alex and chip no 3 foul rule

[darmoose]

I can't believe all you guys stay up all night to argue bout this, resolve nothing, and only succeed to complicate it further to the point that absolutely NO agreement can even be seen with high powered binoculars on the horizon.

These analogies say nothing about the question at hand and only serve to create more argument trying to twist them into relevancy.

For me, the only improvement OP needs is to fix the scenario that allows players to deliberately take intentional CB tapping fouls to dilute the effect of having been put in a trap. All else is fine with the game, period. And, the solution couldn't be simpler, just give the incoming player the option to either accept or refuse the next shot after any foul. There is "justice" in that, and it serves to move the game along, compared to today's rules. Nothing else needs to change,

Fact is, with this change, all incentive to take an intentional by tapping the CB disappears. Other intentional fouls still remain available like lagging behind balls or lagging to a safe spot on the table, just know you may be shooting again from there.

Deliberate scratches and knocking the CB off the table at the end of a game, cannot be distinguished from those events happening accidently during the game and under different circumstances, and so, can't be legislated against, which is obvious to those who think about it. Those types of fouls also have strategic value in keeping the game alive, and therefore are worthwhile.

The ONLY target I am aiming at is the tapping the CB strategy, because it adds nothing to the game, slows the game down, and only provides a way for a player to change the score and dilute the consequences of being put into a trap.

IN all the posts from this overnite marathon discussion, nobody addresses this problem directly, but only complicates and goes off on tangents that make little or no sense.

Others, pop up out of the sand, to say for the umteenth time "no changes" with no support for why what we are doing currently makes any sense. No contribution to the discussion there.

I suppose it is just impossible to get people to objectively think about a topic, and provide honest open commentary to either defend the status quo or rationalize any change needing to be made. Too bad, but understandable, as it is the same with our politics today. Don't read, or don't understand, and if you accidentally do so, pretend you don't and continue talking past anyone who you don't agree with, just RESIST.

[darmoose]

[quote=blindlemon;254620]

[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

Thank you too, Bindleman. Let me assure you that I am very much the traditionalist in every way, but, that just doesn't stop me from seeing and recognizing a problem that needs addressing and attempting to come up with a solution. I love OP, play nothing else, and only see this one problem which I think hurts the game and can be so easily fixed.

Honestly, I don't think it affects or hurts the pros that much because of their ball running abilities. I am looking mostly at the effect it has on "matchup" games between amateurs where the better player can use it to change the sore, change the game to his favor.

Appreciate your response also.

[darmoose]

[quote=Jimmy B;254626]

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.

Jimmy B,

You and I agree on a lot of things. But, I just fail to see your point here. True enough, your pitcher takes some chances and even tires himself out when throwing to first base that much, I agree.

So, do you think Chip was taking a chance or expending his energy tiring himself out when he took that intentional by tapping the CB and starting that whole sequence??...

[darmoose]

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.

Mark,

Tv and their "need for speed" ruined 9 ball and ended the Roll out or push out rules. Most old timers who played 9 ball will tell you that in those days 9 ball was
much closer to how we see OP today, much more a game of skill where you could challenge your opponent in a shot making contest Also the jump shot was almost unheard of then.

On the good side, a lot of OP players were fostered out of that evolution.

[darmoose]

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

Well, brother Larry, that's great, so now I can post without fear of retribution.

All I wish to say is please don't lump me in with El Chapo (nothing against him), but we are talking about vastly different things. I am talking about only one teenie weenie little change that has NO down side, rationally and logically speaking, and ONLY has an up side for the game. Whether you or anyone else wants or don't want to see a change, that fact ought to be clear.

I am not sure what he is talking about, but I defend his right to do so all he wants....

[Jimmy B]

[quote=darmoose;254654]

Jimmy B,

You and I agree on a lot of things. But, I just fail to see your point here. True enough, your pitcher takes some chances and even tires himself out when throwing to first base that much, I agree.

So, do you think Chip was taking a chance or expending his energy tiring himself out when he took that intentional by tapping the CB and starting that whole sequence??...

Lol.. You bet.. We agree on the important stuff, don't we... Don't pay me any attention on these off the wall one pocket comparisons.. I'm about out of it now.. The politicians queered it around here for pool, and It makes me bitter at them.. We had a couple of good rooms and a couple of second tier, and as long as the guys could run a few poker machines, they could make out and even earn a pretty nice livin.. First they bumped the licenses to several thousand dollars (per machine) each year.. They withstood that... Then politicians limited each room to 5 machines.. The room owners said fine, we can live with that too.. Then they decided they wanted it all and totally outlawed them. And that was that..

That seems like a pretty big change you have in mind.. I have to think about it more.. Folks can always match up and play the way they want to.. The members here can change it and play shoot again, if they wish.. I would enjoy watching it, to be honest.. I have an inkling that with the larger percentage of old heads on here, it might be the hardest place ever to get changes instituted. I might talk to Greg S about it.. If he changes it there, that would get the ball really rolling on this..Good luckk.

[darmoose]

[quote=Jimmy B;254660]

Lol.. You bet.. We agree on the important stuff, don't we... Don't pay me any attention on these off the wall one pocket comparisons.. I'm about out of it now.. The politicians queered it around here for pool, and It makes me bitter at them.. We had a couple of good rooms and a couple of second tier, and as long as the guys could run a few poker machines, they could make out and even earn a pretty nice livin.. First they bumped the licenses to several thousand dollars (per machine) each year.. They withstood that... Then politicians limited each room to 5 machines.. The room owners said fine, we can live with that too.. Then they decided they wanted it all and totally outlawed them. And that was that..

That seems like a pretty big change you have in mind.. I have to think about it more.. Folks can always match up and play the way they want to.. The members here can change it and play shoot again, if they wish.. I would enjoy watching it, to be honest.. I have an inkling that with the larger percentage of old heads on here, it might be the hardest place ever to get changes instituted. I might talk to Greg S about it.. If he changes it there, that would get the ball really rolling on this..Good luckk.

Thanks Jimmy,

That's a bummer about all the rooms drying up. We're down to two rooms around here, I don't know what I'd do with myself if they went away.

I've tried to explain that what I am suggesting won't have much effect on playing the game. Certainly, when you have BIH after a scratch, you ain't giving the shot back to your opponent. When he lags behind some balls if he now has a shot to his hole, you ain't giving it back to him. There'e only a very few circumstances where you would have him shoot again, maybe once or twice per game, my guess.

And yeah, you're right about "old heads", but Rome wasn't built in a day. Til then, I'll just ask anyone to make a legitimate argument for 'tapping out"

Good luck, maybe somebody will open a room near you....

[El Chapo]

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...

Everone has got some good ideas. And i did put a little thought into that one, thanks for noticing. I believe still that could be an answer to all the "speeding up one hole" threads a while back.

Here da truth, i dont give a f--------k (that was the f-----k from friday at the end where he says "you got knocked the f out!). I really don't. They could implement every change i like tomorrow, and i still would not play a game of one hole. waste of time. But, if i was president of one hole (you see, i got this watch on, that makes me the president, ha, you remember this line?) or somethin, i would do some things.

Bohemian rhapsody is still on my tube, i cant take it this flick is horrible. they need to shove this flick somewhere deep and give me some got already.

[sneakynito]

What the hell happened here?
I leave a thread alone for a day or two and it instantly becomes another changing the game speeding up play who moved my cheese free for all.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[LSJohn]

knocking the CB off the table at the end of a game, cannot be distinguished from those events happening accidently during the game and under different circumstances, and so, can't be legislated against,

Yeah, you could include that in the fouls that don't cause the opponent's ball to come up.

[LSJohn]

with no support for why what we are doing currently makes any sense.

In consideration of one pocket as "the chess game of pool," we shouldn't overlook the fact that critical decisions are often involved in deciding when to tap, re-tap, or shoot away. These are just some of the decisions that complicate the game to make superior judgment a stronger adversary of pocketing skill.

When I play a weaker player (almost never ) if I take an intentional I'm hoping he doesn't tap back. If he doesn't, I almost always end in better shape than I was before my intentional. (I even see better players make this mistake at times.)

[LSJohn]

This is why we can't have nice things.

All your base are belong to me.