Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why not all ball fouls all the time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why not all ball fouls all the time?

    Was watching the Snooker World Championship and got to thinking about why we don't use the all ball fouls rule more in the pool world.
    I've always thought it was a clumsy rule in our sport to just play cue ball fouls.
    If someone moves a ball bridging or taking a stroke, shrugging it off and telling them to put it back seems to take away from the seriousness of the game.
    Snooker is clearly a more respected cue sport; nuances like this I think are part of the reason.

    Aside from just the 'purity of the game' argument, it does have a huge impact as to what shots you shoot (and also requires more skill) if you're playing ABF's. You'd have to know your limitations, weigh more risks, and take shots accordingly.

    This past weekend I was watching Sky play a 9ball match against DeLuna at the Big Tyme tourney.
    DeLuna had maybe 4 balls left on the table and had a real tricky bridge over a ball, making the position play on this shot difficult as he needed to draw it some. He made the ball and got the draw he needed anyway, but subsequently moving the ball he was bridging over a few inches.
    He absolutely couldn't have gotten that position had he not hit that ball, but our rule says all Sky could do was leave it or put it back. Neither made a difference. Cost him that game and I think Sky lost that match, too. Actually I think this was the semi's. Sky was clearly peeved at the shot and the TD came over but there was nothing to be done.

    Sorry for the rant. I believe this is a flaw in our game. Others thoughts?

  • #2
    Well, all-ball touch fouls were the rule in straight pool, which I think made for a more exacting game. But I doubt that you'd get much favor for that in today's pool in general, and one-pocket in specific...

    ~Doc

    Comment


    • #3
      Special ability in avoiding touches is not something I admire. Whether I'm watching the best in the world or playing my weakest opponent, I don't want him punished for something that has no effect on the outcome of the shot, game or match.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sneakynito View Post
        Was watching the Snooker World Championship and got to thinking about why we don't use the all ball fouls rule more in the pool world.
        I've always thought it was a clumsy rule in our sport to just play cue ball fouls.
        If someone moves a ball bridging or taking a stroke, shrugging it off and telling them to put it back seems to take away from the seriousness of the game.
        Snooker is clearly a more respected cue sport; nuances like this I think are part of the reason.

        Aside from just the 'purity of the game' argument, it does have a huge impact as to what shots you shoot (and also requires more skill) if you're playing ABF's. You'd have to know your limitations, weigh more risks, and take shots accordingly.

        This past weekend I was watching Sky play a 9ball match against DeLuna at the Big Tyme tourney.
        DeLuna had maybe 4 balls left on the table and had a real tricky bridge over a ball, making the position play on this shot difficult as he needed to draw it some. He made the ball and got the draw he needed anyway, but subsequently moving the ball he was bridging over a few inches.
        He absolutely couldn't have gotten that position had he not hit that ball, but our rule says all Sky could do was leave it or put it back. Neither made a difference. Cost him that game and I think Sky lost that match, too. Actually I think this was the semi's. Sky was clearly peeved at the shot and the TD came over but there was nothing to be done.

        Sorry for the rant. I believe this is a flaw in our game. Others thoughts?
        Not until pro pool reaches the level of organization the Snooker World offers, will change happen. Till then rules will vacillate and change with the wind and the whim of the organizer/promoter/room owner of the event.
        Bill Meacham
        WBT
        www.worldbilliardtour.com
        no link....

        Comment


        • #5
          We do play a two ball foul and a foul if your errant cue ball crosses the path of the object ball. These days I shake too much for single ball foul.
          The DCC has some games that are no touch, I believe one is the bigfoot ten ball.
          Coyotes, Eagles, and Deer, oh my!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LSJohn View Post
            Special ability in avoiding touches is not something I admire. Whether I'm watching the best in the world or playing my weakest opponent, I don't want him punished for something that has no effect on the outcome of the shot, game or match.
            I specifically described an example that just occurred in a professional match where not avoiding the touch entirely affected the outcome of the game and match...


            Originally posted by gulfportdoc View Post
            Well, all-ball touch fouls were the rule in straight pool, which I think made for a more exacting game. But I doubt that you'd get much favor for that in today's pool in general, and one-pocket in specific...

            ~Doc
            Yes forgot to mention that about straight pool. Thanks Doc.
            Why do you say not much favor for one pocket specifically?
            In a game that relies so heavily on moving, intentional fouls, and safety play I think this has an even greater impact than in 8ball or rotation games.
            It just seems criminal to play a jam-up safety in the stack and have the incoming player not be required to execute with the necessary skill involved to get out of it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by sneakynito View Post
              I specifically described an example that just occurred in a professional match where not avoiding the touch entirely affected the outcome of the game and match...
              Yes, I saw it, and didn't mean to imply otherwise, just that I don't like it even if I benefit from it.

              Comment


              • #8
                for the sake of arguments, or rather, LESS arguments.
                Renegade

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LSJohn View Post
                  Special ability in avoiding touches is not something I admire. Whether I'm watching the best in the world or playing my weakest opponent, I don't want him punished for something that has no effect on the outcome of the shot, game or match.
                  THIS.^^
                  I agree.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Looks like I'm the huge minority on this one. Philistines!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sneakynito View Post
                      Philistines!
                      Whew!

                      I thought sure you were gonna call us Communists.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        the arguments reason is the big thing. if i am losing the game i can just tell him his shirt sleeve touched a ball and he owes one and i shoot.

                        so without a ref standing at the table it doesnt work in the real world.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That's one of those rules that really only well if you have a good ref at each table.
                          Just more hot air!


                          Sherm

                          Sherm Custom Cues
                          Cincinnati, Ohio

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            One touch warning; all shooting fouls

                            I've been suggesting a tighter way of calling fouls that does not go quite as far as all ball fouls. It's what I call "One touch warning; all ball fouls". The way I see it working is that to touch a ball or balls while you are setting up your bridge or performing warm up strokes, you get a warning, and you have to stop prior to shooting to give a chance for the balls to be restored (or not, by the choice of the opponent), and you give time for a neutral observer to come over to act as a ref. If you touch a second time for that shot, it is a foul. And anytime you clearly move a ball during the motion or follow through of any shot, then it is a foul every time -- no warning needed. But I said clearly moved -- I'm in favor of close calls going to the shooter if it is the opponent making the call. But that is a big part of what the warning is about, because the warning gives the opponent an opportunity to call someone over to watch the shot if they wish. If a neutral observer calls a moving foul, it is a foul, whether it is a close call or not.
                            "One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
                            -- Strawberry Brooks

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
                              I've been suggesting a tighter way of calling fouls that does not go quite as far as all ball fouls. It's what I call "One touch warning; all ball fouls". The way I see it working is that to touch a ball or balls while you are setting up your bridge or performing warm up strokes, you get a warning, and you have to stop prior to shooting to give a chance for the balls to be restored (or not, by the choice of the opponent), and you give time for a neutral observer to come over to act as a ref. If you touch a second time for that shot, it is a foul. And anytime you clearly move a ball during the motion or follow through of any shot, then it is a foul every time -- no warning needed. But I said clearly moved -- I'm in favor of close calls going to the shooter if it is the opponent making the call. But that is a big part of what the warning is about, because the warning gives the opponent an opportunity to call someone over to watch the shot if they wish. If a neutral observer calls a moving foul, it is a foul, whether it is a close call or not.
                              Pragmatic enough for me. Knew someone around here had some sense

                              Originally posted by beatle View Post
                              the arguments reason is the big thing. if i am losing the game i can just tell him his shirt sleeve touched a ball and he owes one and i shoot.

                              so without a ref standing at the table it doesnt work in the real world.
                              That's why I also propose we all wear those tight suits that bobsledders wear. No more loose clothing problem.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X