New rule of rules.

[darmoose]

darrell
i will say again
we have a dozen at most regular posters
you want such a small number to put a stamp on your idea that will go forward as endorsed by onepocket.org that will then influence onepocket around the world???
at the minimum a trial over time seeing how it works would be alot better
but i still would be against it because i am old fashioned
and think the game is fine the way it is
nothing personal
i think your idea is a very interesting idea

Hey Larry,

I imagine Steve isn't too happy to know he only has a dozen (at most) regular posters.

Don't worry, I would never take your honest opinion personally, however as was said by EL Chapo, I would hope any opinion was supported by reason rather than "I'm just against all changes".

To answer your question, of course, that is what I want. I love OP as much as anybody. I play and gamble at it 3, 4, sometimes 5 times a week, but it ain't perfect. I think intentional fouls add nothing to the game and simply slow it down by subtracting from the score. I think simply that no one has ever figured out a way to get rid of them. In 30 or so years of playing, I have never seen anyone, amateur or professional, attempting to manipulate the balls in the stack to create a dead ball while taking an intentional foul. I have never heard anybody discussing anywhere that this is what they were doing. Maybe I am just dense. In any case if what you say were true, wouldn't that player love to have the next shot so he could score with that dead ball combination he created?

Likewise when a player pushes the CB up against an OB, intentionally fouling, or when he intentionally traps the CB against the inside of a pocket facing, he is not deploying some skill that adds to OP. He is simply trying to avoid the full penalty of being legitimately trapped, hoping that his opponent will make a mistake and sell out, or at least he will return the foul twice and the score will change enough to dilute the effect of the original trap. This is not a good thing for OP and I can't imagine it will be missed.

As for how rules come into existence, this is a rulemaking organization. How else would one pursue a rule change? I do hope that more than a dozen members comment and support their view with reason.

I agree with you that nine ball was ruined when they got away from pushout. I also agree that unintended consequences need to be explored. If you or anyone else sees any, they should be discussed and weighed against the benefits of this proposal. On balance, I see nothing right now that could outweigh the benefits of this rule change.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions, hope we can discuss further. I wanna change your mind.

[Jeff sparks]

For reasons explained in the other thread about wedging a CB against the rail by "trapping the CB, I think this solution needs it's own thread. Not going to go through the explanation again, but just quote the rule. Hope you will make reasonable and logical comments and criticisms.

After ANY foul and after the penalty is assessed by spotting a ball, the opponent has the option of returning the table to the fouling player, and as many times as is necessary for the player to make a shot without fouling.

What do you think?

Only two times, not “as many times”... 3 foul rule needs to be used imo...

Other than that, I see no downside to the change, other than it takes a very strategic advantage away from the better player who is giving up weight to a lesser skilled player in a gambling game...

In a tournament format, it looks like it would work and help speed up games, if the 3 foul rule was used in conjunction with it...

However I’m sure there will be some deep thinkers who will come up with reasons why it might not be plausible, but that’s what you’re looking for, correct?

Until proven otherwise, I’m in the group that’s not opposed to giving it a strong consideration... I like it 👍 Good idea Darrell...

[darmoose]

Only two times, not “as many times”... 3 foul rule needs to be used imo...

Other than that, I see no downside to the change, other than it takes a very strategic advantage away from the better player who is giving up weight to a lesser skilled player in a gambling game...

In a tournament format, it looks like it would work and help speed up games, if the 3 foul rule was used in conjunction with it...

However I’m sure there will be some deep thinkers who will come up with reasons why it might not be plausible, but that’s what you’re looking for, correct?

Until proven otherwise, I’m in the group that’s not opposed to giving it a strong consideration... I like it �� Good idea Darrell...

Thanks Jeff,

We can always count on you to give an honest and thoughtful comment to questions/suggestions like this and others.

Yeah, the three foul rule would still be in effect, and so it would end the game if the shooter failed to make a legal shot on the third try. Of course, as you explain the incentive to even play the first intentional foul is gone, which is a good thing.

I know, at first, when you hear about this option to make a fouling player shoot again, it can be a little difficult to process. But, if members will just think about it a bit, I think they will reach the same conclusion as you.

Similar to how we used to play push out nine ball (when nine ball was a great game), this rule would eliminate a lot of luck from the game and emphasise skill, and as you observe, fix a long existing unfair strategy of using intentional fouls to change a game when gambling, and water down the results of a well played trap.

A little disappointing that so few have weighed in thus far on a serious idea that could do so much good for the game. The game of OP is a great game, but it would be even better with this rule change. You are right, it would also make the game go faster.

I hope the "deep thinkers" you refer to will take their shots and provide reason. Of course, I hope those that can see the benefits would express their opinion too.

Appreciate the input.

[jerry matchin]

The problem with passing the intentional foul back to your opponent without you losing a ball is problematic. In many situations, that is all you can do to potentially save or extend the game. That is, to get your opponent on fouls as well. For example, your opponent hits the opening break terrible and you end up in the stack and all the balls are open to his pocket. You have nothing else but to take a foul. If you can get him on two fouls you might stop him from running eight and out and just maybe put yourself where at least you can make a game of it. I can think of a lot of situations where your opponent just got lucky like corner hooks and etc. and there is nothing you can do. I DON'T LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME ANY LONGER.

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Darmoose, you have stated you play and/or gamble 3-5 times a week. Do you guys play by this rule? Have you brought up this suggestion to them? Also what do they think of your Darmoose Moving Forward, and do they play by it?

I brought up a rule suggestion of when the cue ball is in motion and interfered with then it should be an option to accept the cb in position or ball in hand, instead of no option and the opponent must accept the table as is.

The reasoning being if a player interferes with a cb in motion then it could end up in a horrible lock up position for the opponent, with no recourse other than to accept the next shot as is.

I received very little response. I think one person said it seemed reasonable. To me it is just common sense. Whitey

[Jeff sparks]

The problem with passing the intentional foul back to your opponent without you losing a ball is problematic. In many situations, that is all you can do to potentially save or extend the game. That is, to get your opponent on fouls as well. For example, your opponent hits the opening break terrible and you end up in the stack and all the balls are open to his pocket. You have nothing else but to take a foul. If you can get him on two fouls you might stop him from running eight and out and just maybe put yourself where at least you can make a game of it. I can think of a lot of situations where your opponent just got lucky like corner hooks and etc. and there is nothing you can do. I DON'T LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME ANY LONGER.

Kick as best you can to a safety, or roll out to the best spot where he will not give you the shot back...

Seems it works both ways for both players, and that’s fair...

just don’t take an intentional where you know he will refuse the shot and it’s your turn again...

I don’t see how it’s a problem, it looks like a solution to an age old problem...

Or perhaps I’m to dim to understand how it changes the game for the worst...

[androd]

Kick as best you can to a safety, or roll out to the best spot where he will not give you the shot back...

Seems it works both ways for both players, and that’s fair...

just don’t take an intentional where you know he will refuse the shot and it’s your turn again...

I don’t see how it’s a problem, it looks like a solution to an age old problem...

Or perhaps I’m to dim to understand how it changes the game for the worst...

Seems a good idea, maybe we're both dim Bulbs (or Boobs)

[Frank Almanza]

The problem with passing the intentional foul back to your opponent without you losing a ball is problematic. In many situations, that is all you can do to potentially save or extend the game. That is, to get your opponent on fouls as well. For example, your opponent hits the opening break terrible and you end up in the stack and all the balls are open to his pocket. You have nothing else but to take a foul. If you can get him on two fouls you might stop him from running eight and out and just maybe put yourself where at least you can make a game of it. I can think of a lot of situations where your opponent just got lucky like corner hooks and etc. and there is nothing you can do. I DON'T LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME ANY LONGER.

I agree with you Jerry. Sometimes a player positions himself where he will get some balls no matter what you do. So by you taking a couple of fouls and he does the same you know that unless he runs out he will have to put a couple of balls back on the table and maybe prolong the game a bit to give you a chance.

If we're not playing with the three foul rule I'll take more fouls.
I had a game with Billy Teeters a good while back where he already had four balls to the good and all the balls were within a foot and a half next to his pocket and I was corner hooked at the other end of the table on his side.
I took four or five internationals and he did the same. He spotted all his balls back on the table and then I pushed the cue ball out to what I thought was the hardest shot for him but it still was fairly easy. He shot and missed it and I wound up winning the game and then his backer pulled out. His backer said if you can't win that game I'm out.

[darmoose]

Seems a good idea, maybe we're both dim Bulbs (or Boobs)

Rod,

Thanks for your honest opinion. Like Jeff, you are a well respected and experienced player with a reputation for competing at a level that most of us here can only dream of achieving. You and Jeff are certainly not dim bulbs in any sense of the word.

To have members like you two guys agreeing that the use of intentional fouls to force an opponent to also foul, as a strategy to change the game or avoid the penalty for being legally trapped, is not a positive aspect of the game and should be eliminated. Using intentional fouls in this way serves to lengthen the game as well.

To be clear though, this rule does not eliminate intentional fouls. One can still shoot or kick into the stack, or kick to get behind balls without getting a rail after contact. The incoming player just has an option to accept the shot or have the fouling player shoot again.

Today I was discussing this idea with a friend of mine where I play, and he suggested that I reword this rule as follows:

After any foul and after the penalty is assessed, the incoming player has an option to "accept" the shot or return it to the fouling player.

He said that "accepting or returning" the shot was more in line with the way we played and about thought pushout nineball so many years ago. Maybe he's right, so perhaps people should think of this rule suggestion in that way.

Thanks for weighing in and giving your honest assessment and opinion.

Darrell

[darmoose]

Darmoose, I am a fan of your any foul OP shoot-out rule option. I never was a proponent of intentionals. Intentionals was never a part of my game anyway, not that I got to play much OP.

The 3 foul rule in OP is a wonderment as to when it started and why. Through these threads I learned it was not a rule at Johnston City. Whitey

Darmoose, you have stated you play and/or gamble 3-5 times a week. Do you guys play by this rule? Have you brought up this suggestion to them? Also what do they think of your Darmoose Moving Forward, and do they play by it? Whitey

Whitey,

Thanks for you honest assessment and opinion on this rule suggestion. Appreciate your support, as I know you pay attention to the rules discussions.

I find that guys gambling at OP (even if only for $10 or $20) won't try anything new. Hard enough to get them to even discuss it.

Three foul is a good rule, as without it this strategy of taking intentionals to lengthen games could be a lot worse.

It would be good if more members would join in with their thoughts.

We'll see....

[NH Steve]

Whitey,

Thanks for you honest assessment and opinion on this rule suggestion. Appreciate your support, as I know you pay attention to the rules discussions.

I find that guys gambling at OP (even if only for $10 or $20) won't try anything new. Hard enough to get them to even discuss it.

Three foul is a good rule, as without it this strategy of taking intentionals to lengthen games could be a lot worse.

It would be good if more members would join in with their thoughts.

We'll see....

A game like One Pocket, which has been played for many years with essentially the same rules, doesn't lend itself to a lot of innovation in rules. Most of onepocket.org's role in writing the rules has been simply to clarify and put in place standards to the common questions and practices we already see every day in the game as it is commonly played -- not reinventing how it is played.

The time issue for tournaments is a problem that even there -- the emphasis always seems to be, how can you deal with that problem without really changing the game? The time saving rules that are the most popular seem to always be the rules that change the game the least -- like shot clocks for example. And I've worded that wrong lol, I should have said, "the time saving rules that are the least unpopular" -- because no matter what our players don't seem to universally like anything that changes the game.

All of this is just what I see from my point of view.

The option of passing back the table after a foul could be a big game changer. It would really come into play when the position of the cue is such that both players are in trouble from there. Suddenly the player that put the cue ball there is the one most penalized as opposed to the opponent. That's a major flip, and I'm trying to visualize how that would change play.

Like early in the game, when the stack is intact and balls are open on both sides and sometimes the only place to hide the cue is the top of the stack.

[El Chapo]

El Chapo,

Ha Ha , yes, who knew. I appreciate you comments and your honesty, and I know we've had words in the past. I hold no grudges with anybody, and have no idea what our previous disagreement was about. I may have said something that offended you and if so I am sorry. That was not my purpose in whatever we were arguing about.

Anyway, thanks again, It looks like you agree that this rule would be a good thing, and how simple, huh?

I often think that when some idea comes along that solves a problem that previously seemed to be unsolvable, "why didn't I think of that", so simple. Usually though I'm thinking about an idea that some other yokel had and made a million bucks off of.

I hope others, especially Steve, will honestly consider this, and your points are well taken about blindly sticking to what we've always done.

We'll see...

Thanks.

Here is my honest opinion. But I am usually honest so that was a wasteful way to start off

I think this is a waste of time. I think one pocket players as a group need to progess a bit and be more open minded, and then I would be all for jumping in and having a fruitful discussion based in logic.

I personally do not tink there is any merit whatsoever to the scenarios that have been brought up to this point. Anything that comes up, you get to "push out" (my term) if i am understanding your rule correctly. So, if you are corner hooked or in the stack, put the guy in a spot where he has a really tough choice, just like a nine ball push. The arguments seem to assume moving a cueball to locations on a pooltable is impossible.

I think another assumption was made in those scenarios that was poor. In pool we have to just assume incoming player is where they are because of a skillful shot. If we don't, no clarity can come from anything, and various arguments can be made that players just got lucky. In my opinion, if we assume as we should that players put their opponents in tough spots via their skill, then maybe those games where an extreme advatage is aboit to be gained by oitgoing player are warranted. Ie, he deserves to win the game.

This is such an important point in my opinion, because if we assume or state luck was the basis to putting people in the difficult positions they get in on a pool table, you get into player intent before the shot, and that is a very dubious way to decide over rules changes.

I am at the point quite honestly if people can't see and understand that pushing a cb 2mm 8 times in a row between two players is not good one pocket, then there is just no use discussing it further.

Thanks for bringing this up though. I think you should copy the post and repost it in about 10 years, maybe 15

[lll]

A game like One Pocket, which has been played for many years with essentially the same rules, doesn't lend itself to a lot of innovation in rules. Most of onepocket.org's role in writing the rules has been simply to clarify and put in place standards to the common questions and practices we already see every day in the game as it is commonly played -- not reinventing how it is played.

The time issue for tournaments is a problem that even there -- the emphasis always seems to be, how can you deal with that problem without really changing the game? The time saving rules that are the most popular seem to always be the rules that change the game the least -- like shot clocks for example. And I've worded that wrong lol, I should have said, "the time saving rules that are the least unpopular" -- because no matter what our players don't seem to universally like anything that changes the game.

All of this is just what I see from my point of view.

The option of passing back the table after a foul could be a big game changer. It would really come into play when the position of the cue is such that both players are in trouble from there. Suddenly the player that put the cue ball there is the one most penalized as opposed to the opponent. That's a major flip, and I'm trying to visualize how that would change play.

Like early in the game, when the stack is intact and balls are open on both sides and sometimes the only place to hide the cue is the top of the stack.

nice post steve
well thought out and well written

[lll]

darrell
how come no love for jerry and frank???

[darmoose]

The problem with passing the intentional foul back to your opponent without you losing a ball is problematic. In many situations, that is all you can do to potentially save or extend the game. That is, to get your opponent on fouls as well. For example, your opponent hits the opening break terrible and you end up in the stack and all the balls are open to his pocket. You have nothing else but to take a foul. If you can get him on two fouls you might stop him from running eight and out and just maybe put yourself where at least you can make a game of it. I can think of a lot of situations where your opponent just got lucky like corner hooks and etc. and there is nothing you can do. I DON'T LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN'T PLAY THE GAME ANY LONGER.

I agree with you Jerry. Sometimes a player positions himself where he will get some balls no matter what you do. So by you taking a couple of fouls and he does the same you know that unless he runs out he will have to put a couple of balls back on the table and maybe prolong the game a bit to give you a chance.

If we're not playing with the three foul rule I'll take more fouls.
I had a game with Billy Teeters a good while back where he already had four balls to the good and all the balls were within a foot and a half next to his pocket and I was corner hooked at the other end of the table on his side.
I took four or five internationals and he did the same. He spotted all his balls back on the table and then I pushed the cue ball out to what I thought was the hardest shot for him but it still was fairly easy. He shot and missed it and I wound up winning the game and then his backer pulled out. His backer said if you can't win that game I'm out.

here we have 2 members who also have attained a high level of skill and have many years of experience .
darrell
shouldnt you thank them too for their opinions like you did for rod and jeff
even though frank and jerry dont agree with you??

Can always count on you Larry to demand consistency and keep people honest. That's a good thing. So, Yes, thank you both Jerry and Frank for your honest input. If I may also be honest without offending anyone (and if I am wrong please correct me), both Jerry and Frank play well, both play very deliberately, and both use every possible option available to them to win a game. Both seem to me to make good use of defensive tactics (compared to today's newer players who take more risks and shoot at their hole more often). Both their games are more similar than not to how I play (although maybe not as well). Both have said that they will take as many intentional fouls as needed, seemingly without regard for what venue they are in, and presumably without regard for other players (say in a tournament situation). I actually don't blame anyone for doing exactly that, play by the rules.

That's why the rules need to be changed. Jerry and Frank don't know if playing OP by the new rules would be better or worse, more or less enjoyable, more or less suitable to their styles of play. They simply are against change, seems to me. I would love to hear some reasoning behind their opinions, like what is the downside of rules proposals compared to the benefits.

One of the things I have noticed about nine ball players today is that they are willing to lose a game quickly, let it go, and get on with the next game. Some of the best players that I play OP with (getting a spot) play aggressively and have the same attitude, if in trouble they will want to move on to the next game.

While I can relate to Jerry's and Frank's playing styles because of lack of firepower on my part, I refuse to be restricted to "this is the way we have always played", when there is a problem to be resolved like OP is too slow, takes too long, tournaments can't be run without shortening races, etc. I happen to think Jerry and Frank are wrong.

No one knows how any of these rules changes will overall affect the game of OP. When all is said and done, gamblers and tournament players will develop their strategies and play within the rules in effect. I know some will say "look what they did to nine ball, they ruined it". I would say that's why we can't ignore the problems and let venues like the DCC write the rules of OP, I see OP.org as being the foremost authority on OP and it should (must) have some input into how the game evolves.

I think we all want OP to be a game of many skills, and we want to minimize the "luck" factor while we know we can't eliminate it.

I think we penalize fouls because they are something to be avoided, not promoted for whatever reason. Allowing a player to intentionally foul and then benefit from it makes no sense, and is counter productive when we want to shorten and speed up play.

So, again, thank you Jerry and Frank for your opinion. Can we hear some reasoning that is in tune with the DCC's, the Memphis Melee's, the Hard Times Td's desire to solve the problems. If we don't exercise our perogative to have some input, we can only blame ourselves when others go forward without us. What baffles me is the reluctance of too many here to participate in discussions like this, and let others make decisions about OP without our input.

Thanks Larry, hope that helps.