Last night I spoke to one of the players involved in that Expo example of sudden death, and he felt like he was had by that neutral pocket gimmick. He is a VERY experienced One Pocket player. That game became a nudging battle in the jaws of a neutral pocket instead of One Pocket as we know it at all.
To me that neutral pocket loss of game rule would be an example of unintended consequences (or maybe it was intentional at that time
), when we mess too much with rules without trying things first.
However, all that said, I am in favor of writing rules the way people want to play the game -- the rules should fit the way people play. With this One Ball One Pocket thing taking off a bit right now, we might see it it played different ways until a front runner emerges.
I know I am not that keen on unlimited scratches/fouls, which is why I suggested you can need two balls, but needing a third would be loss of game. But I would not be opposed to a sudden death where one scratch or foul would be loss of game. I would happily play that. But my preference would be on a scratch or foul you spot up an extra ball and now need two, like normal One Pocket. That also accommodates handicapping by adding a 2nd ball before the break, somewhere on the table, so the stronger player starts out needing two.