this apply? CB scratches (BIH) not likely. Failure to get a rail, maybe, the incoming guy ain't gonna complain and the guy that committed the foul, wouldn't he like another shot? The only guy that may complain is the guy who is caught in a trap and can't get out, and he deserves it (that's OP)

So, I wrote post #28 in that thread on 1/9/19 (right after your post). Then thought this could be good, should have it's own thread. (fat chance)

To be honest, I've lost some interest. There seems to be very little interest in doing anything about anything, just lots of talk and argument (which I am guilty of too).

Anyway, that's where it came from, thanks for asking and showing some interest, Jeff.
Well I still believe it has merit...

Even though there are some heavyweights here at OP.O who have not expressed an opinion, which I am curious about also, I believe it could work very well in a tournament format...

Makes me wish I was younger and more gung-ho again about things, because if I’m seeing the reasoning correctly, this could be a good thing for one pocket and something I might get behind and try to gather more data and opinion in order to push for incorporation into actuality...

Perhaps members are shy about other people’s feelings and just don’t want to express an open opinion about this new idea for one pocket, or they are, ( just as I was ) not sure how it would play out... It’s a reasonable assumption to fear criticism from open expression, and it’s also reasonable to not want to express an opinion of something one is not completely sure about, so while I do understand some reluctance, I also wish people would try harder to think your idea through and present their opinions, whether they are positive, or negative...
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose, I would not get discourage on this one, for I think your thread has gone quite well, and the responders have been keeping on point respectfully.

I am with Jeff on this, it has merit. I actually never knew of intentionals as being part of the game anyway. Never played an intentional nor did my opponents. I always shot my way out of a legal kick shot that ended up against the side of the rack.

Heck, I'd play by your Darmoose Moving Forward alternative rule combined with this foul rule accept or give it back. I'd just have to iron out my kick shots to get up to speed to make legal hit/shot % to go up.

Whatever rule at the MOT or other tourny's the players agree to, I am in if I am there, because we all play by the same rules! Whitey
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,567
If you look at our official rules, in many places there are alternate rules that have a history of being popular in different locales, etc. So it is not out of the realm of possiblity to try some alternate rules that would start there, and if they were to grow in popularity then ultimately who knows, the old rule could become the alternate rule (such as essentially what happened with an object ball coming off the table -- it used to not be a foul, but now it is, as the standard).

And particularly with all the issues of how long tournaments run and the worst case of current or potential tournament hosts possibly avoiding One Pocket because they are concerned about time issues -- I am very much in favor of seriously exploring time saving alternative rules that might mitigate those issues and encourage more One Pocket tournaments.

I have already collected a few ideas and bunched them into sort of an express version of One Pocket. So some of the ideas might work in that direction, but some of them also might work (like the Grady rule) as alternatives built right into options in our rules that are highlighted particularly for tournament directors to control match/tournament time over-runs. Kind of a menu of back-up options in case a tournament director feels they need to rein in the time matches are taking. So this paragraph describes two ways these good ideas could be used.

So yes, I am listening. :D
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,680
Well I still believe it has merit...
I also wish people would try harder to think your idea through and present their opinions, whether they are positive, or negative...
jeff
opinions are like you know what
everyone has one......:eek:......:heh
EDIT i dont want to sound like a smart ass ...some peoples opinions carry more respect and merit than others
darrell's idea IS interesting
but
to change the rules on an abstract idea and the opinion of a few is simply CRAZY (jmho)
as i said in another post
go try it out in real onepocket matches/tournaments
if its found to be a reasonable way to play it can be added to the list of alternative rules along with re-rack, and grady's rules.
but to make it the new standard (OFFICIAL) way to play
would be a mistake in my opinion
onepocket has been played for over one hundred years
it is becoming increasingly popular with the rules as they are.
it takes years to learn the game and especially the end game and when to take a foul
why make up a new game since if darrell's rule becomes the OFFICIAL rule
we now have a new game of onepocket

jmho
icbw
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
Well I still believe it has merit...

Even though there are some heavyweights here at OP.O who have not expressed an opinion, which I am curious about also, I believe it could work very well in a tournament format...

Makes me wish I was younger and more gung-ho again about things, because if I’m seeing the reasoning correctly, this could be a good thing for one pocket and something I might get behind and try to gather more data and opinion in order to push for incorporation into actuality...

Perhaps members are shy about other people’s feelings and just don’t want to express an open opinion about this new idea for one pocket, or they are, ( just as I was ) not sure how it would play out... It’s a reasonable assumption to fear criticism from open expression, and it’s also reasonable to not want to express an opinion of something one is not completely sure about, so while I do understand some reluctance, I also wish people would try harder to think your idea through and present their opinions, whether they are positive, or negative...
Darmoose, I would not get discourage on this one, for I think your thread has gone quite well, and the responders have been keeping on point respectfully.

I am with Jeff on this, it has merit. I actually never knew of intentionals as being part of the game anyway. Never played an intentional nor did my opponents. I always shot my way out of a legal kick shot that ended up against the side of the rack.

Heck, I'd play by your Darmoose Moving Forward alternative rule combined with this foul rule accept or give it back. I'd just have to iron out my kick shots to get up to speed to make legal hit/shot % to go up.

Whatever rule at the MOT or other tourny's the players agree to, I am in if I am there, because we all play by the same rules! Whitey
Thank you guys once again, Those are encouraging expressions of support. I don't understand why so many are reluctant to express their opinion. There's nobody gonna bite your head off, or embarrass anyone here for expressing an opinion. I do not take anyone's views personally, so long as there is no personal attack involved.

Larry has emerged as the most vocal, let's say, against this idea and while I don't agree with his opinion or his idea as to how something like this should be pursued, there is no animosity involved. I would simply like to change his mind.

Some want to label me as some malcontent that lives to change OP. Not so, I go play OP almost every day (by the current rules) and love the game and play no other. I love the nuances, the subtleties, and strategies. I don't love "intentional fouls" for several reasons. It is not comfortable to be the only, or one of very few, who will openly discuss and support an idea in the face of so many "traditionalists" who "hear no problem, see no problem, and speak of no problem".

Maybe we should be discussing something more basic, so, here I go again.:sorry

Are intentional fouls used as a strategy to lengthen games, change the score, and lessen the value of a legally applied trap good for OP or not good for OP? I would hope members would discuss this question, and for now let's not labor over what the solution will be, unless you just have to do so, which is certainly ok with me.

Anybody willing to say what they think......:)
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
If you look at our official rules, in many places there are alternate rules that have a history of being popular in different locales, etc. So it is not out of the realm of possiblity to try some alternate rules that would start there, and if they were to grow in popularity then ultimately who knows, the old rule could become the alternate rule (such as essentially what happened with an object ball coming off the table -- it used to not be a foul, but now it is, as the standard).

And particularly with all the issues of how long tournaments run and the worst case of current or potential tournament hosts possibly avoiding One Pocket because they are concerned about time issues -- I am very much in favor of seriously exploring time saving alternative rules that might mitigate those issues and encourage more One Pocket tournaments.

I have already collected a few ideas and bunched them into sort of an express version of One Pocket. So some of the ideas might work in that direction, but some of them also might work (like the Grady rule) as alternatives built right into options in our rules that are highlighted particularly for tournament directors to control match/tournament time over-runs. Kind of a menu of back-up options in case a tournament director feels they need to rein in the time matches are taking. So this paragraph describes two ways these good ideas could be used.

So yes, I am listening. :D

Steve,

Appreciate that you are listening. So, as our leader, I must ask you. If there are people out there making changes to the rules of OP (whether for just tournaments or in general) like officially, is this organization (your organization) desirous of having at least some input?
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
If you really think about it, OP is an expertise demanding game, that only the very top players can play up to the expectations of the game. Like Efren for instance, and quite a few others, that possess the talent, touch, and finesse to control the ob and the cb.

Well, by going to Darmoose Moving Forward combined with Any Foul Accept or Pass Back then in fact the standard bar of excellence has been greatly raised.
For you are then trying to play a clean game without fouling, and especially without doing an intentional. Because, for every foul your opponent gets a ball, except the last game winning ball.

Well I do not possess the talent to pull off the shots to correctly play this game of OP. So playing by these rules I would definitely need to up my speed, it would pose a challenge.

I think if I was a young man and seriously wanted to get into OP, I would like the challenge of playing by these rules. Whitey
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,680
Larry has emerged as the most vocal, let's say, against this idea and while I don't agree with his opinion or his idea as to how something like this should be pursued, there is no animosity involved. I would simply like to change his mind.
darrell
in spite of my smart ass remark about opinions in a prior post (which i edited)
frank and jerry against the idea and jeff and rod and whitey for the idea
these are people who i respect greatly
they have ALOT of onepocket experience frank/jerry/rod/and jeff for sure have gambled for years and all of them have been around the block more than just a few times
so when they speak .....i listen
my resume is a grain of sand on the beach compared to them
for the record
i do think your idea has potential..is an interesting concept (as an alternative )
but i think no conclusions yea or nay can be made until it is tried on the table
everything else is speculation and debate
i will say you are a pro at persuasion and debate....:)
you say you play every day
play somebody cheap
get some of your buddies to try it out
if get a chance i will try to play with your rules and see how it goes...:eek:..:)
i just dont get to play much onepocket
after there has been experience in its use
then a meaningfull discussion can take place
and i dont think a change should be made without table time experience
i dont think you will change my opinion about that
and just like everyone else
i have an opinion and you know what too.....:heh:heh
 

Billy Jackets

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
1,140
I used to play a guy who would shoot safeties by shoving the cueball gently between a ball and the cushion, freezing to the ball, every chance he got , he would never once admit to a foul ,even though it was obvious to anyone watching.
I still beat him, but it sure made it a lot tougher.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
I have played one pocket a long time. It is a great game.
The intentional foul is part of the game and call benefit any cognizant player.

I still give up big spots and find it invaluable.

Ball in hand has no place in any Billiard game.

For Tournament play however a shorter game like my 10 ball one pocket (Phoenix one pocket) with the 10 ball worth 2 could work.

Bill S.
 

catkins

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
489
The thing I like about this rule over nay of the other ways to speed up one pocket is that it honestly makes intentional fouling much more strategic. It does not take it out of the game it just means that you have to really think about how you are going to use it. You no longer can just keep a guy in the same position they put you in but have to move the ball whee you would not mind shooting and your opponent would not want to shoot from but has to. I jsut feel that this would actually improve the play of the game while still allowing the intentional but making them more of a skilled shot and not less

just my opinion
chris
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
darrell
in spite of my smart ass remark about opinions in a prior post (which i edited)
frank and jerry against the idea and jeff and rod and whitey for the idea
these are people who i respect greatly
they have ALOT of onepocket experience frank/jerry/rod/and jeff for sure have gambled for years and all of them have been around the block more than just a few times
so when they speak .....i listen
my resume is a grain of sand on the beach compared to them
for the record
i do think your idea has potential..is an interesting concept (as an alternative )
but i think no conclusions yea or nay can be made until it is tried on the table
everything else is speculation and debate
i will say you are a pro at persuasion and debate....:)
you say you play every day
play somebody cheap
get some of your buddies to try it out
if get a chance i will try to play with your rules and see how it goes...:eek:..:)
i just dont get to play much onepocket
after there has been experience in its use
then a meaningfull discussion can take place
and i dont think a change should be made without table time experience
i dont think you will change my opinion about that
and just like everyone else
i have an opinion and you know what too.....:heh:heh
Thanks Larry, I understand and I can get a little sarcastic too. I try to be subtle and sneaky about it, but, it usually shows through and sometimes gets me in trouble, no big deal as far as I'm concerned, guess we should try to keep it friendly.

I don't disagree that at some point we must take it to the table, I get that. I haven't been able to get anybody to try these ideas as yet, because the guys I play with all wanna play $20-$50 a game, won't try anything new, and don't even wanna play a cheaper game cause they would miss an opportunity to gamble for more by doing so. I keep trying. If you, or anyone else who comes to the MOT in Philly, I will try it with them or you.

I wanna say something about "changing the game" that I will repeat in your new thread, but I'm gonna put it here too. When I think about this, I don't think about whether the "rules" change much or not. I want rules made that are unambiguous, simple, clear, reduce/eliminate subjectiveness/interpretation, few or NO exceptions. More than that though, I want the nature of the game to remain in tact.

The game is full of options, strategies, decisions, etc. Exchanging one strategy like forcing the opponent to take intentionals by doing so yourself, for an "option" after all fouls (decision making) and improved value added to traps, I don't think changes the nature or the playing of the game much. Still as strategic, may require more skill, and more honest to what OP is supposed to be about.

I think when we consider things that change the game too much, playing to a lower number of balls (5 or 6) does that. The end game is affected, the breakshot is changed, the spacial relationships are changed, ball runners will win more cause it will be easier.

I think if we can get speedier games by doing things like the "moving forward" rule or the "option after a foul" rule that may switch one strategy for another, but not do away with important segments of the game, that is good.

Hard to put words to and explain, but you know it when you see it kinda thing.

:)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
If you really think about it, OP is an expertise demanding game, that only the very top players can play up to the expectations of the game. Like Efren for instance, and quite a few others, that possess the talent, touch, and finesse to control the ob and the cb.

Well, by going to Darmoose Moving Forward combined with Any Foul Accept or Pass Back then in fact the standard bar of excellence has been greatly raised.
For you are then trying to play a clean game without fouling, and especially without doing an intentional. Because, for every foul your opponent gets a ball, except the last game winning ball.

Well I do not possess the talent to pull off the shots to correctly play this game of OP. So playing by these rules I would definitely need to up my speed, it would pose a challenge.

I think if I was a young man and seriously wanted to get into OP, I would like the challenge of playing by these rules. Whitey

Whitey,

I gotta say, this is a great post. NOT because it supports my ideas at all, but because it is succinct, displays a solid understanding of what makes OP great, and is uplifting.

I had not thought of combining the two, and this might be too aggressive. I would not want one of these to fail to get consideration because put together they were just too much. This is true, though. The "moving forward" idea was conceived to speed up the game and maybe increase the penalty for fouling. The "option after a foul" rule is an effort to fix a problem with intentionals, but also raises the penalty for fouls somewhat, and might also speed up the game a bit.

I think you are correct, though, together they create a faster, higher skilled format that requires greater attention to playing mistake free OP. Could actually be quite interesting.

My personal opinion is that the "moving forward" rule is more difficult and complicated to understand, and it purports an "inevitability" to the end of the game that OP players can find uncomfortable..

Thanks for the support.

:)
 
Top