lll
Verified Member
thanks for the reply 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.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
Ok, it then sounds good to go!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.
Well saidwhen 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.
Thank you doc!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 docSteve, 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!
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.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
I am not in favor of BIH except for pocket scratches and CB off the table.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