Updating of our One Pocket rules

[baby huey]

Thx Whitey for bringing up my comments re: how many balls must touch a rail on the break. My purpose for bringing this up is solely to speed up the game. We have agonized for years on ways to speed up the game and when only one object ball, let's say, touches a rail the rack is completely compressed and there will be many innings wasted to open the rack up thus creating a situation where the game will most certainly take a long time to play. There will be no run outs from this situation and it'll be bunt bunt bunt until the rack gets open.

 

[unoperro]

Thx Whitey for bringing up my comments re: how many balls must touch a rail on the break. My purpose for bringing this up is solely to speed up the game. We have agonized for years on ways to speed up the game and when only one object ball, let's say, touches a rail the rack is completely compressed and there will be many innings wasted to open the rack up thus creating a situation where the game will most certainly take a long time to play. There will be no run outs from this situation and it'll be bunt bunt bunt until the rack gets open.

There are often dead or close to dead balls in a stack and reading the stack is part of the game.

I only see arguments over 2 balls made it to a rail.

 

[gulfportdoc]

"2 balls to the rail" can mean an OB and the CB, right? It can also mean 2 OBs.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Thx Whitey for bringing up my comments re: how many balls must touch a rail on the break. My purpose for bringing this up is solely to speed up the game. We have agonized for years on ways to speed up the game and when only one object ball, let's say, touches a rail the rack is completely compressed and there will be many innings wasted to open the rack up thus creating a situation where the game will most certainly take a long time to play. There will be no run outs from this situation and it'll be bunt bunt bunt until the rack gets open.

You are welcome! I was talking to an older gentlemen pool player, that really enjoys playing pool in his retirement, and he is a pretty good stick.
I asked him if he played OP, and he said he'd like to learn, but I just can not see investing a half hour or so in one game of pool. He plays mainly in pool rooms

I have been thinking for pool rooms only then some form of express OP would be good for growing the game and for pool room patronage. But when you think about how many games per hr/table time a beginner or novice player would play in an hour when what they mainly do is knock balls up table it then is hard to compete with 8 & 9 ball.

No uproar please from members, for I am not talking about tournaments or our rules, but pool room house rules, to encourage players to take up OP.
Whitey

 

[beatle]

two balls is ridiculous. you are changing the game. to suit certain people.
by the way i am surprised jerry is the one proposing this to speed up the game, as he is one of the slowest players there is, except for artie.

 

[darmoose]

Whitey,

If I were going to suggest a game to teach beginners about one pocket, a game that moved fast to give them many games per hour, a game that would teach them all the shots as well as controlling the CB, I would explain one ball one pocket to them.

 

[lll]

Whitey,

If I were going to suggest a game to teach beginners about one pocket, a game that moved fast to give them many games per hour, a game that would teach them all the shots as well as controlling the CB, I would explain one ball one pocket to them.

i would also try back pocket 9 ball as an easy entry for 9 ball players to one pocket

 

[OldSchool]

If you make the two balls have to hit a rail break with only one exception
then you remove the break where you hit the Apex ball and freeze on it
Sending the corner ball toward your pocket
If you were going to allow the rail first break
you should allow this one too
therefore if you leave the rule the way it is
that only one ball has to hit a rail
there is no need for exceptions
Jmho

Absolutely correct Larry.

 

[OldSchool]

two balls is ridiculous. you are changing the game. to suit certain people.
by the way i am surprised jerry is the one proposing this to speed up the game, as he is one of the slowest players there is, except for artie.

 

[vapros]

My initial reaction is that one-pocket is unique - it is what it is and it's not for everybody. I know that isn't what you had in mind, Whitey, so I'll try again. Suggest a hybrid game - two-pocket. Give each player a corner pocket and a side pocket. That would speed up the game in several ways - let's talk about it.

 

[NH Steve]

The rules update that we have pretty much finalized, is not intended to change the game -- it is to clean up the writing and add only those "new" details if --BIG IF-- they are sufficiently popular at a grass roots level already, so we know for a fact they are good rules that most players prefer once they have been introduced to them. Maybe not all players, because One pocket seems to be a game that everyone has their preferences -- especially when it comes to money, as it often does.

I do like rhetorically thinking about creative alternatives that might make the game more fun to watch or play for those without the constitution for traditional One Pocket. Or do I, if I actually think about who that might attract to the game lol

 

[gulfportdoc]

There might be a danger in having two sets of rules-- the second being a rules set that would speed up the game for use in attracting new players. The tendency would be to gravitate toward the speeded-up rules. Look what happened to 9ball. Shoot out was a great game, then they came up with Texas express to speed up the game. Now that's the only way it's played. Similarly in bank pool, 15 ball banks was a great game with similarities to 1P; but then they started playing 9 ball banks, which shortened the game, but took much of the character of the game with it. Now 9 ball banks is all that's played in tournaments.

One-pocket has been steadily gaining in popularity, which makes it questionable if we need an additional rule set for faster play.

 

[darmoose]

The rules update that we have pretty much finalized, is not intended to change the game -- it is to clean up the writing and add only those "new" details if --BIG IF-- they are sufficiently popular at a grass roots level already, so we know for a fact they are good rules that most players prefer once they have been introduced to them. Maybe not all players, because One pocket seems to be a game that everyone has their preferences -- especially when it comes to money, as it often does.

I do like rhetorically thinking about creative alternatives that might make the game more fun to watch or play for those without the constitution for traditional One Pocket. Or do I, if I actually think about who that might attract to the game lol

Appears that these eight pages of comments from the only "official" rule writing OP organization on the planet have been for naught. It says up above that new rules or details are to be sufficiently popular at the grass roots level to be promulgated "officially". The vast majority, about 72% of our members almost always play "edge of ball", and yet we are writing a rule (2.5) promulgating "base of ball".

We didn't take a pole on this, but I would bet that the vast majority of players send the CB and an OB to the rail on the break. And yet our rules only require ONE ball go to the rail. This is a rule that is unique to OP, meaning it is not influenced by any other games rules, so why? Where is the grass root popularity for this rule?

We are writing rules that are arguably none of our business. In my own experience, I almost never "lag for the break", flipping a coin is far more popular, but neither belong in "the rules".

We are trying to dictate what happens depending on who racks. We are even trying to get into the negotiations between players when handicapping. What business is it of ours whether breakers "alternate" pockets or not? As I have previously said, I don't see those kinds of rules either in the general rules of pool (WPA) or in individual specific games rules like nineball.

Do our rules need to give room owners permission to prohibit jumping balls off the table? I don't think so, any more than we need to tell players they need to abide by local room owners local rules.

We all know from experience that gamblers are free to do anything they agree to, and TD's will change rules to benefit their pocket books, no matter our rules. We would be better served to stay out of decision making in specific venues and simply write rules for everyday play. To be clear, what is decided before the opening shot is not our business. We have two "experts" who have served on the rules committee who openly disagree with various of our suggested rules. I have to wonder what that says, if anything?

There is soo much to digest here, and I have to admit to being to lazy to go back and reread all, so I will close with just a few questions.The opening paragraph of this thread invites comments and suggestions and promises a vote to come. Are we to vote on these rules in their entirety and to what end? Have any suggestions made here by our membership been incorporated?

Remember..........."KISS"..........and............"less is more"......are memorable for a reason.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Darmoose,
I have never disagreed with any of the suggestions or comments made here, I do feel I right to do so, plus I would not want to influence the suggestions. We are good, but I object to being indiscriminately grouped into that notion. In fact, and I stated this that I am recording the suggestions for further review, and I even went as far as inserting them into the rules to see how they read and to get a better comparison upon the intent, and yes I have noted your suggestions.
We have not as of yet re-started deliberations, and I expect that will start after Steve has reviewed these suggestions and when these polls are finalized.
I do appreciate the fact that Steve has opened up the rules to be reviewed by the members, and also in doing the polls to see where members lie in regards to ball in hand behind the line, and which break they prefer. He did not have to do this for the members.
Steve, does follow the rule ? threads, and takes note! Many of what is in these rules transpired from these threads.

OP.org has to make rules, otherwise others will make the rules for you. For example: Do want to follow a DCC rule where you elevate the cue and then a foul is legal! We have not totally addressed this as of yet, but we might!

respectfully, Whitey

 

[NH Steve]

darmoose — that’s why we’re having these conversations — and polls

And only one ball hitting a rail on the break is as old as One Pocket rules are — that is nothing new. To change the rule to two balls would be new though.

 

[lfigueroa]

I run into the soft break against the head ball up in Chicago.

If I recall correctly Piggy likes to shoot it.

Lou Figueroa

 

[NH Steve]

I run into the soft break against the head ball up in Chicago.

If I recall correctly Piggy likes to shoot it.

Lou Figueroa

I’ve seen Ike use it.

 

[atmeddy]

One heck of a lot of work and very much appreciated.

The rules all make good "one pocket" sense. However, there are few grammatical errors including some run-on sentences that should be corrected.

Great job!

 

[darmoose]

Darmoose,
I have never disagreed with any of the suggestions or comments made here, I do feel I right to do so, plus I would not want to influence the suggestions. We are good, but I object to being indiscriminately grouped into that notion. In fact, and I stated this that I am recording the suggestions for further review, and I even went as far as inserting them into the rules to see how they read and to get a better comparison upon the intent, and yes I have noted your suggestions.
We have not as of yet re-started deliberations, and I expect that will start after Steve has reviewed these suggestions and when these polls are finalized.
I do appreciate the fact that Steve has opened up the rules to be reviewed by the members, and also in doing the polls to see where members lie in regards to ball in hand behind the line, and which break they prefer. He did not have to do this for the members.
Steve, does follow the rule ? threads, and takes note! Many of what is in these rules transpired from these threads.

OP.org has to make rules, otherwise others will make the rules for you. For example: Do want to follow a DCC rule where you elevate the cue and then a foul is legal! We have not totally addressed this as of yet, but we might!

respectfully, Whitey

Whitey.......

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. I did not say that you or Bob were in disagreement with any of the suggestions/comments made by any members here in this thread, but rather that there was disagreement with the rules that Steve has put forward here as being "pretty much finalized". You seem to be expecting further deliberations between you, Steve, and Bob, so perhaps I took Steve's pronouncing these rules "pretty much finalized" more literally than intended. If so, please excuse me.

My comments are more about consistency and necessity than anything else. For example, keeping in mind the desire to promulgate rules that are supported by grass roots popularity, we are considering a rule for reracking when a ball is made on the break (a definite significant departure from existing rules), and yet even though our membership has affirmed by about a 72% majority that we play "edge of ball", there has yet to be any acknowledgement that we might change this rule. Likewise for the one or two balls to the rail rule, the vast majority play two balls to the rail, yet our existing rule requires only a single ball to the rail, accommodating who or why, I am not sure?

 

[darmoose]

darmoose — that’s why we’re having these conversations — and polls

And only one ball hitting a rail on the break is as old as One Pocket rules are — that is nothing new. To change the rule to two balls would be new though.

Well.......that settles that...........couldn't possibly change that rule..........we'll just ignore it, and play the two balls to the rail as most of us do....



I took your earlier statement about having these rules pretty much finalized literally, my bad.............can't wait to see what makes the cut...