Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

alex and chip no 3 foul rule

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

  • #16
    All games have certain rules you can take advantage of that don't seem exactly like it's in the normal spirit of the game.. Take football, for example.. Say it's near the end of the game.. The good news is you have a six point lead. The other good news is there are only 33 seconds left in the game.. The bad news is you had a penalty and then you got dropped for a loss and it's now fourth and 22 at your own one foot line.. Do you go for a first down?? Not hardly.. Too low percentage.. Do you punt the ball from the very back of the end zone?? No way.. The right call is to snap to the punter, let him burn off as many seconds as he can and then step out of the back of the end zone for an intentional safety.. You're still field goal proof with a four point lead and you get a nice free kick from the twenty....You don't have to start making a bunch of rule changes.. That's where you fkkk up.. Now who wants to have 25 on the Supreme Court??? And Fkk mule face Muler and his report, too...
    "Born Into This"

    Comment


    • #17
      [QUOTE=darmoose;254527][B]There is watching , and there is playing. Watching involves no consequences, while playing with intentional fouls has significant consequences. If the three foul rule was created to speed up the game, it only follows that we could speed up the game today by going to a one foul rule, or disincentivizing intentionals through this rule change. In an environment where everybody feels free to criticize slow play and slow players, and there exists very little that can realistically be done about that, one would think that be mandated to play out of the trap without being able

      Well I thought that was a thoughtful response I agree with some of it and I disagree with some. I can play with it or without it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. As for these great players it isn't used that much with them. hell they make it look like an 8-point game straight pool. As to watching and playing I watch I play. I guess I'm kind of a traditionalist I don't like to see the game change. you and I will never convince each other. and I type too slow to argue with anyone anyways thanks for the response take care my friend

      Comment


      • #18
        alex and chip no 3 foul rule

        Originally posted by gulfportdoc View Post
        "Roll-out" one pocket. Ya gotta love it!!..

        ~Doc


        I would love to see a roll out 9 ball match between two top players. One former top player friend of mine speaks very passionately about that style and said it was the only way he’d bet significantly.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jimmy B View Post
          All games have certain rules you can take advantage of that don't seem exactly like it's in the normal spirit of the game.. Take football, for example.. Say it's near the end of the game.. The good news is you have a six point lead. The other good news is there are only 33 seconds left in the game.. The bad news is you had a penalty and then you got dropped for a loss and it's now fourth and 22 at your own one foot line.. Do you go for a first down?? Not hardly.. Too low percentage.. Do you punt the ball from the very back of the end zone?? No way.. The right call is to snap to the punter, let him burn off as many seconds as he can and then step out of the back of the end zone for an intentional safety.. You're still field goal proof with a four point lead and you get a nice free kick from the twenty....You don't have to start making a bunch of rule changes.. That's where you fkkk up.. Now who wants to have 25 on the Supreme Court??? And Fkk mule face Muler and his report, too...
          I do not watch much football. But here is my take... you are talking about a guy winding time off the clock by stepping behind the pocket and scrambling as long as he can. And, his defensive line has to execute well. That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket... say a safety shot when you are up 7-0 and trying to push balls uptable... you have got to execute and it is a tactical move.

          If you want to use your football analogy, you have got to think of the worst thing imagineable a team can do! Because that is what scratching is on a pool table. So, if purposefully throwing an interception in football (ie completely losing control in the worst possible way) somehow gave that team an advantage, I would say that is a bad rule.

          On a football field we have the best athletes in the world. Sure they are going to try and tactically run time off the clock when they are leading. But their rules never give an advantage to a team who 100% lost control of the football in the worst way possible on the field. Everyone wants the rules to force players into using their exceptional physical skills as much as possible.

          That is what i think good rule changes would do in one pocket. Traps would mean a lot more, and players in traps may be forced into doing much more exciting things like attempting to pocket a ball against all odds, or else they will clearly lose. As it stands we watch a player with enormous offensive ability bunt the ball, or scratch behind a hanger. It is a joke. I challenge anyone to come up with another sport where a screw up like this is rewarded.

          Honestly, with all due respect to everyone, I think we all see what we want to see. Including myself. One pocket is perfectly acceptable the way it is, I think the best player is going to win regardless, but I personally see much room for improvement.

          Don't trust me, the proof is in the pudding. How many full blown life pool players can you guys think of who do not even have one pocket on their radar?! Never played a game of it? Doesn't that speak volumes? The game does not even register with many people who play pool for a living! So imagine more casual observers of pool, and how little sense watching two world class players bunt four shots in a row makes to them. If we ever want to grow the popularity of the sport, even to include actual pool players, I would say some rules changes would be in order myself. If you would like the game to remain esoteric and right where it is, sure I can see the position of status quo being a valid one.
          Last edited by El Chapo; 03-24-2019, 05:10 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by darmoose View Post
            The thing about making rules is that when you attempt to force a certain action, judge intent, or stop anything, you are inviting complexity and failure. I know you don't like jumping the CB off the table off the table, or deliberately scratching at the end of a game when the only ball left is hanging in a hole, but you can't stop that. You can only apply an appropriate penalty, and whatever penalty you assign also applies at all other times. That is what makes for a good rule, no exceptions. If you must have an exception, make sure there's a good reason.

            We can no more stop a player from taking an intentional than deliberately scratching or jumping a ball off the table. We could make a "two foul loss of game" rule, that would help, but likely not be acceptable, or we could give the incoming player the "option" of whether to shoot or return the shot after any foul, which would put an end to the "tapping" altogether.

            I would rather not complicate or confuse this very obvious problem and simple solution.

            I am very open to anybody willing to take ,their head out of the sand to explain what allowing 4 intentionals under the 3 foul rule adds to the game. With all the experience on this forum, if the current rule has any merit, it should be easy to tell us what it is.

            One Pocket has been great for all these years, in spite of this problem, not because of it.


            You guys can call me out on this, I am sure you will, but truth is I have not put a lot of thought into the actual rule changes I feel would be effective. I may if I thought they would be objectively analyzed and experimented with.

            Keeping that in mind, whatever i came up with I do not believe would complicate anything. In fact, I would make sure games ended sooner, with less backwards movement, all with perfect clarity on who the winner is and should be... ie the guy who controlled the balls better.

            We all know people get too emotional about things they are close to. So, in my opinion, talking about rule changes with 40 year one pocket players is like discussing a murder with the victim's husband. That conversation could be fruitful, but it is probably going to be quite clouded. How do you solve that? I do not know. But the real problem is quite clear to me, people want to continue seeing things the way they have seen them for those past 40 years, whether those things made sense or not be damned.

            I have already stated ways I think you can come to conclusions objectively though. Please, someone, come up with another aport where the worst possible blunder/turnover results in an advantage. If you can't, i think that objectively soeaking you would be forced to surmise there is a problem with the rules in one pocket.

            I personally go through the worst blunders in sports and cant think of any...

            golf... if you drive it over the adjecent fairway and over the freeway, you get screwed, so nobody does that.

            baseball... an outfileder throws a ball not to homeplate as a guy is trying to score, but into the bleachers.

            swimming... a guy swims so slow he never leaves the starting gate

            archery ... lauches the arrow and misses target and hits a spectator in the eye

            this could go on all day. prove me wrong! please. what sport exists, where the worst possible physical execution you can perform is potentially an advantage?!

            Comment


            • #21
              This is probably not the right time or place to bring this up, but one of the huge areas that needs improvement in one pocket rules is foul penalties in my opinion.

              One thought i have had is what do you guys think about addressing this with potentially much greater offensive opportunities. The cool thing about this potential rule is, depending on how fast you want a tournament to go, you can have different "levels"...

              A player gets ball in hand behind the head string as it stands. Why not let the incoming player have that same opportunity, but, if he wants to shoot from further up the table at a ball across the middle string for example, he can.

              The rule would essentially be the same as it is now, must shoot a ball that is in front of the headstring, but you could move the cb up the table. So whichever the td chise as the limit, lets say the middle string of the table, he could now shoot with the cue ball in the middle of the table, as long as the ball he was shooting was beyond that line. He could also decline that ability, and shoot a ball with the cb behind the headstring if he wanted to shoot a ball that was laying just past the headstring. I made that sound confusing, but if you got it I think it is a good rule. And, the each tournamnet could place the maximum line as far as they wanted. I suppose you could use the foot string as the maximum line if you wanted, as long as the ball you were shooting was beyond it. You could always choose a line string "below" the max line, but never one above as the incoming shooter.

              Comment


              • #22
                [QUOTE=El Chapo;254623]I That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket...

                To me it's analogous.. Just like in baseball, there no limit to how many times a pitcher can throw over to first base to try to pick off a runner.. But he takes a chance too.. It takes something out of him to do it.. He can hit the runner with a ball, throw it away, balk, etc..Chris Welsh, the reds broadcaster talked about how he threw over 17 times to try and pick off Vince Coleman. Then when he finally went to the plate, Coleman stole second. First inning... It's not exactly the same, but to me it's analogous.
                "Born Into This"

                Comment


                • #23
                  el chappo and darmoose
                  you are passionate in your point of view.
                  it seems to me the majority of posters dont see a problem where you do.
                  therefore they see no need to make good gooder....
                  have a nice day......
                  this is my last post in this thread

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lll View Post
                    el chappo and darmoose
                    you are passionate in your point of view.
                    it seems to me the majority of posters dont see a problem where you do.
                    therefore they see no need to make good gooder....
                    have a nice day......
                    this is my last post in this thread
                    You and Jimmy are both probably right. I do not see it like you guys. I suppose nobody is right, and nobody is wrong is the truth.

                    I just feel like it is so clear. If there was a rule in golf where the players could take advantage of by tapping their golf ball 1mm three shots in a row, everyone would be in immediate agreement.

                    The players, the advertisers, the fans would all be in concert and say, hell yeah, these are the best ball strikers in the world. Who wants to see them tap their ball 1mm like any old schmuck can do? So, they would make a simple rule change to preclude them from doing that, and there ya go. Advertisers happy, fans happy, players even after they play this way a while. But in pool the analogous situation just seems to put everyone into a stupor.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      alex and chip no 3 foul rule

                      El chaps, how about scratches just being BIH anywhere?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I remember hearing long ago RA say the third time/nudge.....one of the two balls has to go to another rail, or loss of game.
                        Bill Meacham
                        WBT
                        www.worldbilliardtour.com
                        no link....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by youngstownkid View Post
                          I would love to see a roll out 9 ball match between two top players. One former top player friend of mine speaks very passionately about that style and said it was the only way he’d bet significantly.
                          I agree with your friend. Roll-out was the best (and fairest) way to play 9-ball. We used to play you could roll out anytime you couldn't see the full object ball. Took a lot of the luck (good & bad) out of the game, and promoted good shot making.

                          Don't want to hijack this thread...

                          ~Doc

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [quote=Jimmy B;254626]
                            Originally posted by El Chapo View Post
                            I That is not analogous to a purposeful scratch at all. To me, what you brought up would be analogous to a perfectly legit shot in one pocket...

                            To me it's analogous.. Just like in baseball, there no limit to how many times a pitcher can throw over to first base to try to pick off a runner.. But he takes a chance too.. It takes something out of him to do it.. He can hit the runner with a ball, throw it away, balk, etc..Chris Welsh, the reds broadcaster talked about how he threw over 17 times to try and pick off Vince Coleman. Then when he finally went to the plate, Coleman stole second. First inning... It's not exactly the same, but to me it's analogous.
                            I was a big vince coleman fan.

                            I could see this analogy working, as far as an example I was looking for, if there were no chance for the pitcher to make a mistake. He can take as many shots as he would like at the runner, with no ill effect, and he had no chance to make an errant throw to advance the runner. But, he can make a bad throw, so he is taking a slight risk every throw over, and he has got to execute. Not anybody could do that, it takes great physical execution to step off the mound, trick the runner, all fast enough throw him out or scare him and shorten his lead. A scratch in pool an old granny could do... and we are making that an advantageous shot.

                            I think what you are getting at is players take advantage of rules. Of course they will, and that is a big part of my point. The players are taking advantage of scratches. We see this right in our fave when a ball runner like frost takes five scratches and then just runs those five at the end no problem. My point is, in all sports the governing body see,s to mold the rules so the players can't take advantage of the rules, or to the least extent possible. I do not think we are even close to that in one pocket myself.

                            To me the silence is deafening. I know I am the only one who sees it that way, but what other sport is there where rules promote poor shots? The lack of answers to that question is the decider. You do not see answers to that question, and I believe it is because rules in sports like golf change constantly... their rule book is an ever morphing animal, kinda like the kaleesi's dragons who are gonna come in and do some damage here in a couple weeks...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by youngstownkid View Post
                              El chaps, how about scratches just being BIH anywhere?
                              That would not work, although i like the idea personally. I think the evolution of the kitchen bih in one pocket came about because you do not want guys jamming the cb in between the rail and a ball that is about a ball off the rail, which would happen if you played ball in hand. See what i mean? The guy would try to almost freeze the cb behind a ob close to the rail, then there could be a push shot and it would be a nightmare.

                              I am telling you, that is why i proposed the moving headstring scenario. Player could place it behind head, foot or middle string (or if td wanted a more conservative approach, maximum could me middle string only). Middle string being the line between two side pockets of course. And just shoot as normal, only at balls "above" the line.

                              That would make amateur one pocket tournaments go seriously i am talking twice as fast!! Don't you guys think? The amount bad players scratch in a pocket, combined with them now being able to run serious balls behind almost any scratch in a pocket. I think that right there is the answer to speeding up one hole at an amateur level... not sure how much faster it would make pro events... but pro events on tight pockets it would make it way faster as well.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by El Chapo View Post
                                That would not work, although i like the idea personally. I think the evolution of the kitchen bih in one pocket came about because you do not want guys jamming the cb in between the rail and a ball that is about a ball off the rail, which would happen if you played ball in hand. See what i mean? The guy would try to almost freeze the cb behind a ob close to the rail, then there could be a push shot and it would be a nightmare.

                                I am telling you, that is why i proposed the moving headstring scenario. Player could place it behind head, foot or middle string (or if td wanted a more conservative approach, maximum could me middle string only). Middle string being the line between two side pockets of course. And just shoot as normal, only at balls "above" the line.

                                That would make amateur one pocket tournaments go seriously i am talking twice as fast!! Don't you guys think? The amount bad players scratch in a pocket, combined with them now being able to run serious balls behind almost any scratch in a pocket. I think that right there is the answer to speeding up one hole at an amateur level... not sure how much faster it would make pro events... but pro events on tight pockets it would make it way faster as well.


                                At least you put a lot of thought into this.. Have to respect it.. Just like when somebody like Ronnie suggests a rule change, like Bill M. mentioned, you ought to consider it... I listen to Marty Herman stream rants sometimes while I'm playing cards, or reading message boards, or eating.. He played a lot of money one pocket in his past.. He says the game is not good now.. Says it would take not only a shot clock, but also a game clock, to be worth a shit.. In other words, a game could end 5-4 or even 1-0.. And he's not liberal with the amount of time in a game, either.. It's SHORT.. Many ideas...
                                "Born Into This"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X