One Pocket rule change

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I think people get offended when you propose changes to a great game, but to say it again, there is no reason whatsoever in the world that an intentional should be worth one ball. that was just a number somebody pulled out of their a-- at some point. there is no reason at all we can't tinker with it a little.

as i noted earlier, i think the penalty should be how much taking that intentional is actually worth to these guys. of course that varies, but i bet for top player is would be closer to 2 balls, not one.

whatever, it is never going to change, which is fine by me, but changing by making an intentional penalty higher would not alter or change the game in any negative way imo.
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
I think people get offended when you propose changes to a great game, but to say it again, there is no reason whatsoever in the world that an intentional should be worth one ball. that was just a number somebody pulled out of their a-- at some point. there is no reason at all we can't tinker with it a little.

as i noted earlier, i think the penalty should be how much taking that intentional is actually worth to these guys. of course that varies, but i bet for top player is would be closer to 2 balls, not one.

whatever, it is never going to change, which is fine by me, but changing by making an intentional penalty higher would not alter or change the game in any negative way imo.
TD,

By your line of thinking you might as well say that an intentional safety by an NFL team with 3 seconds remaining in a game and they having the lead by 3 points, would then be worth 4 points to the opposing team.

Maybe you could also dictate that a MLB batter who hits a sacrifice fly to advance a runner from 1st to 2nd should also get credit for the run he may score subsequently, when another batter moves him along.

Point(s) being that all great games have been altered through the years and ages to make them great. Difficult to see at the time but easier to see with the passage of time.

Cowboy "been pissed since the elimination of the 4th strike and the addition of body armor during jousting" Dennis
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
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
I guess we're not going to agree on this (thats OK), as I must admit that I find little or no merit to touching the cue ball for an intentional foul.

Rod in#151 says that better players use this tactic to increase the number of balls both players need to get out, knowing that this tactic increases their advantage while lengthening the game. Also says he almost never uses this tactic as it is "chickenspit"(sp)

Tom in #155 says "these fouls are not always intended to stall or lengthen the game." (which I guess means that they mostly are)

For me, these are hardly rousing defenses for your position. All fouls are to be avoided and discouraged, that is why they carry penalties. I just believe that the game would be better served if they were discouraged more strongly, and the game would be moved along to a quicker conclusion as well.
 

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
5,278
I guess we're not going to agree on this (thats OK), as I must admit that I find little or no merit to touching the cue ball for an intentional foul.

Rod in#151 says that better players use this tactic to increase the number of balls both players need to get out, knowing that this tactic increases their advantage while lengthening the game. Also says he almost never uses this tactic as it is "chickenspit"(sp)

Tom in #155 says "these fouls are not always intended to stall or lengthen the game." (which I guess means that they mostly are)

For me, these are hardly rousing defenses for your position. All fouls are to be avoided and discouraged, that is why they carry penalties. I just believe that the game would be better served if they were discouraged more strongly, and the game would be moved along to a quicker conclusion as well.


Other sports have the same stuff. You know how they do in basketball with fouls near the end to force the opponents to make foul shots. Football has intentional delay penalties. If a champion who is giving a guy 8-4 can make it adjust to where it is now 10-6, by each taking a couple of scratches, then so be it. Can you blame him?? Just be aware of it and match up accordingly. In a tournament, if it is absolutely necessary I say make the pockets a tad bigger to shorten the match times to see if it works. It might. It's not something that we should worry about too much imo., But good to see you thinking and posting. That';s good...
 

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,371
I guess we're not going to agree on this (thats OK), as I must admit that I find little or no merit to touching the cue ball for an intentional foul. :sorry, but you're wrong, period.

Rod in#151 says that better players use this tactic to increase the number of balls both players need to get out, knowing that this tactic increases their advantage while lengthening the game. Also says he almost never uses this tactic as it is "chickenspit"(sp)

Tom in #155 says "these fouls are not always intended to stall or lengthen the game." (which I guess means that they mostly are)

For me, these are hardly rousing defenses for your position.

Nice try...just partially quoting Tom and Rod's posts..and no, Tom didn't mean that "they mostly are" - you're just trying to spin his words...:rolleyes:...

Rod also said:

Well if you're in the one hole, you now need an additional two balls.

Pretty big strategic advantage.


Rod.
And Tom also said:

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.

Tom
There's your, obvious merit.
 
Last edited:

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
I guess we're not going to agree on this (thats OK), as I must admit that I find little or no merit to touching the cue ball for an intentional foul.


Tom in #155 says "these fouls are not always intended to stall or lengthen the game."
For me, these are hardly rousing defenses for your position. All fouls are to be avoided and discouraged, that is why they carry penalties. I just believe that the game would be better served if they were discouraged more strongly, and the game would be moved along to a quicker conclusion as well.
Darmoose, When I said What is quoted in bold I should point out that I have used the intentional foul very often over the years but I can remember not a single instance where I used it merely to extend the length of a game unless it helped me to get my opponent off of needing only one ball to win the game. I sincerely doubt many players use this tactic for the reasons you suggest. And I doubt further that top players use this tactic for that reason at all for the simple reason that they will find other more advantageous avenues which further their cause equally well.

It is true that extending a game with fouls favors the better player but I don't see this as a tactic which is used all that frequently to make an issue out of it. It all equals out in the end doesn't it? They do it to you; you do it to others. It just becomes another arrow in the quiver to be used when needed. Additional penalties for these foul would only create a multitude of arguments. I will give you an example in a new thread:

Tom
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
TD,

By your line of thinking you might as well say that an intentional safety by an NFL team with 3 seconds remaining in a game and they having the lead by 3 points, would then be worth 4 points to the opposing team.

Maybe you could also dictate that a MLB batter who hits a sacrifice fly to advance a runner from 1st to 2nd should also get credit for the run he may score subsequently, when another batter moves him along.

Point(s) being that all great games have been altered through the years and ages to make them great. Difficult to see at the time but easier to see with the passage of time.

Cowboy "been pissed since the elimination of the 4th strike and the addition of body armor during jousting" Dennis

If somebody can argue why it is a one ball penalty, that would be great. Truth is, you can't. The only "argument" is, "that is the way it has always been".

I think the RBI acronym speaks for itself. The player who actually physically batted the run in. You could if you want have a "runners advanced stat", which they do - called sacrifices. I don't know, I don't think your point holds any water. I don't think one pocket has been "altered" at all. I bet somebody said "a foul is worth a ball" one day, and it has been like that ever since. And THAT is the point. Why keep it that way if it is not producing the desired results. But maybe you know something and we have changed the penalty for scratches in one pocket through history. If so I'd love to hear about the history. One last thing I will add is I wonder what the stat is on amount of intentionals per game in one pocket at top levels. I would argue that the number is perhaps a little high, but that is purely subjective though. "High" just refers to the fact that I don't think the balance is there.

There should be logic behind penalties in my mind. The key concept here should be BALANCE. Therefore, how much is it worth for a player to take an intentional. If you get the balance right, players will be taking intentionals the "right" amount of times. They should hurt you about as much as they help you (overall). If the balance is off, players take too many, which is arguably the case in one pocket. I think the walk in baseball for example is MUCH MUCH closer to a proper balance than owing a single ball for an intentional is in one pocket. Especially when considering top flight offense. The penalty simply is not correct imo. In fact, I am stunned more people here don't agree. I think the explanation lies in players being stuck in their ways myself.

I am not really trying to change the game. I think it is fine to be honest, yet I don't think we MUST stick to rules that were seemingly originated out of thin air when stiffer penalties may serve us better. In short, I just don't understand the big deal. If you put a guy in a trap, and it is too stiff a penalty to take an intentional, and he then must do something great to get out of it, what in the world is the downside to this? One pocket will still be there. The sky aint going to fall guys.

Anyway, so, try it. What is the argument as to why an intentional is worth one ball? IF there is no real answer, I think this proves a greater penalty for intentionals deserves consideration.
 
Last edited:

demonrho

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
720
There should be a rule making it mandatory that during every 1P game each player be required to make at least one intentional foul.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Getting back to the original subject of this thread as well as the one on AZB on the same subject,:focus are one pocket games getting too long for tournament play, for spectating, for gambling? Some seem not to care, some seem to care, not many seem to disagree with the premise.

No less than a great player like Billy Incardona thinks that any three fouls at any time should end the game, and predicts if this was the rule, intentional fouls would all but dissapear.

So, accepting the somewhat weak argument that intentional "touch" fouls have merit because the better player can gain additional advantage, or that a player might get out of a trap that might cause him to sell out, if his opponent is unwilling to add two balls to the number of balls needed to win, and therefore intentional "touch" fouls should not be discouraged. And perhaps accepting that a two ball swing for all fouls might be too much.

What would be your objection to the later modification to my original idea which is to simply change the current rule from a foul results in taking a ball away from the fouler to:

All fouls result in adding a ball to your opponents (the foulee) score, thereby putting him closer to "outsville" Still only a one ball penalty, but tends to move the game along to a conclusion rather than delaying and lengthening the game (whether its your intention or not).:)
 
Last edited:

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
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
As I said before, taking intentional scratches means little to me no matter who I am playing because I run balls easily.

Don't you wish you could.

Bill S.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Really....Really.....

Really....Really.....

As I said before, taking intentional scratches means little to me no matter who I am playing because I run balls easily.

Don't you wish you could.

Bill S.
All those who think one pocket was invented so that "ball runners" could play it, raise your hand. I thought that was nine ball, or straight pool, or rotation, or eight ball, or ten ball???:frus

Also, not sure this is universally accepted, but I know in my little circle its widely believed that bigger pockets favor "ball runners" like you Bill, and the best way to slow down a ball runner is to take him to a tighter table.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
Tighter pockets favor the ball runner because they are a more accurate player.
You run balls not because you make better shots but because you play better POSITION.

The lesser player has to focus more on making a ball and less on position.
Do the math.

Bill S.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Tighter pockets favor the ball runner because they are a more accurate player.
You run balls not because you make better shots but because you play better POSITION.

The lesser player has to focus more on making a ball and less on position.
Do the math.

Bill S.
All those who think tighter pockets favor shooters, raise your hand.:lol I think you're trying to fool us into putting in those bushel baskets, Bill.:rolleyes:
 

CaptainHook

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
104
At the Flamingo, there will be NO rule changes, no chess clocks or any other nonsense, just 1P played like it is supposed to be. :heh
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
The two rule change threads have now devolved into the dumbest two threads on this site in a long time. Due to that, I feel free to add to the stupidity with my comments:p.. Here's why the threads are dumb:

1. People who never set foot in a poolroom are steadfastly arguing their points.

2. People who wouldn't bet a quarter they were alive are trying to suggest rule changes.

3. 70 year old ball-runners want bigger pockets.

4. The A.D.D. afflicted general population of America isn't ever going to sit still long enough to watch a One-Pocket match on T.V. so why don't you stop pretending they will? It's not ever going to happen in our lifetimes.

5. Some people who are suggesting rule changes are not thinking of the consequences further along in a game. Take the "3 total fouls is loss of game" suggestion. Yeah, that's real sweet. Now when you are on 2 fouls and your opponent jaws up his game ball you can simply rack. That wouldn't alter the integrity of the game.

6. The people who actually run One-Pocket tournaments are the ones who will determine if any changes will be made. All the talk here is just that; talk.

7. One of the primary problems with increasing the penalty paid for intentional fouls is that the tournament clowns usually end up wanting to transfer their stupid rules to the poolrooms where they play. Take "object ball off the table" being a foul. That's ridiculous for gambling but there are guys who insist on playing that way because they played in tournaments with that rule.

I could write all day about the comments posted in the two threads but it would just be more "much ado about nothing", same as what you are all doing anyway. Carry on.

Dennis
 

backplaying

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
523
All those who think tighter pockets favor shooters, raise your hand.:lol I think you're trying to fool us into putting in those bushel baskets, Bill.:rolleyes:
I know if I'm playing a better player playing rotation pool and getting weight, the tougher the table, the better I like my chances. I'm not sure playing one pocket, it seems people like Cliff run balls just as well on the tighter pockets, or he does on me. Plus the top players will put you on the end rail and let you go for those 9 footers on tight pockets.
 

backplaying

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
523
At the Flamingo, there will be NO rule changes, no chess clocks or any other nonsense, just 1P played like it is supposed to be. :heh
Does the same guy that owns the Flamingo now, the same one who owned it in the 80's? If so, what's his name? Thanks, Billy.
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
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
As I said before, taking intentional scratches means little to me no matter who I am playing because I run balls easily.

Don't you wish you could.

Bill S.
Bill,

I stopped wishing for things when I was 8 years old. If you ever want to come to Detroit and play some One-Pocket on a 5'x10' Snooker Table I'm your huckleberry. I'll play you a 6 ahead set for $3000. All other matchmaking will be through PM's. It's nobody's business when, where or if we play. Please do come and run some balls on me. It'll be fun playing again.

P.S. Just so you know, I'm a working man who must get a vacation approved in order to have a week off. I'm off the 19th-26th this month but I'm sure that's too early for you to make plans.

Dennis
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
Bill,

I stopped wishing for things when I was 8 years old. If you ever want to come to Detroit and play some One-Pocket on a 5'x10' Snooker Table I'm your huckleberry. I'll play you a 6 ahead set for $3000. All other matchmaking will be through PM's. It's nobody's business when, where or if we play. Please do come and run some balls on me. It'll be fun playing again.

P.S. Just so you know, I'm a working man who must get a vacation approved in order to have a week off. I'm off the 19th-26th this month but I'm sure that's too early for you to make plans.

Dennis
I have no trouble with playing on a snooker table.

The first one pocket I ever played was on a 5x10 snooker table.

I won my first tournament at U of OK on a snooker table.

While I stopped playing pool for many years I had a full size 6x12 table in my office. I played in the snooker league for years.

I would love to play you but I don't see me getting to Detroit? anytime soon.

Do you ever leave town?

Bill S.
 
Top