Rule changes????

tylerdurden

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

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.
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8119&page=15
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8119
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.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,619
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
Moose, It is not up to me or anyone else to convince anyone that the game needs to remain unchanged. The onus is on those who wish to institute changes in the game to convince us that alterations are needed.

Tom
 

Tom Wirth

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

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.
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8119&page=15
http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8119
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.
Tyler, you continue to use words like "slightly" when describing the changes you advocate. This is an issue for me. I disagree the changes you're advocating are "slight" in any way.

Here is an example, maybe not the best of analogies but consider it in the spirit of argument. Let us suppose some people felt rule changes needed to be implemented in the game of Baseball because there was not enough scoring in the game. Therefore the suggestion was made that for the sake of consistency from field to field the distance from base to base needed to be shortened by one foot. It is only one foot. It would be a "slight" change. What do you think would happen to the game. If you want to look at it from the opposite point of view that's ok too.

Who decided on the dimensions of a baseball diamond? Maybe a couple guys sitting around with a few beers and after two or three came up with 90 feet from base to base. How foolish of them.

IMO the game would no longer be the same game, and neither would One Pocket.

One Pocket has been played for several decades without a need for rule changes. So a few games take longer than some would like, so what? Is that any reason to alter the game to satisfy a few who prefer a faster pace or amore entertaining environment for spectators or novice players?

Maybe I'm easily entertained but I once watch Reyes play Jimmy Fusco a challenge match. One game went down to each player needing one ball. That one ball took over two hours to pocket and I found that particular game fascinating. But then I understood the intricacies of the game and appreciated the difficulties involved in getting a decent shot to pocket.

Even if I didn't have this understanding, and even if your rule changes were implemented, how would your rule change have helped to accomplish your goal?

Tom
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,413
Us? Is there a group of people behind you dictating what to write? lol.
Tyler, I could be part of the group (behind the us) I also feel that the game doesn't need any changes. Bigger pockets...smaller pockets...slower cloth...faster cloth.....None of the above will alter or attack the integrity of the game, and that's what this should be all about. Do I believe that there should be rule changes for TV? Yes, the only problem with the game of one pocket is formatting it for television. Possibly there will come a time when there's enough interest in our game for TV to show it in it's natural form, that would be the ultimate reward for the game and the players that play it.

There are many reasons why one pocket has grown in popularity, our game is hands down the best pool game played on a table with pockets...why change it:frus There's an art to every facet of the game, which is evidenced in the popularity of our WWYD threads. It doesn't matter what type of shot or situation we're discussing..following the break...escaping a trap...up-table play...debating strategy..ect. ect. When it comes down to it, it's a lot about maneuvering and out-maneuvering your opponent, and that's one of the most satisfying things about any game, and playing one pocket it happens alot.

As the great Efryn Reyes would say "I GOT LUCKY" After a perfectly played game of one pocket. Maneuveringly lucky.

Dr. Bill
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,785
Tyler, I could be part of the group (behind the us) I also feel that the game doesn't need any changes. Bigger pockets...smaller pockets...slower cloth...faster cloth.....None of the above will alter or attack the integrity of the game, and that's what this should be all about. Do I believe that there should be rule changes for TV? Yes, the only problem with the game of one pocket is formatting it for television. Possibly there will come a time when there's enough interest in our game for TV to show it in it's natural form, that would be the ultimate reward for the game and the players that play it.

There are many reasons why one pocket has grown in popularity, our game is hands down the best pool game played on a table with pockets...why change it:frus There's an art to every facet of the game, which is evidenced in the popularity of our WWYD threads. It doesn't matter what type of shot or situation we're discussing..following the break...escaping a trap...up-table play...debating strategy..ect. ect. When it comes down to it, it's a lot about maneuvering and out-maneuvering your opponent, and that's one of the most satisfying things about any game, and playing one pocket it happens alot.

As the great Efryn Reyes would say "I GOT LUCKY" After a perfectly played game of one pocket. Maneuveringly lucky.

Dr. Bill
Dr. Bill

Certainly no disrespect meant in what I am about to say. You are one of my favorite players, and I enjoy your work as a commentator alot.

Have you read your post on the previous thread that started this discussion, post #1 on 7/29, I wish I could show it here, but being technically challenged I cannot. You all will just have to go back and read it if you care to.

In that post you offered a rule change that said that any three fouls at any time should end the game. You said that this rule would change strategic play and change the game. You said that intentional fouls would be discouraged, and implied that this was a good thing.

You made no mention of limiting this new rule to TV. You did invite other ideas for consideration.

Do you consider your suggestion an attack on one pocket? I doubt it.

The problem with whats been happening here is that those who are offering new ideas are made out to be "attackers" of the game, in spite of our saying the we love the game and are content to play it just as it is if no changes are considered.

As an aside, in light of your suggested rule change, and your comments in that post regarding intentional fouls, I would be interested in your expanding a little bit on the role of intentional fouls, the penalty for all fouls, good, bad, whatever?

Please respond seriously to this, I value your opinion.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,413
Dr. Bill

Certainly no disrespect meant in what I am about to say. You are one of my favorite players, and I enjoy your work as a commentator alot.

Have you read your post on the previous thread that started this discussion, post #1 on 7/29, I wish I could show it here, but being technically challenged I cannot. You all will just have to go back and read it if you care to.

In that post you offered a rule change that said that any three fouls at any time should end the game. You said that this rule would change strategic play and change the game. You said that intentional fouls would be discouraged, and implied that this was a good thing.

You made no mention of limiting this new rule to TV. You did invite other ideas for consideration.

Do you consider your suggestion an attack on one pocket? I doubt it.

The problem with whats been happening here is that those who are offering new ideas are made out to be "attackers" of the game, in spite of our saying the we love the game and are content to play it just as it is if no changes are considered.

As an aside, in light of your suggested rule change, and your comments in that post regarding intentional fouls, I would be interested in your expanding a little bit on the role of intentional fouls, the penalty for all fouls, good, bad, whatever?

#1 Report Post
Old 07-28-2013, 11:56 PM
wincardona wincardona is online now
Verified Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas Tx.
Posts: 3,800
Default One Pocket rule change
lfigueroa on AZB suggested that there should be some rule changes to speed up the game. He suggested that the three foul rule should be modified to a 'two foul rule' loss of game. He also suggested that there should be a 35 or 45 second shot clock put into effect. Others suggested that the play of the game should be altered, such as balls in the kitchen being re-spotted ect.ect.


I don't agree with altering the play of the game, one pocket is the most interesting game in the world, all games included. As far as the three foul rule goes, yes that could be modified. I have a suggestion on a rule change that would not only speed up the game, it would also apply more pressure to the game which would possibly make the game more exciting and interesting. I propose it's an automatic loss of game whenever a player accumulates three fouls, regardless of when they happen. This rule will challenge strategy, particularly in the 'intentional fouling' part of the game. It wouldn't necessarily omit the intentional foul but it would certainly put a higher price on choosing that option.Also there will be more suspense whenever either player is on two fouls...talk about heart break talk about tough losses However, the good thing is, it can go either way.


Does anyone have a suggestion on rule changes? Like to hear some.

Bill Incardona
Please respond seriously to this, I value your opinion.
I feel the way the intentional foul rule is played it's fair for all players in a tournament format. The intentional foul is designed to be a strategic option to try to gain an advantage or to disrupt the momentum of your opponent. Rules are designed the fairest way to give all players the same chance of winning, the're not designed to give the best players an edge. However, when gambling if you feel that a specific rule is unfair..for what ever reason...it should be negotiable and it's up to the players competing to negotiate what ever rule change they feel is necessary to compete.

My suggestion with modifying the three foul rule to where three fouls is an automatic loss of game was for tournament play, however, you could also adopt the revised rule for match play as well. Imo the modification with the rule the way I explained it will not only speed up the game it will also add more suspense ...create more interesting strategy...and for the most part allow the game to be played as it was meant to be played.

There have been some interesting and viable suggestions in entertaining the thought about possible rule changes, only because the game is so great that a rule change probably wouldn't hurt it, but certainly not necessary. Imo, our game is so intriguing that we could modify it in one of many areas and still be left with the most entertaining and interesting game played on a table with pockets. If it ain't broke, no need to fix it. However, a little twist here or there just may not hurt, even if it's just for today. ;):D

Dr. Bill
 

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, on our Triple shim Gold crown, bring your money.:lol
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,994
Rule changes????

Darmoose, isn't it a okay that you have a good idea -- among other creative and good ideas that others have suggested -- but for each his own reasons maybe not everyone wants to buy in? Happens in all kinds of conversations about options. You should be proud you came up with the idea, and it has merit as an idea, but that doesn't mean I want to adopt the idea. It's not stubborn it's just a different opinion. couldn't one just as easily say you were stubborn to keep pushing it?

Maybe when I am back in the office at a real computer instead of my phone I can post a poll offering different choices for speed up ideas.

Shot clock
Limit balls in kitchen
Bigger pockets
Shorter counts
Rack fewer balls
Score a ball for the opponent for a foul
Add a penalty for two consecutive fouls
Limit total fouls in a game
Balls pocketed from the kitchen count extra


What did I miss or misrepresent?
 

Billy Jackets

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
1,505
I enjoy watching the moving game between good players more than the shooting.
There is room for abuse with intentional fouls , but how much of it has anyone actually seen?
I am against most changes to the game, but I do think it would not hurt the integrity of the game to limit intentional fouls in a game to a certain number.
There is a 3 foul in a row rule = loss of game.
Why not 3 intentional fouls in a game = loss of game.
That would allow a player to recover from a great shot, or a lucky roll and still have a chance.
More than that, seems like you are just staving off the inevitable.
Most of the thousands of games I have played and watched would not have been affected by this rule, but it would be in place to limit {possible} abuse.
 

frmn

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
144
I have a suggestion to speed up the tournament game. If a player takes longer than a minute to shoot, the incoming player gets to take a full baseball swing at the outgoing player. Just say NO to turtle onepocket!
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Darmoose, isn't it a okay that you have a good idea -- among other creative and good ideas that others have suggested -- but for each his own reasons maybe not everyone wants to buy in? Happens in all kinds of conversations about options. You should be proud you came up with the idea, and it has merit as an idea, but that doesn't mean I want to adopt the idea. It's not stubborn it's just a different opinion. couldn't one just as easily say you were stubborn to keep pushing it?

Maybe when I am back in the office at a real computer instead of my phone I can post a poll offering different choices for speed up ideas.

Shot clock
Limit balls in kitchen
Bigger pockets /Not always an option :(
Shorter counts
Rack fewer balls
Score a ball for the opponent for a foul
Add a penalty for two consecutive fouls
Limit total fouls in a game
Balls pocketed from the kitchen count extra


What did I miss or misrepresent?
I think your poll is a good idea Steve. I will start one. And, all your points were taken and I will try to be better about it myself. If I may though, sometimes it is tough to get an idea across on here without being attacked, so one tends to attack back. Anyway, I personally don't like many of the options you listed above; if somebody else wants to create their own poll, I would welcome them of course. We'l see how it goes :)

Best
 
Last edited:
Top