Why we need better One Pocket rules!

[NH Steve]

I just happened to read Mike Shamos's "You Make the Call" article in this month's Billiard Digest magazine. He illustrates a player breaking the balls, but hitting in such a way that:
Not a single object ball hits a rail
But a ball goes straight into the opponent's pocket -- not his own
The cue ball does hit a cushion


He points out that according to BCA One Pocket rules the ball counts for the opponent (which I agree with), but further more, it is a foul -- because, as the BCA rules state:

OPENING BREAK
Starting player must (1) legally pocket an object ball into his targeted pocket, or (2) cause the cue ball to contact an object ball and after contact, at least one object ball must contact a cushion. Failure to do so is a foul. Note: The cue ball does not have to strike a rail on the opening break.

I could be wrong of course, but I thought either an object ball or the cue ball could hit a rail to avoid a foul on the break in One Pocket, and in any case, I would consider a ball dropping in any pocket to be equivalent to hitting a rail...

What do you think?

[hemicudas]

I can't remember playing any other way than what you discribe, Steve.

[Pelican]

Steve, I know this is going to sound like I'm being a smart-butt but - you have to consider the source. The BCA does not even care to admit some of the great one pocket players to the HOF or for that matter even put them on a ballot. Therefore, who are they to say how the game should be played. To quote a very very fine fella I know, JMO ICBW!!!!!! ;)

[NH Steve]

Steve, I know this is going to sound like I'm being a smart-butt but - you have to consider the source. The BCA does not even care to admit some of the great one pocket players to the HOF or for that matter even put them on a ballot. Therefore, who are they to say how the game should be played. To quote a very very fine fella I know, JMO ICBW!!!!!! ;)You got that right, Pel! Even in the Jansco Brother's 1962 One Pocket rules, "4. On the "break", an object ball or the cue ball much touch a rail for a safety."
http://onepocket.org/ChalkUp1962.htm

[hemicudas]

You got that right, Pel! Even in the Jansco Brother's 1962 One Pocket rules, "4. On the "break", an object ball or the cue ball much touch a rail for a safety."
http://onepocket.org/ChalkUp1962.htmDitto that, Steve. It's like the BCA "Powers That Be" have chosen to ignore the One Pocket greats and are snubbing their noses at any one/org. that would recognize the accomplishments of such greats as, Grady, Ronnie, Red, Bugs and alike.

I liked watching, Eva Mataya play but, being politically correct, who in the world thinks she could beat any of the gentlemen just mentioned? Yet, the BCA sees fit to enshrine her in the HOF and ignore these gentlemen. The older these gentlemen get the younger the BCA selection committee gets. Thus, the less the chances of any induction into the HOF.

For that reasson and others, I thank you, Steve, for this site. With any luck we can enlighten the younger generation to the true greatness of these Legends.

[ajrack]

Who in the BCA front office plays one pocket?

[kollegedave]

Have you ever seen the kick break? In this break the cue ball becomes frozen to the stack, and therefore cannot get to a rail. However, various object balls may or may not reach a rail. B/c I have seen this break I was always under the assumption that if any ball (cue ball or object ball) hit a rail then the break was legal.


I just happened to read Mike Shamos's "You Make the Call" article in this month's Billiard Digest magazine. He illustrates a player breaking the balls, but hitting in such a way that:
Not a single object ball hits a rail
But a ball goes straight into the opponent's pocket -- not his own
The cue ball does hit a cushion


He points out that according to BCA One Pocket rules the ball counts for the opponent (which I agree with), but further more, it is a foul -- because, as the BCA rules state:

OPENING BREAK
Starting player must (1) legally pocket an object ball into his targeted pocket, or (2) cause the cue ball to contact an object ball and after contact, at least one object ball must contact a cushion. Failure to do so is a foul. Note: The cue ball does not have to strike a rail on the opening break.

I could be wrong of course, but I thought either an object ball or the cue ball could hit a rail to avoid a foul on the break in One Pocket, and in any case, I would consider a ball dropping in any pocket to be equivalent to hitting a rail...

What do you think?

[NH Steve]

Have you ever seen the kick break? In this break the cue ball becomes frozen to the stack, and therefore cannot get to a rail. However, various object balls may or may not reach a rail. B/c I have seen this break I was always under the assumption that if any ball (cue ball or object ball) hit a rail then the break was legal.Well maybe that's what's missing from the poll -- since I noticed one voter checked the "None of the above -- keep trying" option! I'm just guessing, but I'm wondering if they consider it a requirement for both an object ball and the cue ball to hit a rail after contacting the stack. I wonder if anyone else -- or that voter :) -- would venture a guess as to what option was lacking?

I have bumped into some people who were convinced that the rail first break wasn't legal, but I thought it was too...

Maybe admin can edit the poll :)

[gulfportdoc]

Well maybe that's what's missing from the poll -- since I noticed one voter checked the "None of the above -- keep trying" option! I'm just guessing, but I'm wondering if they consider it a requirement for both an object ball and the cue ball to hit a rail after contacting the stack. I wonder if anyone else -- or that voter :) -- would venture a guess as to what option was lacking?

I have bumped into some people who were convinced that the rail first break wasn't legal, but I thought it was too...

Maybe admin can edit the poll :)

Most guys I've ever played with and watched assume that SOMETHING must hit a rail after the CB touches the rack. Frankly I don't know how it would ever come up, except in the case of a miscue. What would happen then? Would the same rules apply as in straight pool?

The plot thickens--

Doc

[Richard S]

I agree with NH Steve regarding what constitutes a foul on the break. Actually, the break is just like any other shot. Since I was first exposed to this game around 1960, the rule has been that one must either drive an object ball into a rail or hit the rail with the cue ball after striking an object ball - not a complicated proposition.

I might have to go to Gulfport and have a high-level conference on this matter with the resident Doc at Jim Bob's.

Richard S

[NH Steve]

Most guys I've ever played with and watched assume that SOMETHING must hit a rail after the CB touches the rack. Frankly I don't know how it would ever come up, except in the case of a miscue. What would happen then? Would the same rules apply as in straight pool?

The plot thickens--

DocIn Mike Shamos's article, he describes a situation where the breaker actually gets confused and breaks toward the other man's pocket -- after he has designated the opposite one. :rolleyes:

To Mike's credit, he notes in the article "You Make the Call", that "It's looney, but according to the rules..." Of course, he is referencing the BCA rules, and therein lies the problem :)

[Pelican]

I liked watching, Eva Mataya play but, being politically correct, who in the world thinks she could beat any of the gentlemen just mentioned?

But $Bill, you do have to admit - she has a much nicer rack than they. ;)

Sorry admin, I'm a dirty old man. :eek:

[ajrack]

Back in the 80's, in the BCA book, the one pocket break shot rule was "you must drive an object ball to a rail, in addition to the cue ball"!!! I don't remember what year it was in the book, but I think it was put in because no one in the BCA liked the "kick break".
I spent many hours developing the "kick break" so I could get the cue ball to continue down the side of the rack and hit the end rail after the contact with the rack...I now can do it quite well ...so just keep changing the rules ... I always need more practice!

[gulfportdoc]

I agree with NH Steve regarding what constitutes a foul on the break. Actually, the break is just like any other shot. Since I was first exposed to this game around 1960, the rule has been that one must either drive an object ball into a rail or hit the rail with the cue ball after striking an object ball - not a complicated proposition.

I might have to go to Gulfport and have a high-level conference on this matter with the resident Doc at Jim Bob's.

Richard S

Right you are, Richard; and we'll have a lot of fun hashing it out! ;)
Talk with you soon--

Doc

[vagabond]

Any time the ball goes into a pocket ,the requirement of hitting the rail does not apply.BCA,PCA,CCA,KCA,APA,VNEA all know the game.Problem is :The framers of the rules do not have adequate skills in English language and do not have adequate capacity to consider the variables in framing the rules.This is causing confusion & arguments
BTW my skills in language are not adequate either.
vagabond

[SactownTom]

Any time the ball goes into a pocket ,the requirement of hitting the rail does not apply.BCA,PCA,CCA,KCA,APA,VNEA all know the game.Problem is :The framers of the rules do not have adequate skills in English language and do not have adequate capacity to consider the variables in framing the rules.This is causing confusion & arguments
BTW my skills in language are not adequate either.
vagabond

Vagabond,

Your statement is soo true.

Now that the BCA is dedicating itself to being a trade show org. maybe there will be a push to have a single set of rules.

Even the World Pool Association is just a reprint of the BCA rules of 2000. There isn't a 'rules committee', or if there is, it is brand new.

With all the different league orgs and tournament venues, there needs to be a single set of rules. The league Super Bowl isn't that far away, where APA, VNEA, TAP, BCA, Canadian leagues Champions come to see exactly who is the "Best". There has to be a single set of rules.

Joss, Viking, Peachaur and other sponsored regional tours need to have a single set of rules.


Any idea how to go about getting this accomplished?

[NH Steve]

<snip>
Any idea how to go about getting this accomplished?Well for One Pocket, we're doing it right here, right now! One thing that becomes clear once you start working is that there can be regional differences, and other times there are differences that have to do with tradition vs current practice. A great thing about the way we are doing this on OnePocket.org is that we've got both of those angles covered -- members from all over the country (& maybe a few from other countries!), plus we have both old timers and young players -- that's a big and diverse 'rules committee'!

What I am trying to do with our One Pocket rules is establish a standard based on the majority -- but include the most common variations as 'house rule' alternatives, clearly designated as such in the rules. That way if a wayward tourney director :) or room owner wishes to stick with their familiar variation, they can still use our rules -- they can simply indicate where they elect to go with one of the house variations...

[onepocket]

I have just closed this poll for voting, since it has been open for quite a while, and indeed the majority opinion is clear. The thread will remain open if anyone wishes to add commentary.

Please visit the final draft of proposed 'official' OnePocket.org One Pocket Rules: http://onepocket.org/one_pocket_pool_rules.htm

and consider expressing your opinion -- either for or against -- these proposed rules here:
http://onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=251

Thanks