Rule changes????

backplaying

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
523
The intentional foul is a thinking mans' shot. You put the cue ball where you feel you can do more from that position than your opponent. I consider it an offensive shot. Perhaps that's why I use it so often.

To penalize it more than an ordinary shot just seems unfair.

Scott is one of the smartest practitioners.

Bill S.
Cliff is also.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
People need to just take a step back from their beloved game here and ask themselves why if you tap the cb playing straight pool (a game where guys run hundreds), it is worth -1. When you do the same tap in one pocket, it is worth -1.

How do you explain that?

Minus 1 is just a default that somebody came up with at some point, for god knows whatever reason. There is no reason we can't tinker with that value to make it logically reflect what the foul should be worth, all while maintaining the game's integrity. No reason at all. When you see guys with 4 or 5 coins by their pocket for intentionals, this should make people realize the penalty is possibly too light.

Lastly, my point here is NOT "oh my god, we MUST change one pocket because it is no good under the current rules". One pocket is perfectly fine the way it is imo.

My point IS this: if we did change one pocket a little and make a penalty count the effective 2 balls (one from fouler, one from opponent), it will NOT subtract from the integrity of the game at all. In fact, since these foul penalties seem to have been thought up out of thin air, I think it may add to the games integrity if somebody carefully thought it over and implemented a stiffer penalty.
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,779
Listen up Mr. bored retiree with too much time on his hands. It's quite obvious that you're not a very skilled, or experienced one pocket player. That being the case, and also with your being a new member to this site, you should show some respect, quit flapping your lips, with poor suggestions that you're not qualified to give, and listen to what far more experienced, high level playing one pocket players are telling you.

Old School
Mr Old School, I didn't mean to disrespect anyone here. I am guilty of trying to use humor and even sarcasm to make a point, but I know that sometimes it can fly right over the head and be misconstrued.

Your attack on me seems to be out of place. You know nothing of me to make your assertions. I assure you that I love the game of one pocket as much as you do and have played it longer than most, even here.

Any fair reading of these two threads would show the following:

1. I entered this discussion with post #127 at the invitation of the OP looking for ideas to make the game a little quicker.

2. Post #127 contains the whole of the idea I offered, with some reasoning to support it.

3.Since that post there have been eight pages of posts in two threads containing other ideas, arguements, and various levels of personal attacks.

I challenge you to find one post that addresses directly the idea in post #127 as to whether it would potentially shorten the game, whether it would ruin or improve the game, with some rational. If you find any, please quote em.

Seems I stepped on some sacred cow when I suggested that intentional fouls were part of the problem and should be penalized more to discourage them. For simplicity sake I would make all fouls worth the same as is today.

Nothing is going to change anyway, this is just a discussion after all, and doesn't warrant personal attacks. Bad enough that I'm a bit sarcastic at times.
 
Last edited:

One Pocket Ghost

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
9,324
My point IS this: if we did change one pocket a little and make a penalty count the effective 2 balls (one from fouler, one from opponent), <----- that's not changing One Pocket "a little" - that's changing it a lot.



it will NOT subtract from the integrity of the game at all. <----- on the contrary, it WOULD MOST CERTAINLY subtract from the integrity of the game.
...........
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
People need to just take a step back from their beloved game here and ask themselves why if you tap the cb playing straight pool (a game where guys run hundreds), it is worth -1. When you do the same tap in one pocket, it is worth -1.

How do you explain that?With this depth of reasoning you could turn it around and say that since in One Pocket a foul is worth 1 point which equates to 12.5 percent of a game then it follows that in a 125 point game of straight pool a single foul should cost the shooter 10 points.

Minus 1 is just a default that somebody came up with at some point, for god knows whatever reason. And you have made a study of this subject for quite some time, reasoned it all out, considered all the repercussions of this change, and concluded through debate with great players past and present that this idea is so much better. TD, I commend you for your diligent research There is no reason we can't tinker with that value to make it logically reflect what the foul should be worth, all while maintaining the game's integrity. Again, this you know to be true because of all the hard work you have put into studying this severe flaw in the penalty faze of the game of One Pocket. No reason at all. When you see guys with 4 or 5 coins by their pocket for intentionals, this should make people realize the penalty is possibly too light.

Lastly, my point here is NOT "oh my god, we MUST change one pocket because it is no good under the current rules". One pocket is perfectly fine the way it is imo. Wait a minute Tyler, I'm confused! How can the game be perfectly fine the way it is and yet you want to change it for "god knows what reason" I thought you just said the rules must be changed to reflect a logical penalty for some fouls.

My point IS this: if we did change one pocket a little and make a penalty count the effective 2 balls (one from fouler, one from opponent), it will NOT subtract from the integrity of the game at all. In fact, since these foul penalties seem to have been thought up out of thin air, I think it may add to the games integrity if somebody carefully thought it over and implemented a stiffer penalty.Once again, you have concluded that your alterations "would not harm the integrity of the game at all" because you have studied all the repercussions of this change and found this to be so.
With all due respect Tyler, I'm not convinced. :(

Tom
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,971
for those that played in the days of bigger pockets as routine (if thats true)
were the games faster or about the same as today??
I happened to read in Freddy's great new book, a description of a game of Straight Pool at one of the Stardust tournaments involving Al Miller and another slow player. They apparently stretched out a game to 100 or 125 to over five hours, even though there were two runs of 50 balls! Paulie Jansco was pulling his hair out. However, there in the game of straight pool, as here in the game of One Pocket, the issue was slow players, not slow rules in my humble opinion. :D
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,971
my suggestion to darmoose

my suggestion to darmoose

... and to anyone else who is curious about how this would work, is to try your rule idea with local players if you can and report back. If experienced players try it and like it or not, I would like to hear. If you cannot sell the idea face to face with players you know, it seems like a tough sell to the greater One Pocket community.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
OK, Let's take a step into reality for just one moment.

Suppose we all conceded that Darmoose and TD have a point, and the game drags on due to the intentional fouls that take place during the course of a game of One Pocket. Remember I only say suppose. And let us also suppose that we all wish to do something about this issue. Again, I only say suppose.

Does anyone here truly believe such a rule as the one Darmoose and TD propose would really be seriously considered by the overwhelming One Pocket population? Not on your life!

There are so many less radical remedies which could speed up the game of One Pocket which would be implemented before their suggestion would make it onto the ballot. Billy S. suggested bigger pockets but neither TD or Darmoose made a single comment either way about that possibility. I wonder why.

Personally, I like the game, no, I love the game exactly the way it is. One Pocket is the greatest game the world has ever seen and the fact that a game between two of the greatest players/shooters ever to play a game of pool can take two minutes or two hours to play a single game is for me a testimony to its greatness and not to any supposed flaw.

Respectfully,

Tom
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,779
Edicts from above......

Edicts from above......

With all due respect Tyler, I'm not convinced. :(

Tom
With all due respect, why would anyone start a thread soliciting ideas regarding one pocket, and then refuse to discuss them.

I had no idea it worked this way, We make suggestions, ask questions, put forth ideas and you "high level" players pass three word judgements and refuse to discuss anything you find distasteful.

Tyler explained himself very well and in some detail, and your responses are "I'm not convinced", "thats not changing one pocket a little...thats changing it alot", "on the contrary, it would most certainly subtract from the integrity of the game".(yours and Ghosty's words)

I guess NHSteve has a point, we are left with no choice but to try it, but somehow I feel if we did and reported back to you nothing would change.

Great DISCUSSION there high levelors.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
15,303
One Pocket is the greatest game the world has ever seen and the fact that a game between two of the greatest players/shooters ever to play a game of pool can take two minutes or two hours to play a single game is for me a testimony to its greatness and not to any supposed flaw.
Respectfully,

Tom
what he said^^^^
:)
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
With all due respect Tyler, I'm not convinced. :(

Tom
You are not convinced, and not reading very well either. I am just saying giving stiffer penalties for an intentional would not alter the integrity of the game to any significant extent, so I am not sure why people like you get so worked up about it. The sky would not fall if we made an intentional worth more. It is really a simple point. If you don't agree, go watch a match with no 3 foul rule and watch coins pile up every few games. On some of your other points, I thought (i'll have to reread) that the other gentleman reported faster tournaments with the 2 ball for an intentional setup??

The reason I am not contradicting myself is I am actually fine with the way one pocket is. That is because the way it has been set up is advantageous to neither player really. So, no harm no foul. But, I bet there is a better set of rules out there that would allow for faster play (if that is what is wanted), and even more entertaining games. I will leave it to better minds to figure out exactly what those rules are. My synthesis being people like you seem to be so stuck on these rules that have no logical origin, that we will probably never get rid of them, which again, is actually fine by me. I just think we should be more open minded, clear headed and logical is all.
 
Last edited:

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
OK, Let's take a step into reality for just one moment.

Suppose we all conceded that Darmoose and TD have a point, and the game drags on due to the intentional fouls that take place during the course of a game of One Pocket. Remember I only say suppose. And let us also suppose that we all wish to do something about this issue. Again, I only say suppose.

Does anyone here truly believe such a rule as the one Darmoose and TD propose would really be seriously considered by the overwhelming One Pocket population? Not on your life!

There are so many less radical remedies which could speed up the game of One Pocket which would be implemented before their suggestion would make it onto the ballot. Billy S. suggested bigger pockets but neither TD or Darmoose made a single comment either way about that possibility. I wonder why.

Personally, I like the game, no, I love the game exactly the way it is. One Pocket is the greatest game the world has ever seen and the fact that a game between two of the greatest players/shooters ever to play a game of pool can take two minutes or two hours to play a single game is for me a testimony to its greatness and not to any supposed flaw.

Respectfully,

Tom
Well, to answer your quandary, here's why....

If you go into the "one pocket rule change" thread, I was actually the first one to propose bigger pockets as my solution on the first page. I am not sure what to say except you don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. :confused:
 
Last edited:

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
You are not convinced, and not reading very well either. I am just saying giving stiffer penalties for an intentional would not alter the integrity of the game to any significant extent, so I am not sure why people like you get so worked up about it. The sky would not fall if we made an intentional worth more. It is really a simple point. If you don't agree, go watch a match with no 3 foul rule and watch coins pile up every few games.

The reason I am not contradicting myself is I am actually fine with the way one pocket is. That is because the way it has been set up is advantageous to neither player really. So, no harm no foul. But, I bet there is a better set of rules out there that would allow for faster play (if that is what is wanted), and even more entertaining games. I will leave it to better minds to figure out what those rules are. My synthesis being people like you seem to be so stuck on these rules that have no logical origin, that we will probably never get rid of them, which again, is actually fine by me. I just think we should be more open minded, clear headed and logical is all.
Tyler, First of all I am simply responding to your suggestions. Worked up? I wonder why if your intention is to speed up the game you don't ever entertain the notion of bigger pockets, or fewer balls in the rack, or fewer balls needed to win a game. I wonder why it is you are so fixated on this or any rule change as a remedy to a supposed flaw in the game.

You continue to say your solution would not alter the game in any detrimental way but I wonder how you know that. You say the rules have no basis in logic. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Lastly, because you seem to believe there is an issue here which needs addressing and because there are others like myself who feel otherwise you accuse us of being close minded.

I dismiss your suggestions not only because I feel they will injure the game, but more to the point I do not feel there is a problem in the first place.

Tom
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Tyler, First of all I am simply responding to your suggestions. Worked up? I wonder why if your intention is to speed up the game you don't ever entertain the notion of bigger pockets, or fewer balls in the rack, or fewer balls needed to win a game. I wonder why it is you are so fixated on this or any rule change as a remedy to a supposed flaw in the game.

You continue to say your solution would not alter the game in any detrimental way but I wonder how you know that. You say the rules have no basis in logic. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Lastly, because you seem to believe there is an issue here which needs addressing and because there are others like myself who feel otherwise you accuse us of being close minded.

I dismiss your suggestions not only because I feel they will injure the game, but more to the point I do not feel there is a problem in the first place.

Tom
Tom, with as little offense as possible, you seem to be a tad obtuse.

I don't really think there is a problem either Tom, but I am not close-minded enough to think that there aren't a better, more efficient, even more entertaining set of one pocket rules out there. The gamblers could always use the old rules of course if a change did happen. But, let's face it, we'll never see a change, due imo to stubborn minds like yours, which is a big part of my point. We need to get over that stubbornness imo.

Here, unedited post #10...
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8119
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,779
OK, Let's take a step into reality for just one moment.

I'm sorry, I guess we were both typing at the same time, and you posted this just prior to me. I guess this could be called at least the beginnings of a discussion, respectfully.
_________________________________________________________________
Suppose we all conceded that Darmoose and TD have a point, and the game drags on due to the intentional fouls that take place during the course of a game of One Pocket. Remember I only say suppose. And let us also suppose that we all wish to do something about this issue. Again, I only say suppose.

Does anyone here truly believe such a rule as the one Darmoose and TD propose would really be seriously considered by the overwhelming One Pocket population? Not on your life!

REPLY...
Well Tom, apparantly according to most, no rule changes of any kind are likely to actually happen, so why start a dicussion at all. Why have a forum at all?

_________________________________________________________________
There are so many less radical remedies which could speed up the game of One Pocket which would be implemented before their suggestion would make it onto the ballot. Billy S. suggested bigger pockets but neither TD or Darmoose made a single comment either way about that possibility. I wonder why.

REPLY....
No secret here.....
More or less radical is a subjective term that is in the eye of the beholder. That is part of the discussion, if we had one. As to B S's idea of larger pockets, I didn't comment on this cause several others had already and I had nothing to add. I don't favor that idea because I feel it would further favor shooting over moving as is the case with current rules. I preferred to offer an idea that I think would bring the game more back to the way I think it used to be played in my youth. Do you not think the game has changed in the way its played over the last 30-50 yrs?

I do love the game as is, and if no changes are made, that is OK with me. But if players continue to complain, if spectators continue to complain, if people continue to say they don't wanna play one pocket cause its tooo slow and boring, maybe you should consider some changes.

_________________________________________________________________
Personally, I like the game, no, I love the game exactly the way it is. One Pocket is the greatest game the world has ever seen and the fact that a game between two of the greatest players/shooters ever to play a game of pool can take two minutes or two hours to play a single game is for me a testimony to its greatness and not to any supposed flaw.

Respectfully,

Tom
Respectfully also..
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
Well, to answer your quandary, here's why....

If you go into the "one pocket rule change" thread, I was actually the first one to propose bigger pockets as my solution on the first page. I am not sure what to say except you don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. :confused:
I understand what you were saying way back then Tyler, but in the past several posts you have most certainly been advocating rule changes. Why have you steered away from that vein of thought and championed this far more radical remedy?

Tom
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,686
Changes

Changes

I think the comments on rule changes are like our opinions in the shot selection threads.

While we try to figure out a shot that is different from the other guys and more imaginative, most of us are going to shoot the same shot most of the time.

There have been some interesting ideas about rule changes to speed up and/or improve the game, but let's face it, Tom is right, it is the greatest game in the pool room exactly how it is.

It would be better for me though with bigger pockets.:D

I believe I have been playing one pocket longer than most. I started playing it around 1955 on a 5 x 10 snooker table and on a regulation pool table around 1959.

It is great to see the growing popularity of the game we love. I promote the game in my local pool paper, Cue Sports Journal, and I help set up handicap one pocket leagues in local pool rooms for California Cue Sports. We are growing and picking up players and rooms with every session. We started with three of the biggest rooms in Northern Ca and around 60 players. Our next session, starting later this month, will have 7 or 8 rooms and over 100 players. We will be expanding to Southern Ca soon, and the plans are, into other states in the next few months.

You can check out the website at: californiacuesports.com for more information on the handicap one pocket league.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
Tom, with as little offense as possible, you seem to be a tad obtuse.

I don't really think there is a problem either Tom, but I am not close-minded enough to think that there aren't a better, more efficient, even more entertaining set of one pocket rules out there. The gamblers could always use the old rules of course if a change did happen. But, let's face it, we'll never see a change, due imo to stubborn minds like yours, which is a big part of my point. We need to get over that stubbornness imo.

Here, unedited post #10...
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8119
Why is it that I must be labeled stubborn simply because I don't agree with the premise that there is a problem with the game? Someone throws out an idea that the game of One Pocket takes too long to play, you run with it, and now if I or anyone else takes the position that the game is just fine the way it is they must be stubborn and close minded. But you don't think there is a problem either? Then what is this discussion about? Tyler, what are you trying to say? On one hand you want to change things on the other you say things are fine the way they are. Make up your mind.

Tom
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
I think the comments on rule changes are like our opinions in the shot selection threads.

While we try to figure out a shot that is different from the other guys and more imaginative, most of us are going to shoot the same shot most of the time.

There have been some interesting ideas about rule changes to speed up and/or improve the game, but let's face it, Tom is right, it is the greatest game in the pool room exactly how it is.

It would be better for me though with bigger pockets.:D

I believe I have been playing one pocket longer than most. I started playing it around 1955 on a 5 x 10 snooker table and on a regulation pool table around 1959.

It is great to see the growing popularity of the game we love. I promote the game in my local pool paper, Cue Sports Journal, and I help set up handicap one pocket leagues in local pool rooms for California Cue Sports. We are growing and picking up players and rooms with every session. We started with three of the biggest rooms in Northern Ca and around 60 players. Our next session, starting later this month, will have 7 or 8 rooms and over 100 players. We will be expanding to Southern Ca soon, and the plans are, into other states in the next few months.

You can check out the website at: californiacuesports.com for more information on the handicap one pocket league.
Good job John. One Pocket is alive and well and no small thanks to guys like you who love the game introduce it to others and actually do things to help make it grow in popularity.

Tom
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,779
Why is it that I must be labeled stubborn simply because I don't agree with the premise that there is a problem with the game? Someone throws out an idea that the game of One Pocket takes too long to play, you run with it, and now if I or anyone else takes the position that the game is just fine the way it is they must be stubborn and close minded. But you don't think there is a problem either? Then what is this discussion about? Tyler, what are you trying to say? On one hand you want to change things on the other you say things are fine the way they are. Make up your mind.

Tom
All that I am asking is that you offer some reasons for your conclusions that can be opined upon. I realize that would expose you to potential critism or glowing adoration, perhaps.(I think Tyler is saying something similar)

You may very well convince us that our ideas won't work, I am open.

But three word edicts without any logical reasoning won't work. I can only presume when somebody does that they don't have any logical argument, just closed minded opinion.

I go back to the challenge I made to Old School.

Still respectfully
 
Top