New rule of rules.

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
This with out doubt would lead to arguments as to weather a foul was intentional or not
imo
chris
You are correct Chris and I created the confusion by misquoting what Whitey said in his post #73.

He said allow only one intentional and after the second intentional opponent gets BIH.

I know you can't determine what is an intentional from what is an accident, and would cause disagreements, so I wanted to say this:

after any two fouls in succession by a player the opponent get BIH behind the line.

The reason for saying this is if this was the rule we might not need PIBOOF.

I just fukked it up...sorry all:eek: :sorry
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,529
New rule of rules.

Interesting rule proposal. What if it was a situation where the person who fouled either had to spot a ball OR play it where it lies himself, the choice of course being the opponent? This would speed up the game even more as the ball would end up not being spotted, the penalty then being that he has to play the next shot.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose,
Your idea of having a challenge table is excellent. It works well for those still in the tournament awaiting their next match, for they can jump in, jump out.
My favorite combination of alternative rules to test out would be, Darmoose Moving Forward/ Your Foul Option/ and Grady's Rule.
This combination would work nicely for a challenge table, for playing time is of the essence.

But I reiterate your Foul Rule Option is superior to Two Consecutive Fouls is BIH. Because with my idea, if you are up against the stack and decide to take a tap intentional, and then I play an intentional by pushing the ob and cb into and burying the balls within the stack, I then got you for you can not play another intentional because you will give me BIH. Your rule would eliminate this from ever happening.

This is true, for when has a push intentional burying the balls in the stack been called an illegal wedge/trap. There is no ref. and would the opponent even know that this could be an illegal wedge/trap, or call it if they did know.

I seen Mosconi do this exact same illegal push intentional to further bury Caras within the stack, the ref. never said a word. Luckily Caras had a combination within the stack.
I seen it happen during our last MOT.

So it is my suggestion that you follow through with your challenge table by using your alternative suggestions coupled with Grady's Rule. Whitey
 
Last edited:

bioactive

Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
11
Whitey,



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





:)
Makes perfect sense. Has always bothered me about one pocket that the penalty for intentional fouls is not high enough.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
Darmoose,
Your idea of having a challenge table is excellent. It works well for those still in the tournament awaiting their next match, for they can jump in, jump out.
My favorite combination of alternative rules to test out would be, Darmoose Moving Forward/ Your Foul Option/ and Grady's Rule.
This combination would work nicely for a challenge table, for playing time is of the essence.

But I reiterate your Foul Rule Option is superior to Two Consecutive Fouls is BIH. Because with my idea, if you are up against the stack and decide to take a tap intentional, and then I play an intentional by pushing the ob and cb into and burying the balls within the stack, I then got you for you can not play another intentional because you will give me BIH. Your rule would eliminate this from ever happening.

So it is my suggestion that you follow through with your challenge table by using your alternative suggestions coupled with Grady's Rule. Whitey
Whitey,

I think you are right, I suggested the two foul BIH as an option that would also help.

I will be available to play any of these ideas, I like the idea of a challenge table, and guys don't have to gamble while we are learning about these potential rules changes, that's up to individuals. I would think it best to play only one rule change at a time.

We'll see if there are any members interested......course we'll have to wall off the table so Scrzbill don't see it and turn to stone.


:lol:lol:lol:lol
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
I would like to see a challenge match played by players the caliber of say Efren/Dalton, which are highly technically sound, and capable of playing OP as it should be, but to have them play under the Darmoose Moving Forward, Foul Option & Grady's Rule.

I think the Grady Rule would have the most effect, because these players are so sound that intentionals and fouls will be miniscue. But, the anticipation that these rules bring to the game would in itself add excitement.

If you go further and add Steve's suggestions of playing the Grady Rule by only allowing 2 balls down table, plus his totally exciting alternative to the Moving Forward rule, of allowing the player to pick any ball off the table, I then think you really have something. Although I am not knowledgeable enough to completely back only 2 balls down table, but it seems to me that would promote more stack play, thus make the game more interesting.

Of course in any challenge match I would suggest a clock. It killed it for me during the Ocholo/Orcollo match whereas Dennis was allowed and took a long time to figure out the his shot. Whitey
 

bioactive

Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
11
I like this idea and intend to give it a try. Seems to me talking about it is OK but the only way to test for unintended consequences and to see if it really impacts the game is to try it on the table. Since most of my playing is with pals on my table it will be easy. I will just insist that they do it.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,447
I like this idea and intend to give it a try. Seems to me talking about it is OK but the only way to test for unintended consequences and to see if it really impacts the game is to try it on the table. Since most of my playing is with pals on my table it will be easy. I will just insist that they do it.
BTW what would you do regarding a scratch on the break?
I hope you do and look forward to your report, particuarly on whether any intentionals were used or not.

A scratch on the break has the same consequences, no exceptions.

Good luck :)
 

El Chapo

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,562
It is difficult for folks to see things with objective and open minds. The result of that is no change, and we see that in the lack of one pocket rule changes.

Since it is very difficult to view one pocket objectively as a one pocket player (this is why they don't allow police to investigate cases involving their own family), you have got to look at analogies.

What if the country was run like we run one pocket? At some point a group of women came forward and said they deserved the right to vote. If you do not have open, objective minds, it is very easy to think "we have always done it this way, this is correct, women do not get to vote"... and you stay in the stone ages forever with a close minded attitude like this.

Instead of thinking about how you have always done things, and how that must be the right way, you need to look at what is actually logical.

As it turned out, we do have open minds in the country. Thank goodness. Women brought up this issue, and it may have taken time, but at some point enough people realized, "wow, they are right, every individual does deserve the right to vote, how did we think anything differently before"?

There is also another interesting aspect of this conversation. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to be the default position that traditionalists who want to keep one pocket exactly the way it is are looked at as purists and this attitude tends to be more respected. So, it is very easy for others to take this position by default. Easy is certainly easy, but it is not always the correct.

I would argue it is those who put their reputation on the line, put a different opinion out there, who are just as passionate and dedicated to the beauty and essence of the game. Look at it under the above analogy, the women who put their hids in the line protesting for their right to vote are as much or more patriotic americans than anyof them. In here, anyone who brings up any sort of change from the status quo is shunned and it is just wrong, and you can see that when you objectively analize the analogy.
 
Last edited:

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,680
el chappo
trying to link woman suffrage to a change in one pocket rules is a HUGE stretch....jmho
womans suffrage was wrong.
there is nothing wrong with the onepocket rules as they are...:D
 
Last edited:
Top