Official OnePocket.org Rules Poll revised

Should we adopt these rules as Official One Pocket Rules

  • Yes, adopt these rules as written

    Votes: 26 92.9%
  • No, these rules need more work

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Does "can be" mean it must be, or is somebody's option. Shouldn't it say it is to be.........
"If it is possible to restore the balls, then the foul may be penalized (a) as a standard foul, with opponent's option of restoration."

There might be other factors involved, such as an intentional move -- or -- use your imagination. We kept this section fairly simple -- there is still leeway for officials (or players) to make adjustments based on other factors.

It is still a big improvement over our 2005 section that addresses this sort of thing (highlighted in red here):

6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
This is all very confusing. Is Whitey's post #53 citing of OP.org rule 6.7 since 2005 correct, so that now we are actually changing the rule? :unsure:
This is the new. The first two sentences are the same I believe.

6.7 Spotting balls: It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes. It shall be a foul for the incoming shooter to accidentally touch an object ball while placing the cue ball in a ball in hand situation. The outgoing player is responsible for spotting ball(s) at the end of their inning. Both players have the right to approve the exact spot prior to resuming play, and if the players themselves cannot agree on the spot, then they have to get someone else to spot the ball. Once play has resumed, a ball cannot be re-spotted unless both players agree.​

The 2005:

6.7 It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes. It shall be a foul for the incoming shooter to accidentally touch an object ball with the cue ball while placing it in a ball in hand situation.​
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
I want to thank those that support the spotting rules. Darmoose, 12 sguared, Larry, Dr. Bill, Baby Huey, and others I might of missed. When I did a thread on JJ's rule, there were many favorable comments.
I wish Steve would let the comments play out, instead of stating that he will never adopt the spotting rules. This stymied what otherwise was a good discussion.
I am done posting on spotting as long as there is no misinformation stated about the rule or about me. I am not going to discuss any other rules.
At least you guys had something to talk about, that is actually a little exciting to think about. Escaping within the stack through a good rule, very exciting.
Carry on gentlemen! Whitey
We discussed both those ideas in our rules committee multiple times over the last 20 months. They did not pass, and you accepted that in committee. But for some reason you just cannot seem to give it up now, with the closing of our re-write. Sorry. You contributed a lot of good ideas to these new rules -- please don't ruin that now just because some of your ideas did not pass. And especially do not make false claims that you didn't have a chance to bring these ideas up. 20 months -- and you absolutely brought up every idea you could imagine, and I truly appreciate that. Even though it made the rule writing a lot tougher, the rules are indeed better because of all your energy regarding rules. That I appreciate. An 11th hour plug for a couple of your pet favorites that did not pass, I do not appreciate.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
This is the new. The first two sentences are the same I believe.

6.7 Spotting balls: It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes. It shall be a foul for the incoming shooter to accidentally touch an object ball while placing the cue ball in a ball in hand situation. The outgoing player is responsible for spotting ball(s) at the end of their inning. Both players have the right to approve the exact spot prior to resuming play, and if the players themselves cannot agree on the spot, then they have to get someone else to spot the ball. Once play has resumed, a ball cannot be re-spotted unless both players agree.​

The 2005:

6.7 It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes. It shall be a foul for the incoming shooter to accidentally touch an object ball with the cue ball while placing it in a ball in hand situation.​
6.1 "It is always a foul to disturb the CB".............. :unsure:
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
6.1 "It is always a foul to disturb the CB".............. :unsure:

Yes, if you were not such a contrarian it would be pretty obvious that is why under 6.7 we have to say, it is not a foul to disturb the cue ball when the player is essentially acting in the function of the referee -- i.e. performing their duties of spotting a ball and clearing a pocket. Even spotting a ball as near as possible to the cue ball, it is possible to accidentally bump the cue ball once in a while. At least it is not every time you spot, if you were to try to freeze the object ball to the cue ball.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
Yes, if you were not such a contrarian it would be pretty obvious that is why under 6.7 we have to say, it is not a foul to disturb the cue ball when the player is essentially acting in the function of the referee -- i.e. performing their duties of spotting a ball and clearing a pocket. Even spotting a ball as near as possible to the cue ball, it is possible to accidentally bump the cue ball once in a while. At least it is not every time you spot, if you were to try to freeze the object ball to the cue ball.
Steve
i acknowledge your decision that spotting a ball frozen to the cue ball is never going to make it into the rules
defending your decision because the cue ball might get nudged a smidgeon is very weak in my opinion
that smidgeon will not be significant to affect available options
the object ball that another object ball gets frozen to also probably moves a smidgeon
that has never been a big deal
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
steve
have you decided what will be in the rules regarding scratching when making a ball in your pocket at the same time
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
steve
have you decided what will be in the rules regarding scratching when making a ball in your pocket at the same time
I thought I already explained that. The re-rack on a made ball is an OPTIONAL RULE -- not traditional One Pocket. Players have different opinions as to whether to re-break or not if there was also a scratch. Because it is an optional rule, I AM NOT GOING TO DECIDE FOR PLAYERS OR TD's, how they wish to utilize an optional rule that is not traditional One Pocket. Because it is an optional rule, players or TD's would have to declare, announce, or discuss how they want to play with any kind of optional rule -- not just this one. The traditional rules are clearly defined in our rules, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a single set of rules to fully define every doggone option players or TD's want to go with. It would be like herding cats.

The last time we voted, we tried a clear lineal rule approach, with what I thought was a very clever idea to cover both playing on and re-breaking -- if you rack for your opponent (or a neutral racker), then you play traditional One Pocket; but if you rack your own, it is re-rack on the break (and we specified no re-break if there was a scratch there). But way too many players had contrary opinions, so we went back to "Traditional One Pocket" as the base line, and anything at all to do with re-breaking in these rules is totally an "option". For options, sorry larry, you have to decide yourself how you are going to play, with your opponent, if you do not want to play traditional One Pocket :)

That is the same rational as to why we removed from the rules that if a player is getting spotted the break, they should alternate pockets.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Steve
i acknowledge your decision that spotting a ball frozen to the cue ball is never going to make it into the rules
defending your decision because the cue ball might get nudged a smidgeon is very weak in my opinion
that smidgeon will not be significant to affect available options
the object ball that another object ball gets frozen to also probably moves a smidgeon
that has never been a big deal
Funny, how in a game of millimeters, all of a sudden a smidgeon does not matter to you. I call baloney larry. Don't forget, it is quite possible that on the other side of where the cue ball sits along the spotting line, there are other object balls -- possibly VERY close to the cue ball -- where even a smidgeon of air is all you need to get to where you want to go with the cue ball to escape the trap your opponent may have very cleverly put you in.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
Yes, if you were not such a contrarian it would be pretty obvious that is why under 6.7 we have to say, it is not a foul to disturb the cue ball when the player is essentially acting in the function of the referee -- i.e. performing their duties of spotting a ball and clearing a pocket. Even spotting a ball as near as possible to the cue ball, it is possible to accidentally bump the cue ball once in a while. At least it is not every time you spot, if you were to try to freeze the object ball to the cue ball.
I am a contrarian and Dennis is locked into his pet peeves, and so can't understand your impeccable logic, and lll is full of boloney?

Can't imagine why you must resort to name calling when asked a simple question. Seems you are done with this poll and comments, when it was supposed to run til 10/9/21 I believe.

It is a simple fix to clarify that it is not always a foul to disturb the CB. You should try to understand that when disagreements come up between players, one player will point to or quote a rule such as 6.1 or 6.7 and unless the opponent has a smart phone or a rule book at hand there ensues a misinterpretation of the rules. Rules should never be at odds with each other, surely you get that.

Perhaps you just need to call this thread over and get on with publishing your new rules....... :)
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
I am a contrarian and Dennis is locked into his pet peeves, and so can't understand your impeccable logic, and lll is full of boloney?

Can't imagine why you must resort to name calling when asked a simple question. Seems you are done with this poll and comments, when it was supposed to run til 10/9/21 I believe.

It is a simple fix to clarify that it is not always a foul to disturb the CB. You should try to understand that when disagreements come up between players, one player will point to or quote a rule such as 6.1 or 6.7 and unless the opponent has a smart phone or a rule book at hand there ensues a misinterpretation of the rules. Rules should never be at odds with each other, surely you get that.

Perhaps you just need to call this thread over and get on with publishing your new rules....... :)
No, I believe we need some more redundant questions, and some more nitpicking of things that have been in our rules since 2005 -- which never seemed to be an issue before but suddenly.... :LOL::LOL:

But yes, gee whiz, can you tell I am getting a little frustrated?
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
I thought I already explained that. The re-rack on a made ball is an OPTIONAL RULE -- not traditional One Pocket. Players have different opinions as to whether to re-break or not if there was also a scratch. Because it is an optional rule, I AM NOT GOING TO DECIDE FOR PLAYERS OR TD's, how they wish to utilize an optional rule that is not traditional One Pocket. Because it is an optional rule, players or TD's would have to declare, announce, or discuss how they want to play with any kind of optional rule -- not just this one. The traditional rules are clearly defined in our rules, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a single set of rules to fully define every doggone option players or TD's want to go with. It would be like herding cats.

The last time we voted, we tried a clear lineal rule approach, with what I thought was a very clever idea to cover both playing on and re-breaking -- if you rack for your opponent (or a neutral racker), then you play traditional One Pocket; but if you rack your own, it is re-rack on the break (and we specified no re-break if there was a scratch there). But way too many players had contrary opinions, so we went back to "Traditional One Pocket" as the base line, and anything at all to do with re-breaking in these rules is totally an "option". For options, sorry larry, you have to decide yourself how you are going to play, with your opponent, if you do not want to play traditional One Pocket :)

That is the same rational as to why we removed from the rules that if a player is getting spotted the break, they should alternate pockets.
Thanks for the reply steve
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
No, I believe we need some more redundant questions, and some more nitpicking of things that have been in our rules since 2005 -- which never seemed to be an issue before but suddenly.... :LOL::LOL:

But yes, gee whiz, can you tell I am getting a little frustrated?
I hadn't noticed that....seem your usual self.........(just a joke Steve)..... 🤪 :D:D.......

On a serious note...I just don't care for adding another BIH/BTL to the game, and while I know it will be rare, I would like it to be very clear, so it can't be abused, sorry.

I also think rules must be cohesive and non contradicting, thus you could say in 6.1..."except for as described in 6.7, it is always a foul to disturb the CB"...........to quote my friend Larry.......just saying.

Lastly......I do not see any reference to a player acting as a referee in 6.7 ?

Over and out..
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Lastly......I do not see any reference to a player acting as a referee in 6.7 ?
darmoose darmoose — spotting balls and clearing pockets would be referee tasks in a refereed match. The rules are up in the first three posts — but when you have a question, then I am probably going to paraphrase a little so maybe you understand better in slightly different words.
 

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,950
Sorry guys, I kinda stayed away during my recovery period then was vacationing with my wife and now I'm back. The rules are fine with me. Previously I did express my belief that at least two balls needed to touch a rail on the opening break to be legal but OK that didn't fly anywhere. I think its 6.6.1 "Illegal Technique" I'd like to respond. IMO its "UNSPORTSMENLIKE CONDUCT." This should cover a range of issues from Illegal Shots to Behavorial Conduct. This would include but not limited to: Sharking, stealing balls, repeated failure to acknowledge fouls, repeated failure to pay owed balls, threatening a player, fighting and the list can go on and on. What I'm saying is we want professional players in our midst and that they conduct themselves appropriately. I think there needs to be a rule where the Tournament Director can discipline a player anywhere from fouls, loss of game and expell him from the event for what I'll call Bad Behavior. This has happened before with a couple of really top players who behaved so poorly that they now cannot get into events or represent us in International Tournaments. We all know who they are. By having a written rule, this allows the TD to take action that has backup to his decision{s} if and when a player may have to be forefited out of an event. We don't need arbituary decisions but we do need appropriate action when the situation requires it.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
in most tournaments the director can do what he wants to punish a player. and it is as should be.
you sign up for that when you play. and its his job to interpret the rules as he sees them. what he can do is not the job of the playing rule book.
 
Top