New rule of rules.

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
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 just 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
Thanks Chris,

That is exactly the case and well put, you get it. And how simple and easy to get those results, huh?


Darrell :)
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,690
darrell
i havent quoted every thing i needed to
and since there are only 4 or 5 of us really having a dialogue..:sorry
i will assume we are familiar with the prior posts
when you snuggle to freeze on a ball knowing it will cost you one
thats a helluva shot....:)
why take it away....:confused::frus
if you say we didnt take it away he could shoot again
but from that position he may not be able to have the same or maintain strategic advantage
just one hypothetical
your idea of a foul GIVING ONE TO YOU OPPONENT instead of spotting one (do i understand that correctly?)
is much less seismic in changing the game
last
going to 5 or 6 doesnt change the break since i plan to play with a full rack
the end game will change some but each player needs less balls so the conclusion of an up table game should end sooner
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,690
darrell
i want to say that it is really a testimony to your character
that we have been able to discuss your ideas and although we see things differently to be civil and not break down to personal insults like what happens on azb
its not personal its a discussion of ideas.....:)
have a good night
larry
 

Scrzbill

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,518
darrell
i want to say that it is really a testimony to your character
that we have been able to discuss your ideas and although we see things differently to be civil and not break down to personal insults like what happens on azb
its not personal its a discussion of ideas.....:)
have a good night
larry
You FKing 479656576569778T8768T87 YO87H P87Y Y8P ;I8 LUY LIYYI;IO9
HOWS THAT?
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
You FKing 479656576569778T8768T87 YO87H P87Y Y8P ;I8 LUY LIYYI;IO9
HOWS THAT?

I just knew this guy was reading all these wonderful ideas silently holed up in his dark lonely pool room probably with his cat... I'll bet his head is about to explode.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:D
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
darrell
i want to say that it is really a testimony to your character
that we have been able to discuss your ideas and although we see things differently to be civil and not break down to personal insults like what happens on azb
its not personal its a discussion of ideas.....:)
have a good night
larry
Stop it Larry, you're making me blush....besides I'm getting ready to tear you a new a**h*** in the other thread.:sorry:sorry

:heh:heh:lol:lol

;)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
darrell
i havent quoted every thing i needed to
and since there are only 4 or 5 of us really having a dialogue..:sorry
i will assume we are familiar with the prior posts
when you snuggle to freeze on a ball knowing it will cost you one
thats a helluva shot....:)
why take it away....:confused::frus
if you say we didnt take it away he could shoot again
but from that position he may not be able to have the same or maintain strategic advantage
Lar...

You seem confused (if I understand your question), let me help.:rolleyes:

Somehow, this musta gone over zee head. If you freeze me on a ball, having made a legal poke, there is NO foul and therefore no option to have you shoot again. If youze froze me to a ball, having failed to make a legal poke, that is not a hellova shot, and I can make you shoot again, cause you deserve it. You can't benefit from an intentional foul, that's the whole point. Do you zee?


your idea of a foul GIVING ONE TO YOU OPPONENT instead of spotting one (do i understand that correctly?)
is much less seismic in changing the game
Yes, yes.. I think you got it...that's one outta two so far.;)
Seismology has always been in the eye of the beholder, Lar..but, thanks for the endorsement. The "moving forward" rule does provide worthwhile returns in speeding the game up, while justly increasing the penalty for fouls, and without much of an impact on the nuances of the game. The biggest change in playability is you gotta have a supply of pennies for sure. It also puts pressure on taking intentionals because as you get further along in the game, if you take an intentional foul you put your opponent closer to the game ball.

Do you detect a theme here?



[QUOTE}going to 5 or 6 doesnt change the break since i plan to play with a full rack,the end game will change some but each player needs less balls so the conclusion of an up table game should end sooner[/QUOTE]

Good catch buddy, the full rack thingy, but going to 5 with a full rack? The end game is a gonner for sure, the middle game is in serious jeopardy, as most often by the time we get away from the stack play somebody has 4 or 5 balls in my experience. IMHO this decimates the game.

I think Trump's got a better chance of getting Pelosi to contribute to the wall than you got selling that idea to OP players.:sorry


P.S. BTW I like this being nice thing...this is fun.:D
 
Last edited:

Jeff sparks

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

Opinions were asked for... That’s what Darrell wanted, feedback for an idea he had... His idea is kind of a WDYT... a (what do you think) It’s my belief he wasn’t asking for immediate incorporation into OP.O’s rule book, just for members opinions as to whether it would be a worthy rule for consideration at some distant date after a decent trial and error period...

After all, isn’t that how everything begins, with an idea?

Darrell may be all wet, or he may have stumbled onto something very usable...

We, the jury, have been asked to weigh it up in this thread...

I find it a bit perplexing that so many of our members have chosen to stay silent and not voice an opinion... The vast amount of knowledge of the game of one pocket contained here at OP.O and only a handful have a desire to offer an opinion... Interesting...
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,690
Larry,

Opinions were asked for... That’s what Darrell wanted, feedback for an idea he had... His idea is kind of a WDYT... a (what do you think) It’s my belief he wasn’t asking for immediate incorporation into OP.O’s rule book, just for members opinions as to whether it would be a worthy rule for consideration at some distant date after a decent trial and error period...

After all, isn’t that how everything begins, with an idea?

Darrell may be all wet, or he may have stumbled onto something very usable...

We, the jury, have been asked to weigh it up in this thread...

I find it a bit perplexing that so many of our members have chosen to stay silent and not voice an opinion... The vast amount of knowledge of the game of one pocket contained here at OP.O and only a handful have a desire to offer an opinion... Interesting...
JEFF
first of all i need to apologize for being a jerk with my snide remark.
i apologize to you and everyone else who rendered an opinion.
it did seem to me darrell wants to change the rules of one pocket.
and it seemed to me without trying it out
he is eloquent and persuasive
he could have easily agreed with me in post #3 to try it out in a game
....
this is my post #3
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
......
but he kept his position going and it seemed to me he was not interested in battle testing the idea
all he seemed to want is more support
yes dialogue is great
and yes onepocket.org does have a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience among its members
perhaps their silence is their deafening sound of disapproval
we dont really know
for me i have said my piece and really dont want to put more energy into it unless i am drawn in to have to respond to something
we have opinions for and against from very respected members
i think the way to go forward is to go find out what happens in real games
and then the opinions of good or bad would have more weight regarding the merits of the idea
jmho
icbw
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,928
JEFF
first of all i need to apologize for being a jerk with my snide remark.
i apologize to you and everyone else who rendered an opinion.
it did seem to me darrell wants to change the rules of one pocket.
and it seemed to me without trying it out
he is eloquent and persuasive
he could have easily agreed with me in post #3 to try it out in a game
....
this is my post #3
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
......
but he kept his position going and it seemed to me he was not interested in battle testing the idea
all he seemed to want is more support
yes dialogue is great
and yes onepocket.org does have a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience among its members
perhaps their silence is their deafening sound of disapproval
we dont really know
for me i have said my piece and really dont want to put more energy into it unless i am drawn in to have to respond to something
we have opinions for and against from very respected members
i think the way to go forward is to go find out what happens in real games
and then the opinions of good or bad would have more weight regarding the merits of the idea
jmho
icbw
No apology necessary... We are friends and shall remain such...
You just spoke your piece and I spoke mine about how we feel about the topic...
Just wish others would do the same... Cowards!!! OFF with their heads!!!: :):)
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,591
"Pass it back option on fouls" -- PIBOOF lol --could be a very interesting negotiating option too if as a player you learned how to use it. If I was going to play a strong player getting serious weight for example, I would like to hold out for that option -- for me only of course in this case scenario :D:D

But no matter how much any of us might like this or any other new rule idea, it doesn't mean we would change the official rules any time soon at all. But once an idea has been tried and gets a track record I can see adding it as an option in the rules. A long standing traditional game like One Pocket is simply not going to see major rule changes unless they come from a major ground swell in how players in the real world prefer to play the game. Onepocket.org can lead by promulgating new ideas but I'm not going to support trying to force a change by simply changing our rules. Honestly I think that would make our rules less relevant.

As I look at it, our rules have played a huge role in clarifying how One Pocket is played. Prior to our rules there was really only the over-simplified rules in the BCA, that didn't even always agree with how the game was played -- ever. It is true that now, other rules like the USAPL have appeared -- but they are obviously based on our rules -- not BCA, so I give us a pat on the back on those too.

Ours are due for clean up, as well as adding the "rerack on ball made on a break" as an option. That because so many people are using it. It needs to address the "what if" you scratch on the break when you make a ball too, because that question seems to constantly come up.

I like the PIBOOF rule right away, for situations where a player has used an illegal stroke to park the cue ball (such as squeezing the cue ball against the pocket facing or cushion, or a ferule touch for examples). Our rules already state this:

6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,690
But no matter how much any of us might like this or any other new rule idea, it doesn't mean we would change the official rules any time soon at all.
But once an idea has been tried and gets a track record I can see adding it as an option in the rules.
A long standing traditional game like One Pocket is simply not going to see major rule changes unless they come from a major ground swell in how players in the real world prefer to play the game.
Onepocket.org can lead by promulgating new ideas but I'm not going to support trying to force a change by simply changing our rules. Honestly I think that would make our rules less relevant.
a voice of reason
tap..tap
great post steve.....:)
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
As I see it, an 'Option After the Foul' rule would not have much of an effect when playing a long rail kick off the head rail and going to reposition the cb in behind your opponent's balls by their pocket.This play is never going to be passed back, for you are in position to shoot towards your hole! So absolutely no effect whatsoever.

But, doing a soft kick into the stack with no intentions to drive a ball to a rail, or after your opponent leaves you legally against the stack, and you 'tap out an intentional' then this rule does come into effect.

I think, El Chapo, has always stated it best; "you take these top pro's with unimaginable talent and the best shot they can come up with is to tap the cb, tap, tap, tap, that's it"! Of course he is talking about taking a stack play intentional.

So, anything that eliminates this type of an intentional, I am a fan of, which I have express many times and have offered up an alternative rule to help thwart this practice. It is not as good as Darmoose rule! But, only allow one intentional by a player, by making a second consecutive intentional by that same player result in BIH for their opponent.

I had two thoughts in offering up this suggestive alt. rule; 1. to keep the game from going backwards with excessive intentionals. 2. to punish the first player to do an intentional, by either making them shoot on their next shot or giving up BIH. Whitey
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,591
As I see it, an 'Option After the Foul' rule would not have much of an effect when playing a long rail kick off the head rail and going to reposition the cb in behind your opponent's balls by their pocket.This play is never going to be passed back, for you are in position to shoot towards your hole! So absolutely no effect whatsoever.

But, doing a soft kick into the stack with no intentions to drive a ball to a rail, or after your opponent leaves you legally against the stack, and you 'tap out an intentional' then this rule does come into effect.

I think, El Chapo, has always stated it best; "you take these top pro's with unimaginable talent and the best shot they can come up with is to tap the cb, tap, tap, tap, that's it"! Of course he is talking about taking a stack play intentional.

So, anything that eliminates this type of an intentional, I am a fan of, which I have express many times and have offered up an alternative rule to help thwart this practice. It is not as good as Darmoose rule! But, only allow one intentional by a player, by making a second consecutive intentional by that same player result in BIH for their opponent.

I had two thoughts in offering up this suggestive alt. rule; 1. to keep the game from going backwards with excessive intentionals. 2. to punish the first player to do an intentional, by either making them shoot on their next shot or giving up BIH. Whitey
I believe it would come into play any time a player uses an intentional to put the cue ball in such a way that either player is "trapped" -- and that is quite often. For examples
  • the top of the stack, when balls are open to both pockets
  • actually behind a ball/balls anywhere on the table when balls are open to both pockets
  • corner-hooked

One thing NOT to like about the threat of the PIBOOF rule, is when your opponent accidentally traps you like the this (the usual case with a corner hook). Now you -- an innocent victim -- are pretty much forced to get out of the trap with a legal shot -- or an intentional foul to the best you can do in a tough situation, without even being able to force the lucky shmuck that did this to you to at least back scratch once or twice also.

Example -- I saw about 10 years ago Raphael Martinez get victimized by a lucky corner hook when there was a ball about 6" out from his opponent's pocket. Raphael knew immediately what to do, which was to take a scratch right there and spot one of his balls. Then of course his opponent took a scratch and potted one of their balls. Now with two balls already on the spot Raphael went ahead and kicked at the single ball that was near his oppnent's pocket. He got a good hit and thus survived in that game. However, if he had been forced to kick right away, with either no ball on the spot, or only one ball on the spot, he probably would have lost that game! All because his opponent got lucky and did not quite scratch!!
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Since this thread has drifted at times towards talking about the OP game rules as a whole, and the addition of alternative rules. And to pigging back off of Steve's comments in post # 71.

I see 3 areas where OP rules can improve. 1. and most important: Player Procedure. 2. General Rules (WPA) not adequate. 3. OP.org IMO should develop their own General Rules that are geared specifically for OP, and not rely on anyone else's rules that they can not control, which could and does adversely effect our game of OP.

Proper Procedure: Who spots the ball/ the opponent for the shooter always. Who marks and removes the coins/ the player who's score it effects, always. Who takes the balls out/puts in balls in their collective are/ the player who's balls it effects, always. When can a player take a break from play/ on their inning. When can a player approach the table? When the player is down on the shot, and is interrupted by the opponent / what then? Spotting a scored ball instead of properly spotting the pocketed neutral ball/improper. When does an inning start for a player/ different than other games for it would not start until scored/owed balls and coins are finalized, and this effects the 3 foul notification rule. Just things like this!
The lack of specifically pointing out player's proper procedure really takes away from the game, and really holds it down from achieving excellence.

General Rules: OP is different than any other game, in that highly technical billiard scenarios are always occurring. With a lot of close proximity shots, frozen ball scenarios ( Paul Newman's Hustler Shot for example), double hits/push scenarios, wedging / and trapping scenarios. It is the most advance highly technical game in pool that the occurrences of these technical scenarios is frequent.
And todays WPA and CSI gen. rules are just not technically advanced in enough in many of these areas.

With developing our own highly advanced technical General Rules geared to match the persona of OP, then it will raise the standard of excellence OP so highly deserves and awaits!

IMO, WPA will soon adopt OP and write a one pocket game rule, the reason is because OP is becoming increasingly popular in Europe. And WPA will want to be involved. And for some reason WPA is viewed as the holy grail, I do not by into this. Whitey
 
Last edited:

catkins

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
503
When talking about rules in general one of the most important thing in my eyes is simplicity and clarity. when action occurs this is the result. too many rules in pool end up creating arguments as opposed to settling them. I do like this specific rule more than any of the others as it is completely clear and solves an issue I think that does need to be addressed in this game.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,457
Larry, Steve, Whitey

I don't wanna beat a dead horse, :lol like we haven't been doing that for days now. Everybody makes good points about all this at times.

Certainly Steve's points are valid, as are Larry's (he thinks I want to change the rule today and have everyone playing my rule tomorrow). Of course this is a process and it takes time and indeed a trial to make any progress. For now this is just a discussion and something to think about.

Whitey's most recent comment below causes me to think of something. It's obvious that I am aiming at eliminating the strategy whereby a player uses intentional fouls to get out of a trap, change the score, etc., as I have said numerous times. I conceived the PIBOOF (thanks Steve) to solve this problem without having to call out intentionals, and without having exceptions to the rule.

However Whitey said something that I need to address. The three foul= loss of game rule is all that limits the number of intentionals today.

If two fouls in a row=loss of game, or if two fouls in a row=BIH behind the line, that would limit intentionals to one, which would be an improvement.

We have an MOT coming up in Philly at which I will play anyone by any of these rules. We could even have a challenge table dedicated to trying alternative rules. If we got several volunteers, there could be two or three tables doing this, and we all could see the results first hand. Just a thought.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose,
To be clear, I never stated two 'fouls' in a row by a player would be a 'loss of game', nor BIH. But, two intentionals I suggested could be BIH. Whitey
 

catkins

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
503
Darmoose,
To be clear, I never stated two 'fouls' in a row by a player would be a 'loss of game', nor BIH. But, two intentionals I suggested could be BIH. Whitey
This with out doubt would lead to arguments as to weather a foul was intentional or not
imo
chris
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
This with out doubt would lead to arguments as to weather a foul was intentional or not
imo
chris
I agree, and that was the discussion last time, what is an intentional. So therefore it would be clearer, if on any two consecutive fouls by the same player it would then result in BIH. Catkins, thanks for pointing this out! Whitey
 
Top