- Oct 1, 2011
I don't want to go back and forth like this. Things just don't seem to sink in when people get emotional. One pocket is fine the way it is. IF you need to speed it up (or make it more entertaining), big pockets would be great.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.
You know what the funniest part about all this is, I posted the bigger pockets idea 2 times in the other thread, and never got a single response. Now I am being accused of not responding to and avoiding the idea..LOL.
Fine, that was a long thread, and I understand.
Considering that, all I am saying is that an alternative to big pockets (all venues don't have big pockets of course) is giving the non-fouler a ball on fouls. Actually not my suggestion, but I like it. I am also saying that I do not feel this would harm the game in any way. Many disagree. Fine by me.
Further, I postulated that the one ball for a foul probably originated with 2 guys sitting around a pool table, and one of them said "how much should you have to pay for a scratch".... the other guy grabbed his beer, thought for 4 seconds, and said "I think he should owe one ball". And that has led us to today lol. This was probably not a founding fathers type of moment, if I am wrong, correct me. Based on that, changing this slightly would have no significant impact on the game imo. In fact, if that guy had one too many at the point of his one ball for a foul revelation, and said instead "he should pay 2 balls", I bet you'd be defending the 2 balls per foul rule today. It is just what we are used to. That's fine of course, it is all fine. Yet, one pocket obviously needs some more viewer latitude. You can't put a 2 hour game of one pocket up on ESPN, that is for sure. So, if you want one pocket to stay in the dark ages, by all means, full steam ahead. If you want it to grow substantially, I'd suggest being more open minded.