One Pocket rule change

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
No offense taken there, Ghost. We agree to disagree. Intentional fouls are the scourge of one pocket, employed by unimaginative players while hoping no one will notice what they just didn't do, and serve only to delay the game.

I make it a point, when my opponent intentionally fouls to do likewise, until he is on two and must pay the piper.:sorry ..so where's your strategic advantage then?
Many intentionals are taken by rolling the cue ball to a position that favors the guy that takes the intentional, so if you want to take one back, you better be able to roll to an equally good spot also, or they will have accomplished just what they wanted.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Many intentionals are taken by rolling the cue ball to a position that favors the guy that takes the intentional, so if you want to take one back, you better be able to roll to an equally good spot also, or they will have accomplished just what they wanted.
True enuff Steve, I should have qualified that I was only referring to the intentional fouls where the cueball position doesn't change.:sorry
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I suggested bigger pockets also. That is the best solution for sure, but I thought it wasn't discussed because many times the tournament must be played on tight pockets due to venue. That would obviously be the drawback. Of course big pockets would be the best solution though, that is clear I feel. And like I mentioned, make em really big.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
One option that has not been discussed about intentional fouls is the rule they use in Snooker. It applies to any foul.

Your opponent has the option of accepting the position of the cue ball or having the ref replace the cue ball to the original position and making you shoot again.

You still lose a ball every time you take an intentional but it will not get you out of the predicament you are in.

I would not use this rule while gambling but in tournament play perhaps it would speed things up.

Bill S.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,371
No offense taken there, Ghost. We agree to disagree. Intentional fouls are the scourge of one pocket, employed by unimaginative players while hoping no one will notice what they just didn't do, and serve only to delay the game.

I make it a point, when my opponent intentionally fouls to do likewise, until he is on two and must pay the piper.:sorry ..so where's your strategic advantage then?

:sorry moose, but what you've said here shows that you don't understand the intricacies of the game of One Pocket...Freddy the Beard, (who's latest book you just bought and complimented highly) and I, have many times spoken with each other about how so many players don't understand/appreciate the strength of, and correctly utilize the intentional safety...

So then, according to what you've said in your post, Freddy (50+ yrs. playing One Pocket) and I (45 yrs. playing One Pocket), are "unimaginative players who are just trying to delay the game"...:rolleyes:

- Ghost

PS, Not to mention all of the top players, past and present, who regularly, strategically, employed/employ the intentional scratch.
 
Last edited:

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
No offense taken there, Ghost. We agree to disagree. Intentional fouls are the scourge of one pocket, employed by unimaginative players while hoping no one will notice what they just didn't do, and serve only to delay the game.

I make it a point, when my opponent intentionally fouls to do likewise, until he is on two and must pay the piper.:sorry ..so where's your strategic advantage then?
Mr. Moose,
What can you be thinking? Blanket statements like that are rarely correct and in this case you are just dead wrong. First of all in many cases the purpose of an intentional is to reposition the cue ball to a location which allows the fouling player to now play a more reasonable safety which does not require a foul. Your suggestion that you could so easily take a subsequent foul which forces additional fouls by the first player is naive at best. That task is rarely easy to perform if the original intentional foul is well thought out.

In addition to the safety play there are many examples of offensive intentional fouls which can be presented where the incoming player would be hard pressed to find a way out of the trap. In other words there are numerous strategic advantages to intentional fouls. You would be wise to learn a few of these principles and adopt them to your arsenal of weapons. Keep an open mind Moose, and though I have not read Freddy's book I've no doubt you would be well served in rereading it.

Tom
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Geeeeesh

Geeeeesh

:sorry moose, but what you've said here shows that you don't understand the intricacies of the game of One Pocket...Freddy the Beard, (who's latest book you just bought and complimented highly) and I, have many times spoken with each other about how so many players don't understand/appreciate the strength of, and correctly utilize the intentional safety...

So then, according to what you've said in your post, Freddy (50+ yrs. playing One Pocket) and I (45 yrs. playing One Pocket), are "unimaginative players who are just trying to delay the game"...:rolleyes:

- Ghost

PS, Not to mention all of the top players, past and present, who regularly, strategically, employed/employ the intentional scratch.

I've already said in response to an earlier comment regarding my post that I mistakenly failed to qualify that the intentional fouls I was referring to were when the shooter does nothing more than touch the cue ball.

If you read that, you already knew that this was nothing more than an error of omission, and there was no need to cast such aspersions. I was trying to address a sort of pet peeve arising from an opponent trying to foist a bad situation off by merely touching the cue ball.:sorry
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Mr. Moose,
What can you be thinking? Blanket statements like that are rarely correct and in this case you are just dead wrong. First of all in many cases the purpose of an intentional is to reposition the cue ball to a location which allows the fouling player to now play a more reasonable safety which does not require a foul. Your suggestion that you could so easily take a subsequent foul which forces additional fouls by the first player is naive at best. That task is rarely easy to perform if the original intentional foul is well thought out.

In addition to the safety play there are many examples of offensive intentional fouls which can be presented where the incoming player would be hard pressed to find a way out of the trap. In other words there are numerous strategic advantages to intentional fouls. You would be wise to learn a few of these principles and adopt them to your arsenal of weapons. Keep an open mind Moose, and though I have not read Freddy's book I've no doubt you would be well served in rereading it.

Tom
Tom

As I said to OnePocketGhost, you are correct, and I had earlier acknowledged an error of omission when I had earlier responded to NH Steve that the only intentional fouls I was addressing were the weak fouls resulting from simply touching the cue ball.

I am well aware that strategic offensive fouls are valuable, and equally dismayed when someone chooses to not even attempt that and simply leaves the cueball as is. In these cases I will reply in kind until they are on two.

I can only assume that you and Ghost didn't read my correction, I'm sure you didn't choose to just ignore it.
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,230
I make it a point, when my opponent intentionally fouls to do likewise, until he is on two and must pay the piper.:sorry ..so where's your strategic advantage then?
Well if you're in the one hole or being spotted, you now need an additional two balls.
Pretty big strategic advantage for the better player. Many players spotting me take them, I rarely take one myself. I never do it when giving up weight in a social game, because I think it's chickenspit. :)
Rod.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
Well if you're in the one hole or being spotted, you now need an additional two balls.
Pretty big strategic advantage for the better player. Many players spotting me take them, I rarely take one myself. I never do it when giving up weight in a social game, because I think it's chickenspit. :)
Rod.
Yes, I think this falls under the category of different values that a foul can amount to, depending on the difference in the score and also depending on the difference in the level of opponent's skill. We had quite the discussion about that some time back here on OnePocket.org, didn't we :D

To summarize, the greater the difference in the score, the more impact a foul has on the player closest to their out ball; the greater difference in the player's skills, the more impact a foul has on the weaker player.

This brings up another reason I do not like the idea of double penalties for fouls, and that is that it would favor the stronger players -- and since most One Pocket tournaments are not handicapped, the stronger players are already favored -- no need to exacerbate that.

I like the creativity of your idea darmoose, but I don't think I like the unintended consequences.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
All this talk about different values for intentional fouls seems fruitless to me.

You either eliminate them entirely or you leave them alone.

As a ball runner it is a tool I use a lot. Three or four fouls playing even a good player means nothing to me.

Bill S.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,371
:sorry
Hey Ghost,

Your suggestion seems to be a fair and equitable choice, however! if there are handicaps involved how would you handle that part of the equation?

How is everything in Chicago?

John
Doing ok here in Chicago for an aging Ghost..:)...how's thing up/over there in the "noreast"?

John...For a handicapped tournament, my rule would still work the same way...i.e. if I was spotting someone 10-8 it would increase to 11-8 with me breaking for the hill-hill game.

- Ghost
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
Tom

As I said to OnePocketGhost, you are correct, and I had earlier acknowledged an error of omission when I had earlier responded to NH Steve that the only intentional fouls I was addressing were the weak fouls resulting from simply touching the cue ball.

I am well aware that strategic offensive fouls are valuable, and equally dismayed when someone chooses to not even attempt that and simply leaves the cueball as is. In these cases I will reply in kind until they are on two.

I can only assume that you and Ghost didn't read my correction, I'm sure you didn't choose to just ignore it.
You're right in your assumption, Moose. That does make a difference. :sorry

However, there are a few situations where when stuck in the stack I may push into a cluster just enough to create an angle off a ball which gives me an avenue of escape without fouling a second or third consecutive time. Straight pool players have used this tactic for decades to roll off a ball and back into a similar section of the stack. Minute angle changes sometimes make monumental alterations in the outcome. These fouls are not always designed to stall or lengthen a game.

I think these fouls if used with forethought is all part of the game. If we start making arbitrary rulings which distinguish one foul from another with varying penalties we very well may open a Pandora's box full of problems.

Tom
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
Well if you're in the one hole or being spotted, you now need an additional two balls.
Pretty big strategic advantage for the better player. Many players spotting me take them, I rarely take one myself. I never do it when giving up weight in a social game, because I think it's chickenspit. :)
Rod.
With the rare exception of either me or my opponent being corner-hooked in the uptable pocket jaws and being forced to take an intentional foul(s) I believe I can truthfully say that I've probably not taken 5 intentional fouls in my life. It simply never occurs to me to do it. That lack of awareness of the intentional foul almost cost me $1000 in one situation though but I was fortunate enough to escape by other means:).

Maybe I should have played more good players.

Dennis
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,230
With the rare exception of either me or my opponent being corner-hooked in the uptable pocket jaws and being forced to take an intentional foul(s) I believe I can truthfully say that I've probably not taken 5 intentional fouls in my life. It simply never occurs to me to do it. That lack of awareness of the intentional foul almost cost me $1000 in one situation though but I was fortunate enough to escape by other means:).

Maybe I should have played more good players.

Dennis
I played Cliff a lot and he took them with no regrets. Sometimes he'd have pennies all over the rail. I always insisted on the 3 foul rule, of course he never violated it. I never took one in all the games we played. I was already going to as many as I could handle. :)
Rod.
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,371
I've already said in response to an earlier comment regarding my post that I mistakenly failed to qualify that the intentional fouls I was referring to were when the shooter does nothing more than touch the cue ball.

If you read that, you already knew that this was nothing more than an error of omission, and there was no need to cast such aspersions. I was trying to address a sort of pet peeve arising from an opponent trying to foist a bad situation off by merely touching the cue ball.:sorry

I was not casting any "aspersions"....I was simply stating what I felt to be true re. your understanding of the game based on what you posted...also based on you saying that the intentional scratch of just touching the cueball has no strategic merit..I was going to speak of the various meritable reasons for employing that particular type of intentional, but Rod and Tom already did that, in posts #151 and #155.

- Ghost
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
You're right in your assumption, Moose. That does make a difference. :sorry

However, there are a few situations where when stuck in the stack I may push into a cluster just enough to create an angle off a ball which gives me an avenue of escape without fouling a second or third consecutive time. Straight pool players have used this tactic for decades to roll off a ball and back into a similar section of the stack. Minute angle changes sometimes make monumental alterations in the outcome. These fouls are not always designed to stall or lengthen a game.

I think these fouls if used with forethought is all part of the game. If we start making arbitrary rulings which distinguish one foul from another with varying penalties we very well may open a Pandora's box full of problems.

Tom
Thanks Tom, I've read your bio and I know you are a hell of a one pocket player, far better than me. And I understand that very small movements can provide you an escape path when trapped. I just happen to believe from a "movers" point of view that you oughta pay a higher penalty for taking that option, and if I have to put you back there and you decide to go on two fouls, before you risk the potential sellout, so be it.

In a post by Bill stroud on this subject he says, as a ball runner taking several intentional fouls means nothing to him. Thats exactly why I recommended doubling the value of fouls, especially adding to his opponents ball count, so as to provide more "meaning" to all the ball runners. The fact that this will also move the game forward and shorten the game (unlike todays foul penalty) is icing on the cake to me.

I agree that these fouls (leaving the cue ball in the same position) are part of the game and probably will continue to be, but they oughta cost more cause they aren't the best part of the game, and need to be discouraged (see Bill Strouds attitude towards todays penalty). As for other fouls like scratches or
failing to get a rail, these are all shots we try to avoid, and so if I lose a game because I fouled more than my opponent I got no complaints, no matter what the penalty is.

It seems, however, that not too many see the logic here, tho (probably too many ball runners). Five inch or larger pockets will do the trick, eh Bill.:rolleyes:
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
In a post by Bill stroud on this subject he says, as a ball runner taking several intentional fouls means nothing to him.
Bill Stroud, to my knowledge, hasn't played a serious game of One-Pocket in 30 years, until recently. To my knowledge, he has played many weaker players, giving them weight, and he tends to run & reply about his 10 & outs or some such.

What do you think Stroud would think of taking several intentional fouls against a player his equal?

Dennis
 
Top