One Pocket rule change

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
Excellent concept Gh;)asty ! :)...With some experimentation (to determine how much time would really be saved) possibly the matches could be increased to 4 or 5 games on the winners side !...Another thought would be, on the losers side the number of balls needed to win a game, could possibly be reduced to 6, still with the same number of games per match. (just a thought, might not work)

As in all scenarios, the best player would still usually prevail...However, the lesser skilled player's may see this as a little more incentive to enter (or 'buy back') as the element of 'luck' would be a little more prevalent in the shortened games. Looks like a win/win to me.
Either way, It would surely reduce the 'safety boredom' (for non-purists) and make for a faster more suspenseful game, while still retaining the core rules, and concept of one pocket !... What say you, and others ?

Bruce, I see your idea, as a step in the right direction !..I also don't see getting Greg, or Mark to implement it, as a huge hurdle !...Definitely some ideas worth kicking around.... Obviously the 'status quo' is leading to, too many 5-6 hr. matches. Which really also affects new interest, and viewership among the 'non-purists'... Who knows, we may even get more pool junkie's to realize, that 10-ball and 14.1 are way down the list, compared to OUR game ! ;) JMHO

SJD

PS..In answer to Doc's dilemma..Why not just an ordinary tri-angular rack, (as in ten ball)...First player getting to five (5) balls WINS !... We can all count can't we ?...Who needs the odd ball ?... That would make it similar to 'short rack banks' !...It may abbreviate the game too much, but hey, it would still be one pocket, wouldn't it ?... (only a lot SHORTER ;))....I would definitely always be 'ANTI SHOT CLOCK', as a remedy !... Even though I always played much faster than Corey ! (or Varner, or Fusco, or Bananas)

A shot clock would be unfair to too many player's. Everyone has a different cadence...Example; How would anyone like to play
9-ball, with 'Machine Gun' Lou Butera,...with a 5 second shot clock ? :cool:
Dick asked me to post this in this thread for him, in reply to the Ghost's suggestion.
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,168
Dick asked me to post this in this thread for him, in reply to the Ghost's suggestion.
This has been an interesting topic but i doubt if anyone running a tournament will change any rules. why should they, the game is just fine the way it is. This is one pocket!!!!!
 

wgcp

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
1,705
I agree

I agree

Don't change the rules... Keith has it right... why change after all these years...

B
 

KindlyOleUncleDave

Verified Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
539
Games in General

Games in General

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DO NOT FIX IT OR EVEN THINK ABOUT AN ATTEMPT!!!

The game is what it is. And why does eveyone want to shorten the games (all of em!) .... remember that brain flash of SEVEN BALL ...wasn't that a nice change from 9-ball??

I was not shouting, I was screaming.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
This has been an interesting topic but i doubt if anyone running a tournament will change any rules. why should they, the game is just fine the way it is. This is one pocket!!!!!
I am definitely not looking to change the rules, but I don't mind trying to come up with tools for the TD to speed up individual matches here and there as necessary to keep a tournament progressing -- and hopefully do that with minimal disruption to the spirit of the game, and minimal opportunity for wily players to leverage fresh new advantages from too.

I think that Lou's concern is blown out of proportion anyway, because it is not as if the US Open One Pocket had a lot of problems with slow play. It had a couple games at the end that just happened to feature the same player (Corey) that were not time-managed by the TD and they ran long as a result. The finals were delayed one day only to accommodate the ten ball following the power outage the night before -- not because of any slow play.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,613
Keith, I agree with all you said here 100%...the idea of using the cube in tournament play is ludicrous...

The place for the cube to be used is between two hardcore gamblers/one pocket players...in that spot, it is a very interesting, dynamic way to gamble.

- Ghost
I agree with Keith and others who suggest that the game needs no changes. The game is fine the way it is. Slow play is more due to two players forced into a defensive battle who find sending the balls up table the only safe solution at that given moment. Shot clocks won't help in these situations. Would you really want to implement a rule where the nature of the game is dramatically changed by spotting all the up table balls simply to solve a problem which rarely affects the smooth operation of a tournament? Maybe that rule will work ok in small one or two day tournaments but not so for the major events, please.

Leave the game alone. My idea of the use of the cube is hardly ludicrous if used as an occasional change of pace. A shortened version of One Pocket by the use of fewer balls is also fine as an occasional alternative. Tournaments of this nature might be fun to participate in and watch. A steady diet of either of these tournament formats? I think not.

Neither of these ideas alter the game itself. In the first case the number of up table games will obviously be reduced but not eliminated, and the value of such games will in all likelihood be enhanced.

I don't know about you but an occasional tournament with a new wrinkle which requires players to make mathematical decisions and calculate odds of winning from inferior positions due to the use of the cube sounds enticing to me. Who knows, players just might like the idea and come out for it. If not, it won't last and no harm done.

Tom
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
Summary

Summary

Since we here at OnePocket.org compiled the modern rules that all of the major tournament rules seem to use or be based on, we might want to codify suggestions/tools/rules for tournament directors to use if necessary to reduce or prevent slow play. I get the sense that we are pretty unanimous in agreement that the basic rules for tournament One Pocket do not need to change.

The simplest, least radical idea that directly corrects the problem is the shot clock -- if one is available, put the players on a clock.

Other ideas:
1. Start the game with less than 15 balls
2. Reduce ball count needed to win
3. Reduce balls in the kitchen (various ways)
4. Add a penalty for two fouls in a row (ball in hand, etc)
5. Limit total fouls during a game
6. Deduct fouls from opponent's needed score instead of adding them to shooter's

Were there other ideas I missed? I know there were variations of several of these.

My question to you all would be, of these ideas:

Which of these ideas least effects the nature of the game as we love it?
Which ones are least likely to have unintended negative consequences?
Which (if any) would be the simplest and most effective for a TD to enforce if necessary in the event of slow play?
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I think it is worth noting that a shot clock could work both ways, if the desired effect is to create interest and excitement.

One of the greatest shots I have ever seen, I wasn't there live I must admit, was the shot Varner hit against fusco at the legends event. It was obviously a big moment in the match, and the tournament. This is part of my point, the length these guys take to decide on a shot, at times, is one of the best ways to build suspense and interest. Anyway, Varner looked it over for a good maybe 5 minutes, smacked a ball into his hole, and the cb hit the rail and flew up a little, bounced into the stack and gave him like 6 hangers. You just had to see it. Would that have happened with a shot clock?

My suggestion in big events would be to have a cutoff point. I know it is arbitrary, but maybe quarters on you could do away with the shot clock. I think when fans get really frustrated is when players labor over many shots EARLY in the tournament. I could be wrong about that, but that is my input on the shot clock.
 

WhatWouldWojoDo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
145
Rules

Rules

I am still new to the game. But with One Pocket being compared to chess, I think some tournaments should be played with a shot clock and some without.

The suggestion of a shot clock (lets say 60 seconds) and a reserve time that is total for the entire match (say 5 minutes). So basically you get 5 "extensions" per match and each one is 60 seconds. Then after you are out of extensions - you play it as 'if you are down on the shot when shot clock runs out you have more time to shoot, but you can't get up out of the shot' but if you are not down on your shot or if you were down and get up - then it is a foul (spot a ball and opponent has option of playing where it is or in the kitchen).

Maybe even interested to see matches played with a shorter shot clock of 24 to 30 seconds to see how the game plays out that way.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
I think the shot clock is a very bad idea.
It affects some players more than others.

If there was a shot clock should there also be a minimum shot clock for those that play fast?

For tournaments at least I think using 13 balls or playing the Break-n-Run version would be a good solution.

So good in fact that I am willing to put up my own 10K as added money for a 16 man field at the next DCC.

If Diamond would build a couple of 2 pocket tables I would do the same.

Bill S.
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
Since we here at OnePocket.org compiled the modern rules that all of the major tournament rules seem to use or be based on, we might want to codify suggestions/tools/rules for tournament directors to use if necessary to reduce or prevent slow play. I get the sense that we are pretty unanimous in agreement that the basic rules for tournament One Pocket do not need to change.

The simplest, least radical idea that directly corrects the problem is the shot clock -- if one is available, put the players on a clock.

Other ideas:
1. Start the game with less than 15 balls
2. Reduce ball count needed to win
3. Reduce balls in the kitchen (various ways)
4. Add a penalty for two fouls in a row (ball in hand, etc)
5. Limit total fouls during a game
6. Deduct fouls from opponent's needed score instead of adding them to shooter's

Were there other ideas I missed? I know there were variations of several of these.

My question to you all would be, of these ideas:

Which of these ideas least effects the nature of the game as we love it?
Which ones are least likely to have unintended negative consequences?
Which (if any) would be the simplest and most effective for a TD to enforce if necessary in the event of slow play?
Let's not post these up too quickly. Our game will change faster than we want if we lend validity to some of these ideas that are as yet still being discussed. To me, the very best way to control the time it takes for an event or match plays out is to have a cumulative shot clock. This would be vey similar to chess clocks and these could be used. Each player would have x minutes of shooting time per game and he would actuate the clock for his opponent after his shot. He could use all his time on one shot if he wished but when his time ran out, he would not longer be able to play so he would forfeit remaining games.
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,201
Let's not post these up too quickly. Our game will change faster than we want if we lend validity to some of these ideas that are as yet still being discussed. To me, the very best way to control the time it takes for an event or match plays out is to have a cumulative shot clock. This would be vey similar to chess clocks and these could be used. Each player would have x minutes of shooting time per game and he would actuate the clock for his opponent after his shot. He could use all his time on one shot if he wished but when his time ran out, he would not longer be able to play so he would forfeit remaining games.
Guys like Buddy Hall and Artie who go into a fugue state standing over the balls :frus would be dead.
Good Riddance. :)
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
15,158
im for not tinkering too much with a game we all love.i especially would not like to see the end game disappear.
i think giving the TD more leeway and penalties to prod the slow players to playing faster is a good idea
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
One Pocket rule change

im for not tinkering too much with a game we all love.i especially would not like to see the end game disappear.
i think giving the TD more leeway and penalties to prod the slow players to playing faster is a good idea
Interesting -- everyone has their own pet aspects of the game. Personally I love the end game -- especially when it comes down to one or two balls. I'm definitely not fond of uptable cluster games (wedge) though. Ironically the best part of my game is probably early -- wiggling around the stack.
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,659
Let's not post these up too quickly. Our game will change faster than we want if we lend validity to some of these ideas that are as yet still being discussed. To me, the very best way to control the time it takes for an event or match plays out is to have a cumulative shot clock. This would be vey similar to chess clocks and these could be used. Each player would have x minutes of shooting time per game and he would actuate the clock for his opponent after his shot. He could use all his time on one shot if he wished but when his time ran out, he would not longer be able to play so he would forfeit remaining games.
Although I am against any changes except moving balls to the spot from "The Kitchen" when they are clustered there, this is the best idea re: shot clock that has been posted here IMO.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,203
...I would definitely always be 'ANTI SHOT CLOCK', as a remedy !...

A shot clock would be unfair to too many player's. Everyone has a different cadence...Example; How would anyone like to play
9-ball, with 'Machine Gun' Lou Butera,...with a 5 second shot clock ? :cool:

I think the shot clock is a very bad idea.

Bill S.

And I feel even stronger than that re. using a shot clock..:mad:...

A shot clock should only be used in very specific necessary situations, at the tournament directors discretion - A shot clock should never be used in One Pocket in any blanket/all inclusive form, period...and this is the main reason why ----->

One Pocket, the greatest game in the world, is at it's very core, a game of intense, multifaceted, strategic decision making...a ticking (figuratively speaking) shot clock interfering and intruding on this crucial One Pocket players thinking is an abomination, and is unquestionably a form of sharking him on every shot...:cool:

- Ghost
 
Last edited:

DWS

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
217
Amen

Amen

IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DO NOT FIX IT OR EVEN THINK ABOUT AN ATTEMPT!!!

What he said!!
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
And I feel even stronger than that re. using a shot clock..:mad:...

A shot clock should only be used in very specific necessary situations, at the tournament directors discretion...a shot clock should never be used in One Pocket in any blanket/all inclusive form, period...and this is the main reason why...

One Pocket, the greatest game in the world, is at it's very core, a game of intense, multifaceted, strategic decision making...a ticking (figuratively speaking) shot clock interfering and intruding on this crucial One Pocket players thinking is an abomination, and is a form of sharking him on every shot...:cool:

- Ghost
Ghosty,

Some players are much too slow. A tournament has to move along, it has to end on a certain date or at a certain time. A few slow players can make a tournament drag out interminably. A shot clock helped quite a bit in the Make It Happen series, I liked it.

I like the 60 sec. clock and maybe 30 secs. if the balls are all uptable behind the headstring. One extension per game was also a good idea.

For tournaments only, I think this would work. The bad thing there is you'd need a clock operator for every match and that's not happening.

Dennis
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
And I feel even stronger than that re. using a shot clock..:mad:...

A shot clock should only be used in very specific necessary situations, at the tournament directors discretion...a shot clock should never be used in One Pocket in any blanket/all inclusive form, period...and this is the main reason why...

One Pocket, the greatest game in the world, is at it's very core, a game of intense, multifaceted, strategic decision making...a ticking (figuratively speaking) shot clock interfering and intruding on this crucial One Pocket players thinking is an abomination, and is a form of sharking him on every shot...:cool:

- Ghost
When I envison the cumulative shot clock, I imagine the time allowed for each player to be ample and generous. Only the slow players who are way out of line and sharking with their slow play would be affected. Suppose you determined that you would have to complete matches in two hours in order to finish the tournament on time and you were racing to 3; then each player would get 1/3 of 120 minutes divided by two. This would be 20 minutes each. Considering a lot of shots will only take 20 seconds or less, you could spend several minutes on the real sawdust burners. I don't blame Ghosty for not liking this because he likes to grind through each and every possibility and then domit again before deciding. Works for him.
 

KindlyOleUncleDave

Verified Member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
539
Wow

Wow

I think the shot clock is a very bad idea.
It affects some players more than others.

If there was a shot clock should there also be a minimum shot clock for those that play fast?

For tournaments at least I think using 13 balls or playing the Break-n-Run version would be a good solution.

So good in fact that I am willing to put up my own 10K as added money for a 16 man field at the next DCC.

If Diamond would build a couple of 2 pocket tables I would do the same.

Bill S.
When you put it out there, your REALLY put it OUT there!

A beautiful question posed on shot clock maximum and minimum. One has to wonder how Lou Butera would execute if it were required to allow at least 40 seconds but no more than one minute, say; we all know the study long, study wrong truism.

I am unfamiliar with the 13 ball scenario but would have to trust your say-so because you continued onward to close with a two pocket table, a master stroke. That, in itself, would cut the length of games by 12-20% for non-nits as the nonused pockets on a regulation table take up so much critical banking space ( those who think not, locate a 5x10 carom table with correctly set rail heights and spend an hour or so).

Thanks for your input .....

PS How about playing on a 6x12 set for 2.25" balls and covered with Simonis 300 Rapide ....
 
Top