Official OnePocket.org Rules Poll

[lll]

thanks for the reply whitey

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Steve,
I just noticed something in reviewing the text.
6.4 Owing balls:
The italicized statement starting with; Owed scratches
Does this to you as it does for me seem more commonly recognized as standard play in OP, and not an alternative suggestive play. Do you agree, and thus it should not be italicized, but become part of the standard rule.

Even I, that has gone over this a million times, did not notice this before, better late than never, if I am correct about this. LOL!

Also,
In reviewing 9.2 there is a correlation between that and 9.4 in respect for when no balls remain on the table and the game is still in progress.
If a player has this come up and reviews 9.2 for the answer they then might not realize that in this instance also Forgotten Balls are also immediately spotted, which is covered in 9.4.
So should 9.2 get a 'Ref. 9.4' so this correlation is made for players when reviewing how to proceed when no balls remain on the table but yet the game has not yet been decided.

thanks, Whitey

 

[NH Steve]

Steve,
I just noticed something in reviewing the text.
6.4 Owing balls:
The italicized statement starting with; Owed scratches
Does this to you as it does for me seem more commonly recognized as standard play in OP, and not an alternative suggestive play. Do you agree, and thus it should not be italicized, but become part of the standard rule.

Even I, that has gone over this a million times, did not notice this before, better late than never, if I am correct about this. LOL!

Also,
In reviewing 9.2 there is a correlation between that and 9.4 in respect for when no balls remain on the table and the game is still in progress.
If a player has this come up and reviews 9.2 for the answer they then might not realize that in this instance also Forgotten Balls are also immediately spotted, which is covered in 9.4.
So should 9.2 get a 'Ref. 9.4' so this correlation is made for players when reviewing how to proceed when no balls remain on the table but yet the game has not yet been decided.

thanks, Whitey

Thank you Dennis. Some people use only one coin and move it along the diamonds to indicate more than one ball owed. I don’t think there is any reason to elevate coin placement to a hard and fast rule.

I’m not sure I follow your concern about 9.2 and 9.4 — one deals with spotting balls in the flow of the game and the other specifically deals with “forgotten balls”. I don’t see how they need a cross reference.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Thank you Dennis. Some people use only one coin and move it along the diamonds to indicate more than one ball owed. I don’t think there is any reason to elevate coin placement to a hard and fast rule.

I’m not sure I follow your concern about 9.2 and 9.4 — one deals with spotting balls in the flow of the game and the other specifically deals with “forgotten balls”. I don’t see how they need a cross reference.

Ok, it then sounds good to go!
Whitey

 

[beatle]

when you write a rule book look at it from two points of view of understanding it.

one,, from a beginner or newby to the game. and how he can understand it knowing that he really doesnt understand the game yet.

two,,, from good players that want to use what is said and how they can interpret that to their advantage.

 

[NH Steve]

when you write a rule book look at it from two points of view of understanding it.

one,, from a beginner or newby to the game. and how he can understand it knowing that he really doesnt understand the game yet.

two,,, from good players that want to use what is said and how they can interpret that to their advantage.

Well said

 

[Scrzbill]

Forget it. I am, not playing without the ability to make a ball on the break. That is not a “one pocket rule” but a bullshit bunch of bullshit.

 

[Scrzbill]

Where is the rule pertaining to vaccination passports?

 

[KevinMcLaughlin]

Thanks for all of your work on reworking the rules of one pocket!

 

[levartze]

Thank you Steve!

 

[gulfportdoc]

Steve, Whitey, and Bob J. spent a lot of time and thought on consolidating rules for one-pocket to be used as a source for serious one-pocket players and tournament directors. It was an Herculean effort, which has produced a fine set of rules for those who want to use them. Congratulations, men!

 

[NH Steve]

Steve, Whitey, and Bob J. spent a lot of time and thought on consolidating rules for one-pocket to be used as a source for serious one-pocket players and tournament directors. It was an Herculean effort, which has produced a fine set of rules for those who want to use them. Congratulations, men!

Thank you doc!

 

[lll]

Steve, Whitey, and Bob J. spent a lot of time and thought on consolidating rules for one-pocket to be used as a source for serious one-pocket players and tournament directors. It was an Herculean effort, which has produced a fine set of rules for those who want to use them. Congratulations, men!

i agree doc
thanks guys

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

The rules as you see them here was an arduous adventure that took many turns, for it started as an effort to appease everyone and not standardizing rules, so it was on track with a huge amount of alternative rules, which were riddling the standard rules. The rules and the committee itself were in peril, and I absolutely quit twice, lol! We then took a 3 month break.

Steve came back with a new mindset and he eliminated most of the alternative rules and the standard rules started taking form.
His intuitiveness impressed me, for he then did the polls on the break and whole ball, of which he then could finish the break section with 2.3 Ball Pocketed on the Break. Which is all his, with no other input, which is brilliant how he tied it all together.

The Poll led to the completion of BIH-BTL for the whole ball could now be implemented in. This is a historical great rule that we all grew playing by, and I am incredibly pleased that it got into the rules.

When we started working on 6.1 Cue ball foul only, Steve’s intuitiveness once again impressed me, for right away he realized that if two balls were not allowed to be restored then it could leave room for a move. And he is right and that is how it got adopted.

Steve and I did not like a legal shot that could be obtained by dribbling along the rail, so he implemented the wording into 8. Frozen to off set it, for it just did not work for OP.

My close proximity - foul criteria, had 6 disciplines, Steve liked it, but he tried to put it into one paragraph, and I felt he was butchering it, but I took a hard look at what he had, and I then came back to the table and we worked through it. This rule represents a step for rules to get out of the stone age and bring rules into the 21st century. There is much more to be done in this endeavor, but at least this is a start. He is the first governing body to step up and accept this rule advancement. He has my great respect for doing this!

Steve even started liking some of my writings and therefore I do have some wording and sentences in the rules. 2.4 BIH-BTL is my writing except for Steve’s added first sentence declaring BIH is always BIH-BTL in OP. So I am especially proud of that and very appreciative of Steve for using some of my wording.

Player’s proper procedure became a standard. I am so glad Steve went this route, for I hate watching a match where each player is contacting the other’s scored balls and their coins. The masterful game of OP deserved better and it got it!

All in all I think the rules turned out exceptionally well, and exceeded my expectations. I, of course, and it is when know that I am in favor of what I consider a great historical rule of spotting a ball frozen to the cue ball, and I really like JJ’s spotting rule of spotting the ball closest to the head rail when all balls are BTL. But, even without those making it in the rules, and I give the rules a 100% rating!

The rule writing has been an arduous endeavor. I first started by asking of Dr. Bill if he thought it was illegal to shoot into two balls frozen somewhat in line with the cb, and he replied; "yes, for it illegally pushes the first ball through the 2nd ball", which is exactly as I viewed this illegal shot. Then I approached Steve about working on the rules, and so for me that started in Nov. of ‘17. The rule committee started in Jan. of 2020. 12 sections taking that long but looking back on it, it was well worth it. Like I stated; "I am very pleased how they turned out, and very appreciative of being part of their development"!
Whitey

 

[lll]

Thanks whitey and steve for all your work
I still have my reservations regarding the additional rules I mentioned above
but in spite of that
I voted yes today

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Thanks whitey and steve for all your work
I still have my reservations regarding the additional rules I mentioned above
but in spite of that
I voted yes today

Thanks Larry, I'll bring up this concern to Steve, and see where it goes from there. Steve has conveyed to me that the rules as of this point are not set in stone, so any suggestions, Steve would still consider. He has made a change thus far, and that is in grammar and italicizing a statement.
Whitey

 

[NH Steve]

I'm wondering if many who have viewed this thread are of the opinion that the vote result they see is OK by them, and therefore they do not need to actually vote themselves? Also I would like to echo Ratamon's question -- if you did vote no, what are your concerns? Not much is coming up, although I am aware there are plenty of players that do not like the idea of a ball made on the break not counting, and calling for a re-rack -- even if they rack their own.

 

[sorackem]

There is only one thing that I think could be made more clear, but it isn't significant enough to worry about.
That is the wording for when to spot slept balls; the 'after each player has shot once sentence'.
I like "after each player has completed an inning".

However - I voted to adopt.

That this was a lot of work and probably a good bit of stress is not lost on us. Thanks for all your work and willingness to get it done.

 

[lll]

i hate to be a devils advocate
but you have 19 people so far agreeing to changes in some rules that are not done throughout the world
i am referring to the optional ball in hand penalty for certain fouls.
i guess i am stubborn about this change

 

[darmoose]

i hate to be a devils advocate
but you have 19 people so far agreeing to changes in some rules that are not done throughout the world
i am referring to the optional ball in hand penalty for certain fouls.
i guess i am stubborn about this change

I am not in favor of BIH except for pocket scratches and CB off the table.