Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New rule of rules.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
    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.
    You mean like Golf that has been around a lot longer than OP. The USGA introduced 15 new rules for this year, as I understand it. I think you may be selling yourself and the members of this group short, Steve. Maybe our role needs to evolve as well, I can't imagine we can call ourselves OP.org and not wish to have a strong voice in how the game evolves, as it does with or withut us.

    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.
    I agree. That's why discussions on here are necessary. We can't know the long term effect, but our experienced members can anticipate and eliminate unintended consequences better than anybody, wouldn't you agree?



    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.
    First, intentionals are not eliminated, for example you might want to kick from nearby your pocket to nearby the opponents pocket (without making a legal hit as we do today) just to get behind the OB's.

    In your example above you have it backwards, the player who creates a trap with a legal hit is not the one who is penalized by this "option" rule. It is the player who is caught in the trap created with a legal hit that is penalized because he now has nothing to gain by taking two intentionals, thereby changing the game, he will need to take his best shot at getting out of the legally applied trap and pay the full penalty if he fails to get out of it, he will not be able to lengthen and slow down the game.

    Let's take the example of you playing and moving very well, you've got a ball hanging in your hole and he can't get to it from where he is, so, he takes a foul by freezing you against a ball up table. You can't make a legal shot up there without selling out, so here we go with the touch fouls extending the game that's gonna end with him trying to kick or make a legal shot because of the three foul rule. He could have and should have done so in the first place and been incentivised rather than decentivised to do so.

    When the CB scratches in a hole, it's BIH, not likely the shot is going to be returned. When a legal hit is not made, the next shot is played from where they lay, and the opponent has a choice. Depending on the decision the fouling player may get a second chance to improve his position from a different layout. How could he object to that?

    The biggest effect of this rule is to not reward an illegal shot and keep the game shorter, that's the only changes I see. Why would we want to incentivise something that we already penalize, especially if it is used to lengthen and slow down the game.
    The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lll View Post
      darrell
      how come no love for jerry and frank???
      Love for all, Larry
      The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lll View Post
        nice post steve
        well thought out and well written
        Larry,

        Now you know, the game of OP is being changed (reinvented) currently, with or without us. You don't want to have any say? You don't think a group called OP.org, with our experienced members should participate?

        The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by darmoose View Post
          Larry,

          Now you know, the game of OP is being changed (reinvented) currently, with or without us. You don't want to have any say? You don't think a group called OP.org, with our experienced members should participate?

          darrell
          i dont think the game of onepocket is being changed
          grady's rules for tournaments has been around for a long time
          in your response to frank and jerry's posts you said
          " 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. "
          i disagree with your logic
          taking as many intentionals as necessary is ok with me and i dont see the need for a MAJOR rule change because of it .
          you want some new rules for tournament play to "speed the game up"
          go promote it among tournaments
          see how it goes
          and if it gets positive feedback
          publish your new rules as" darrell's rules ".
          rather than make them onepocket.orgs new rules
          jmho

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by El Chapo View Post
            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. [B]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 pool table is impossible.
            No, the option for the incoming player to accept or return the shot is only applicable after a foul (any foul).

            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, and this rule, make no judgement about luck vs. skill on any shot at all, don't care how what happened, happened. Only judge whether it was a legal shot or a foul, which in the case of the latter, an option is in order. Hope that is clear.


            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
            Unfortunately, you may be right about this, based on the participation in this discussion so far. But, hope springs eternal.
            The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

            Comment


            • #36
              As we now have noticed DCC is going to a form of the Grady rule. Which of course is an alternative playing rule. For me this just signals the start of ways to speed up the game!

              IMO OP.org needs to stay a head of the curve and not be a johnny come lately on the establishment of alternative playing rules.

              Currently we have our standard playing rules w/Grady's added input, and this is listed under the heading 'The Game'. Click on it and numerous subtitles come up.

              OP.org welcomes tournaments to use our written game rule, and there are those that choose to, but also of course can and do if necessary also have alternative playing rules.

              I feel we need to develop a new category under 'The Game' --- 'Alternative Playing Rules'. Over the last few years or so we have discussed many alternative ways to play the game. Why not list them to not only keep us in the game, but lead the way.
              Just my opinion. Whitey

              Comment


              • #37
                I understand why players want to speed up the game and try new rules out. That could be considered progress by some. But be careful what you ask for because we never go back. DCC never dealt with why the last years event was run so poorly. So, blame it on the rules, not the personnel running the event. My bitch now is all about timing. Why change the rules after all of us booked our rooms, airfare and entries? Why didn't DCC post this rule change two months ago? My belief is that they were concerned about losing entries and thusly revenue. So let me draw some comparisons; So in professional sports we are using instant replay. This is to get it right but what happened? The games take longer to play. What was accomplished? Nothing....... In professional tennis some great matches are decided by tie breakers but at Wimbledon they play it out to win by two games. Some of those matches last five hours. Who likes that? Us fans do. In Golf some like one hole playoffs others like eighteen hole playoffs. Same for Soccer. So what's going to happen when balls aren't spotted (which is going to occur) are the players going to be honest about it and spot the ball even though it might cost them the game? Yeah right. Maybe its a sign of my age and playing this game for over 50 years but One Pocket unlike the other games has stood the test of time. Next batter up please. Over and out.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
                  As we now have noticed DCC is going to a form of the Grady rule. Which of course is an alternative playing rule. For me this just signals the start of ways to speed up the game!

                  IMO OP.org needs to stay a head of the curve and not be a johnny come lately on the establishment of alternative playing rules.

                  Currently we have our standard playing rules w/Grady's added input, and this is listed under the heading 'The Game'. Click on it and numerous subtitles come up.

                  OP.org welcomes tournaments to use our written game rule, and there are those that choose to, but also of course can and do if necessary also have alternative playing rules.

                  I feel we need to develop a new category under 'The Game' --- 'Alternative Playing Rules'. Over the last few years or so we have discussed many alternative ways to play the game. Why not list them to not only keep us in the game, but lead the way.
                  Just my opinion. Whitey
                  whitey
                  i couldnt find grady's rules under the game when i clicked on it.
                  could you provide a link where its posted please
                  having a section on "alternative rules" is an interesting idea.
                  the ten commandments written in stone can continue unchanged....
                  (ie THE RULES as they are now )
                  and an app for alternative rules could be available for those that want something new....
                  (ie grady's rules/darrell's rules etc )

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lll View Post
                    darrell
                    i appreciate your time and effort considering rule changes and ways to make tournaments play faster and you do have valid points to your point of view
                    but i dont think the small number of regular posters and an aggressive presenter should rock the world of one pocket and change the official onepocket.org rules
                    jmho
                    icbw
                    that being said it would be interesting to try it out in a game[/quote]

                    Originally posted by lll View Post
                    darrell
                    i dont think the game of onepocket is being changed
                    grady's rules for tournaments has been around for a long time
                    in your response to frank and jerry's posts you said
                    " 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. "
                    i disagree with your logic
                    taking as many intentionals as necessary is ok with me and i dont see the need for a MAJOR rule change because of it .
                    you want some new rules for tournament play to "speed the game up"
                    go promote it among tournaments
                    see how it goes
                    and if it gets positive feedback
                    publish your new rules as" darrell's rules ".
                    rather than make them onepocket.orgs new rules
                    jmho
                    Larry, my friend

                    Are you banashing me? I didn't know you could do that, pls take me back.

                    Your opinion seems to be congeling from your first post here, where you were appreciative of the idea, and simply thought our group was too small to "rock the world.

                    Now, you wanna deny there is or ever was any problem and then deny that anybody else is making changes to the game. All of these discussions, as far as I am concerned are about tournament play. Obviously, private matches between gamblers can be played by any rules they agree to.

                    And I do appreciate your opinion disagreeing with me and my logic, I just wish you could provide reason other than it's always been this way, or it's just fine, but that's just me.

                    You seem to think my motives are fame and fortune You have never heard me suggest Darrel's rule (I hope) and I am sure you'll will search. If I ever did inadvertently, I apologize in advance.

                    The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      i think just like grady has his rule
                      your rule if ever adopted should carry your name
                      dont be shy about it...
                      and no i am not bashing you... i still wuv you...
                      you seem hell bent on making a seismic change to the onepocket rules
                      with no sample size or does it work
                      we should not be setting in stone a major change to the way the game is played when we dont even know how it will change the game
                      go do some research and development
                      come back and let the players /tournament directors that use your rule
                      let us know how it goes
                      if reasonable
                      it could become an "alternative rule "
                      just like grady's rule is not part of the main rules but an asterisk / addendum
                      as an option not the law
                      jmho
                      Last edited by lll; 01-12-2019, 08:04 AM. Reason: spelling

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by lll View Post
                        whitey
                        i couldnt find grady's rules under the game when i clicked on it.
                        could you provide a link where its posted please
                        having a section on "alternative rules" is an interesting idea.
                        the ten commandments written in stone can continue unchanged....
                        (ie THE RULES as they are now )
                        and an app for alternative rules could be available for those that want something new....
                        (ie grady's rules/darrell's rules etc )
                        OP.org as far as I know does not have a written depiction of the Grady Rule pertaining to 4 balls down table.

                        But, I think it is pretty simple and sell explanatory. When 4 balls are past the side pocket towards the head of the table (down table) then when other ball is also sent and remains down table, the nearest ball to the head rail is then spotted.
                        If you score a ball, plus send a 5th ball down table then I would assume the ball nearest the head rail gets spotted at the end of the inning.
                        Correct me if I am wrong. Whitey

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Darrell,

                          I’m curious how the thought originated...
                          When did you first think of passing the shot back to the person who fouled?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jeff sparks View Post
                            Darrell,

                            I’m curious how the thought originated...
                            When did you first think of passing the shot back to the person who fouled?
                            Jeff,

                            I'm not completely sure. I pay attention to rules discussions and I was reading another thread about trapping the CB in the face of the pocket and something about escalating this foul, I think at the DCC to unsportsmanlike and loss of game, the usual guys were involved (even you), I thought what a ridiculous idea, just adds to our rules, this needs to be stopped. I thought what if you had nothing to gain by doing that, or committing any intentional foul for that matter.

                            How to do that? In order to make it a simplification rather than a further complication, it has to apply across the board? How about after any and all fouls you can give the table back if you want? That made me think of the way we used to play pushout nine ball, yeah, why not?

                            So how and where will this apply? CB scratches (BIH) not likely. Failure to get a rail, maybe, the incoming guy ain't gonna complain and the guy that committed the foul, wouldn't he like another shot? The only guy that may complain is the guy who is caught in a trap and can't get out, and he deserves it (that's OP)

                            So, I wrote post #28 in that thread on 1/9/19 (right after your post). Then thought this could be good, should have it's own thread. (fat chance)

                            To be honest, I've lost some interest. There seems to be very little interest in doing anything about anything, just lots of talk and argument (which I am guilty of too).

                            Anyway, that's where it came from, thanks for asking and showing some interest, Jeff.
                            The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              [QUOTE=lll;250589]darrell

                              but i dont think the small number of regular posters and an aggressive presenter should rock the world of one pocket and change the official onepocket.org rules
                              jmho
                              icbw

                              I remember a time when you came to OPORG to do WWYD’s. Does anyone still do WWID, not WYWD? Now another thread has popped up to do Grady’s rule. The reason Grady’s rule isn’t the rule is because more people than not like the end game. You can’t just play it in tournaments to learn it, you would have to gamble too. No one wanted to gamble playing with a rule change that would significantly change the end game of one pocket. No one likes the wedge either. After the wedge was shattered, fewer and fewer players played it, unless they wanted to play a game that lasted five hours and a match a day. There is a guy who plays like that out here and he’s a big time gambler. It’s his stik. There is no action between us.
                              It is aggravating at all the proposed rule changes people want to the MOT. We can make one change and see if that works. Forget changing the break. The last day, four players. Two winners. Two losers. That’s it. If it goes to three am, we shoot them both, or all four. That’s two changes, but WTH.
                              Coyotes, Eagles, and Deer, oh my!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                [QUOTE=Frank
                                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.[/QUOTE]

                                Funny thing about Billy. If something rubs him the wrong way,he will quit. Baby Frank and quite a few of the boys were at CB’s when the scientist owned it. It was recently reopened and the players were all out to see if they could get action. Apparently Baby Frank and Teeters had had some previous incounters and the acrimony was thick. It was typical pool room banter only a bit harsher than normal. I wanted to play both but there was no way while these two were going at it. Off to the John I goes and who came busting in afterwards?, baby Frank. He said he would put me in against Billy. Now that’s a prop that could be had. So baby Frank disappears long enough for Billy and I to make a game. I win the first two. Frank comes back but for some reason Frank can’t keep his mouth shut trying to irritate Billy. There is no way to quiet him without blowing the partnership. Teeters is no one to mess with, as far as anyone knew, he always carried. Right in the middle of the next game Billy is tired of Frank and abruptly quits. I say forget about the game not wanting to blow a score down the line. My chance to score with Teeters is gone and now my opportunity to snap off Baby Frank is gone. We played by the rules of one pocket. Rotate breaks, owe one if you scratch. Cue ball fouls only and any ball touching the line is in. No re rack. No five ball bull. No time limit. All three games lasted under an hour.
                                Coyotes, Eagles, and Deer, oh my!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X