One Pocket rule change

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,408
lfigueroa on AZB suggested that there should be some rule changes to speed up the game. He suggested that the three foul rule should be modified to a 'two foul rule' loss of game. He also suggested that there should be a 35 or 45 second shot clock put into effect. Others suggested that the play of the game should be altered, such as balls in the kitchen being re-spotted ect.ect.


I don't agree with altering the play of the game, one pocket is the most interesting game in the world, all games included. As far as the three foul rule goes, yes that could be modified. I have a suggestion on a rule change that would not only speed up the game, it would also apply more pressure to the game which would possibly make the game more exciting and interesting. I propose it's an automatic loss of game whenever a player accumulates three fouls, regardless of when they happen. This rule will challenge strategy, particularly in the 'intentional fouling' part of the game. It wouldn't necessarily omit the intentional foul but it would certainly put a higher price on choosing that option.Also there will be more suspense whenever either player is on two fouls...talk about heart break:( talk about tough losses :mad:However, the good thing is, it can go either way. :D

Does anyone have a suggestion on rule changes? Like to hear some.

Bill Incardona
 

Frank Almanza

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,402
How do you think it would work if the game could be played with a short stack. Maybe using eleven or nine balls? A new way to break may be needed.
I like the any three fouls rule you mentioned but I hate the idea of a shot clock. I don't like the balls behind the line rule. That changes the game to much and for some players that's their bread and butter type of game.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,326
lfigueroa on AZB suggested that there should be some rule changes to speed up the game. He suggested that the three foul rule should be modified to a 'two foul rule' loss of game. He also suggested that there should be a 35 or 45 second shot clock put into effect. Others suggested that the play of the game should be altered, such as balls in the kitchen being re-spotted ect.ect.


I don't agree with altering the play of the game, one pocket is the most interesting game in the world, all games included. As far as the three foul rule goes, yes that could be modified. I have a suggestion on a rule change that would not only speed up the game, it would also apply more pressure to the game which would possibly make the game more exciting and interesting. I propose it's an automatic loss of game whenever a player accumulates three fouls, regardless of when they happen. This rule will challenge strategy, particularly in the 'intentional fouling' part of the game. It wouldn't necessarily omit the intentional foul but it would certainly put a higher price on choosing that option.Also there will be more suspense whenever either player is on two fouls...talk about heart break:( talk about tough losses :mad:However, the good thing is, it can go either way. :D

Does anyone have a suggestion on rule changes? Like to hear some.

Bill Incardona
Billy...I'm a One Pocket purist...I don't like Lou's suggestions, time clocks, spotting balls in the kitchen, your suggestion :sorry or any others that I've heard - at all...that said, if there absolutely had to be a game-shortening rule....I've thought of one that I've told people about in the past..an extremely simple way of speeding up/shortening games that would have the least impact in changing the fundamental integrity of the game...and that rule change would be...

You would use the same normal 15 ball rack - but both players play to 7 instead of 8...the only way this rule would change the game, is that you wouldn't have any more 7 to 7 '1 ball-one-pocket-games' at the end of some games...but it could be more interesting this way, because in all of the hill-hill games, each player would have to defend against two other balls that are on the table, while trying to pocket their game-winning 7th ball...

This is the only game-shortening rule that I wouldn't hate seeing implemented, if I were playing in a tournament.

- Ghost
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,971
To me the time clock is the the simplest thing. Players in Vegas I guess were warned now and then, but obviously many were totally permitted to take all the time they felt like for nearly every shot, and it was contagious -- i.e. when one slow player did it, their opponent did too, apparently to avoid being sharked by the others slow play. I don't see the need for that.

I think the best clock procedure if it is possible would be to have whatever number of seconds -- something like 60 seems reasonable -- but have an extra five minutes worth of extra time that automatically kicked if you took more than 60 seconds, until you used up your extra time, in which case the foul and lose of turn would start at 60 seconds. So over the course of a match, you could use the extra five minutes however or whenever you needed it, but once it was gone you were on a strict 60 second clock.

The One Pocket tournament in general went fine in terms of schedule -- aside from one power outage, and Corey's slow play in two of the three last matches.
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
Please, fellas. Get an erector set or something else to occupy all your free time. Apparently you have way too much of it. Accumulated fouls rule would necessitate more pennies on the rail to keep track of them. Shot clocks would only work in Tv table matches where you have a ref. Please, the rules are just fine the way they are. If you want to improve them, start by making the language clearer. Leave your hands off the game.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I see a large, unspoken, underlying problem here. I am sure Lou means well of course, but even if you did speed one pocket it, it would never get anywhere meaningful (I will just leave out all the arguments as to why that is).

Once you come to realize the above is true, why not just leave one pocket the way it is, and the way we all love it? Why muck it up if we aren't going to get anywhere anyway.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,971
Two fouls in a row could be instituted as a stronger penalty -- but loss of game seems a bit much. Ball in hand anywhere would certainly be a significant penalty for two consecutive fouls. But any change to two fouls as a penalty would definitely change the game in a big way because players would have to be so much more careful/selective taking any intentional foul, since suddenly they would be on the brink of the next foul being a catastrophe. It would put a serious damper on all intentionals as I see it.

I am not sure it is the whole game/game rules that have to change at all -- basically all you need is a way to deal with certain game dragging players and situations that do now and then come up and put a damper on tourney schedules and viewer enthusiasm. So I would leave the game itself alone, but build in a couple options for TD's to speed it up when they need to.

A shot clock is only practical in the TV arena and select tables at the moment because it would involve an equipment expense, but it seems to be necessary for certain players.

When it comes to an uptable game, where that particular match is already behind schedule so the TD needs to do something, then let them have some options to institute in that situation, rather than changing the whole game for everyone.

Options for that might be:
1. For every ball that goes in a neutral pocket, an extra ball from behind the line also gets spotted up. (Either on the standard spot with the other ball, or possibly in the middle of the bottom rail on the cushion)
2. You cannot ever have more than half the balls in the kitchen at any one time -- if more are there, the balls closest to the line go down on the spot until more than half are outside the kitchen. This should not need to apply if less than four balls are left anyway.

Again, I am not suggesting the entire rules be changed, I am just suggesting tools for the TD to speed up slow players when they need to.
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,971
Please, fellas. Get an erector set or something else to occupy all your free time. Apparently you have way too much of it. Accumulated fouls rule would necessitate more pennies on the rail to keep track of them. Shot clocks would only work in Tv table matches where you have a ref. Please, the rules are just fine the way they are. If you want to improve them, start by making the language clearer. Leave your hands off the game.
One of what I thought was the funniest comments I heard in the booth in Vegas was when someone (Maybe Tom?) commented when Corey or his opponent needed five pennies for the rail, and they suggested they should just put a nickel up there, lol
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,073
Physical Chess

Physical Chess

One hole is so similar to chess it makes sense to have shot clocks (40 sec?)and some form of extension of play per game.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
If I truly wanted to speed up one pocket, and I was running a tournament, I'd just use some very generous pockets. And I mean very generous. I really think that is the best way. It is kind of the exact opposite of what all of us want to see, but that is how I'd probably do it.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,971
Billy...I'm a One Pocket purist...I don't like Lou's suggestions, time clocks, spotting balls in the kitchen, your suggestion :sorry or any others that I've heard - at all...that said, if there absolutely had to be a game-shortening rule....I've thought of one that I've told people about in the past..an extremely simple way of speeding up/shortening games that would have the least impact in changing the fundamental integrity of the game...and that rule change would be...

You would use the same normal 15 ball rack - but both players play to 7 instead of 8...the only way this rule would change the game, is that you wouldn't have any more 7 to 7 '1 ball-one-pocket-games' at the end of some games...but it could be more interesting this way, because in all of the hill-hill games, each player would have to defend against two other balls that are on the table, while trying to pocket their game-winning 7th ball...

This is the only game-shortening rule that I wouldn't hate seeing implemented, if I were playing in a tournament.

- Ghost
Going to a shorter ball count would make the lag even bigger than it is. The lag was huge in Vegas I thought, since so many games went hill-hill and whoever won the lag broke for the last game, often leaving their opponent in trouble that they never recovered from.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,180
lfigueroa on AZB suggested that there should be some rule changes to speed up the game. He suggested that the three foul rule should be modified to a 'two foul rule' loss of game. He also suggested that there should be a 35 or 45 second shot clock put into effect. Others suggested that the play of the game should be altered, such as balls in the kitchen being re-spotted ect.ect.


I don't agree with altering the play of the game, one pocket is the most interesting game in the world, all games included. As far as the three foul rule goes, yes that could be modified. I have a suggestion on a rule change that would not only speed up the game, it would also apply more pressure to the game which would possibly make the game more exciting and interesting. I propose it's an automatic loss of game whenever a player accumulates three fouls, regardless of when they happen. This rule will challenge strategy, particularly in the 'intentional fouling' part of the game. It wouldn't necessarily omit the intentional foul but it would certainly put a higher price on choosing that option.Also there will be more suspense whenever either player is on two fouls...talk about heart break:( talk about tough losses :mad:However, the good thing is, it can go either way. :D

Does anyone have a suggestion on rule changes? Like to hear some.

Bill Incardona
Billy, I was at Vegas and I sweated many of the longer matches and I must say some of them were caused by SLOOOOW PLAY because specific players took to much time over almost every shot! However I feel there is nothing wrong with the rules as they currently exist. The problem is with a few players and to change the rules for everyone would amount to letting the tail wag the dog.

What is needed is stronger policing of slow play by the tournament director and his staff. They must determine which players are playing slow as opposed to which games have developed into an uptable game and as a result will take extra time to complete. Once the player who is "playing slow" is identified then a shot clock should be implimented. I think a 1 minute clock would be adequate with a couple of extensions of an additional 1 minute each game. Let me make one additional point, the shot clock should only be imposed on the "slow player" and not on his opponent.

Play by certain players was so slow that a 2 minute shot clock would have sped up the games. Keith
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
May I remind those who want to speed up the game that there is an easy way to do this without changing the rules. We all talked about this before. Introduce the cube into tournament play. Somewhere around 3 or 4 points for a match but a player must win by a margin of two or more. There would be nothing wrong with a sudden death game at 5 points all. Of course the number of points needed to win would have to be tweaked here and there but IMO this would speed up matches considerably and generate a great deal of excitement to an event while adding a new twist which players and spectators alike will find worthy of debating on just about every shot and situation. The introduction of the cube will not compromise the integrity of the game but it will force changes in strategy.

That's my take and I'm sticking to it. :)
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,967
Obviously any new rule(s) would only affect tournament play; and even then, probably only at the larger events.

I agree with Steve that any new rule to speed up play should only be instituted when a given match has really bogged down, which is fairly rare. Most guys play right along. It's only a few who drag it out.

Shot clocks used only on a select table or tables are inconsistent and unfair. It puts needless extra pressure on players who have unfortunately drawn that table or tables. A shot clock could be brought out for a dragging match. In that event, 60 seconds sounds reasonable. However few venues are going to buy shot clocks. I could see Greg investing in a number of them, but lesser venues undoubtedly would not.

Ghost has a novel idea re racing to seven balls out of a 15 ball rack. There would always be at least 3 balls to defend against. Pretty tricky...

Also, a 13 or 11 ball rack could be used, with races to 7 or 6 balls. Of course in those scenarios a drawn out 1 ball game could still present itself. Actually shorter ball counts with longer races might be a way to mix it up a little (e.g., 11 ball rack, ball counts to 6, races to 5)-- possibly resulting in fewer one-sided matches, and as a natural antidote to bad rolls.

Doc
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
May I remind those who want to speed up the game that there is an easy way to do this without changing the rules. We all talked about this before. Introduce the cube into tournament play. Somewhere around 3 or 4 points for a match but a player must win by a margin of two or more. There would be nothing wrong with a sudden death game at 5 points all. Of course the number of points needed to win would have to be tweaked here and there but IMO this would speed up matches considerably and generate a great deal of excitement to an event while adding a new twist which players and spectators alike will find worthy of debating on just about every shot and situation. The introduction of the cube will not compromise the integrity of the game but it will force changes in strategy.

That's my take and I'm sticking to it. :)
You might be getting somewhere now. I've thought for years it would be interesting to have an event like the world series of poker where you started out with an equal number of chips and you could make any game you wanted. You could play for it all if you wanted to. The winner would be the guy at the end with all the chips. Obviously, there would have to be some rules like minimums at certain levels of the tournament and other types of TD supervision, but I think it would add interest and reduce the time it took to play the tournament out.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,180
May I remind those who want to speed up the game that there is an easy way to do this without changing the rules. We all talked about this before. Introduce the cube into tournament play. Somewhere around 3 or 4 points for a match but a player must win by a margin of two or more. There would be nothing wrong with a sudden death game at 5 points all. Of course the number of points needed to win would have to be tweaked here and there but IMO this would speed up matches considerably and generate a great deal of excitement to an event while adding a new twist which players and spectators alike will find worthy of debating on just about every shot and situation. The introduction of the cube will not compromise the integrity of the game but it will force changes in strategy.

That's my take and I'm sticking to it. :)
Tom, maybe im missing something here. When i think of the cube i see a players at any time in the game challanging his opponent by offerring to double the stakes of the game as of that momment and if the opponent declines the doubling he would lose that game. If the opponent accepted the doubling he would then have the option as the game progresses to offer the same doubling option to his opponent and so forth. Is that correct?

If so I dont like it for tournament one pocket. Please tell me if im misunderstanding this and why. Keith
 

8andout

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
176
Timed Out!

Timed Out!

If the question is about time then the answer is obvious- use a time clock in tournament play. No one that i play with (outside of tournaments) plays slow. I would not play anyone who played slow. Life is short.

*** In chess, with adequate time, you can widdle away at the finite number of moves available until you reach a decision. That's why they introduced the time clock. I can't see pool players punching a time clock. But, abuse of time (Cory) is just not good for the game.

*** Outside of the time issue, i have a few comments: 1- Loosen the pockets. That will make it more of a movers game which i think is what the game is all about. 2- Give ball-in-hand on pocket scratches. 3- Get rid of the "flying cueball" shot to clear a pocket.
 

iusedtoberich

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
146
I watched all of the Accu-stats Make it Happen 1 Pocket where they had a shot clock every match and on every player. The game play was exciting. The shot selection seemed non-compromised by the clock (to me anyway). All the matches were spot on time for when they started.

I don't see any disadvantages to a clock. THese are pros we are talking about, not weak players like me:) They have seen every shot countless times before. Their shot selection process should be much quicker than amateurs. In addition, their shot execution process should not degrade if they were forced to execute under a shot clock.

The clock should be implemented for all matches and all players, as part of the tournament rule set. I think its only the lack of a reasonable and low cost method of doing this that is keeping it from happening. Someone could write a custom iPad app that is at the chairs of each pair of players. It could be programmed to beep when a player is at 10 seconds, etc. It could be modified if its logic is improved over time. It is a low cost solution (no physical person needed per match to start/stop a time clock). Hell, it could even be linked to an overhead scoring system that hangs on the lights that would include a time clock, game count, ball count, etc.

I really like the below implementation of a shot clock:
...snip...I think the best clock procedure if it is possible would be to have whatever number of seconds -- something like 60 seems reasonable -- but have an extra five minutes worth of extra time that automatically kicked if you took more than 60 seconds, until you used up your extra time, in which case the foul and lose of turn would start at 60 seconds. So over the course of a match, you could use the extra five minutes however or whenever you needed it, but once it was gone you were on a strict 60 second clock....snip
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
I agree with the Ghost about going to a smaller number.
Could be 7 or even 6.

I felt my matches in Vegas went way too long. Chris is a very slow player. I am not so fast myself.

A time limit on the game could be used in tournaments. Whoever is leading at the limit would win the game. Would force the underdog to take some flyers.

Part of the problem is that that in the Modern game it has become necessary to get absolutely safe and leave no shot what so ever if you are not trying to make a ball. Didn't used to be that way. Slows the game way down.

Yet another solution (horrors) would be to go back to larger pockets. Would speed the game up a lot. End rail banks with speed would be back in fashion.

Wouldn't mind seeing a table with just two 5" pockets.

Another solution for tournaments is to play Break-n-Run one pocket.

Player A breaks and runs as many balls as he can. Then player B does the same. No safety play, only aggressive shots. Great for the spectators. Different game.

Bill S.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
Tom, maybe im missing something here. When i think of the cube i see a players at any time in the game challanging his opponent by offerring to double the stakes of the game as of that momment and if the opponent declines the doubling he would lose that game. If the opponent accepted the doubling he would then have the option as the game progresses to offer the same doubling option to his opponent and so forth. Is that correct?

If so I dont like it for tournament one pocket. Please tell me if im misunderstanding this and why. Keith
Hi Keith, No, you've got it right.
My sense of the use of the cube is that from game to game the cube will be offered quickly but rarely accepted. This will speed up games considerably and therefore matches.

Once a player has a significant lead in a game with a neutral table position the cube will be offered and in most cases will be declined. Games will fly by. Very few games will reach the stage where the score is close and the balls are up table an out of play. When that rare instance occurs when the cube is accepted, two or possibly four games will have been completed in the time it takes to play a single game! Can you imagine the flock of spectators converging on that table when they discover a single game now has the value of four games? :eek:

Tom
 
Top