Rules Update Conversation

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Darmoose's Statement: I honestly think that combining the "option" rule with the "moving forward" rule is not necessary (too much). The "option" rule is by far the simplest and least obtrusive rule as to how we play and how we score. It would only be applied or used part of the time as there will be many occasions where the incoming player will not want to give the shot back.
-----------------------------------------
I totally disagree, for when shooting out, lets say up table just rolling the ball to a spot, because the guy is obviously getting out of a tight spot you had him in.
Now the incoming player seeing that if he does not take the shot then the opponent has a nice shot, so he takes the shot instead of passing it back!

So what have you accomplished with your 'foul option' rule, nothing at all. The guy that shot out is accessed the same -1pt foul penalty, just like under the current rules.

But if the 'moving forward' is also applied then it helps to thwart just rolling a ball to a spot where you have an advantage. Moving forward is a two pt swing, as you know. Respectfully, Whitey

Darmoose's statement: Thanks for you thoughts Whitey, maybe some day others will catch up. BTW, ask your friend what he would think of the "option" rule, which gives the incoming layer the option to shoot or give the shot back to the opponent after EVERY foul.

Steve has already made a comment about these types of alternative ways to play OP. So I'll stay off this subject from now on, on this thread. I'll discuss it further if need be on another thread. But this gives you guys some ideas to discuss on your own threads pertaining to this. Respectfully for his thread!

But we should stick to the basic rules on Steve's thread! I forgot this! Next for me is BIH-BTL. thanks, Whitey

 

[catkins]

if you wnat to eliminate intentional fouls look to snooker. balls are replaced and the player who fouled shoots again and is assessed a foul

 

[NH Steve]

if you wnat to eliminate intentional fouls look to snooker. balls are replaced and the player who fouled shoots again and is assessed a foul

Yes, but Snooker -- like straight pool -- is a long race. One Pocket being a race to 8 points/balls, a foul penalty is already much more significant than in those two disciplines. The short race to 8 balls and the use of intentional fouls are a huge part of the tactical nature of One Pocket. Any change to how fouls are handled in One Pocket has the potential to change the game in an outsized manner because each rack is only a race to 8.

I think changes to how fouls are handled could speed up the game and potentially make it more exciting to watch, but any of these ides you would have to try them out and see how they work -- you can't just think up an idea and modify the general rules of a game that has essentially been played the same way for close to a hundred years. And it's a game that is growing in popularity as it is.

darmoose seems to think the way fouls are handled now helps the stronger players. Well I'm inclined to think almost every rule "helps the stronger players". Because they are better players and they get more out of whatever the game and it's rules offer. Unless you come up with more random elements or handicap elements, better players are going to get more out of every rule. In my opinion

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

We are approaching 5. Jumping.
At one time we had a thread on the use of specialized equipment. Cue extenders, special bridges, longer cues, cues to break, cues for masse' shots.

Of course back in the day if you go back far enough, we all used one cue for everything, and that is the way I think OP was intended to be played, kind of an unspoken rule, take it for granted. But, General rules had cue specifications as to length and weight.

So the question is? Should a game of OP be played throughout by using your only one playing cue, exception failure. Eliminating specialized cues and gadgets!

Since there is no specific rule as of now, I could: use a cue with an extremely low deflection shaft for the break so I can be more accurate when using inside English, or change cues for specialized shots, such as draw ( Efren does this at times), use an extender if I can not reach a shot instead of using a bridge, I could even bring out a specialized masse' cue for masse' shots.

I mean sponsors and product makers love it, but should there be a line drawn in the sand for OP? There is a beauty in playing with one cue. A nostalgic hustler's image, a soft case and a cue is all I need. Whitey

 

[cincy_kid]

We are approaching 5. Jumping.
At one time we had a thread on the use of specialized equipment. Cue extenders, special bridges, longer cues, cues to break, cues for masse' shots.

Of course back in the day if you go back far enough, we all used one cue for everything, and that is the way I think OP was intended to be played, kind of an unspoken rule, take it for granted. But, General rules had cue specifications as to length and weight.

So the question is? Should a game of OP be played throughout by using your only one playing cue, exception failure. Eliminating specialized cues and gadgets!

Since there is no specific rule as of now, I could: use a cue with an extremely low deflection shaft for the break so I can be more accurate when using inside English, or change cues for specialized shots, such as draw ( Efren does this at times), use an extender if I can not reach a shot instead of using a bridge, I could even bring out a specialized masse' cue for masse' shots.

I mean sponsors and product makers love it, but should there be a line drawn in the sand for OP? There is a beauty in playing with one cue. A nostalgic hustler's image, a soft case and a cue is all I need. Whitey

Personally, I only use my cue as well...

However a lot of people I play (including many members here) do use cue extenders. I was thinking about getting one someday unless they become outlawed in one hole.

I am good either way on this one. Fine to play with my cue alone but also don't mind if extenders / longer cues are used.

As far as jumping, maybe I am in the minority, but personally I don't even think jumping should be allowed in one hole. That's for 9 ball and run out games! One pocket should make you get better at kicking! I don't even like when you have a ball hanging in your hole and the opponent can make it and hop the cue off the table! I feel they need to follow it in (which takes aim)...plus you can get in some positions on the table where its impossible to follow it in, well that's a good shot by your opponent then, rack em! I do jump the cue off the table when needed but would rather see it go away! If jumping is allowed, it should also have to be with your same stick (no jump cues allowed) which may already be the rule on this..

just my 2 cents...

 

[Bob Jewett]

...
darmoose seems to think the way fouls are handled now helps the stronger players. Well I'm inclined to think almost every rule "helps the stronger players". Because they are better players and they get more out of whatever the game and it's rules offer. Unless you come up with more random elements or handicap elements, better players are going to get more out of every rule. In my opinion

The rules should help the stronger player. I think that is basic.
In a handicap game, if some rule gives the better player an advantage that makes the spot unfair, the spot is wrong so raise the spot until it is fair. Leave the rule alone.

 

[Island Drive]

Yes, but Snooker -- like straight pool -- is a long race. One Pocket being a race to 8 points/balls, a foul penalty is already much more significant than in those two disciplines. The short race to 8 balls and the use of intentional fouls are a huge part of the tactical nature of One Pocket. Any change to how fouls are handled in One Pocket has the potential to change the game in an outsized manner because each rack is only a race to 8.

I think changes to how fouls are handled could speed up the game and potentially make it more exciting to watch, but any of these ides you would have to try them out and see how they work -- you can't just think up an idea and modify the general rules of a game that has essentially been played the same way for close to a hundred years. And it's a game that is growing in popularity as it is.

darmoose seems to think the way fouls are handled now helps the stronger players. Well I'm inclined to think almost every rule "helps the stronger players". Because they are better players and they get more out of whatever the game and it's rules offer. Unless you come up with more random elements or handicap elements, better players are going to get more out of every rule. In my opinion

I think the rules help the game, the sport, the production/the players and the event itself, everything.

 

[LSJohn]

I don't even think jumping should be allowed in one hole.

I don't think jump cues should be allowed (IOW, cues under 55 inches.)

I don't even like when you have a ball hanging in your hole and the opponent can make it and hop the cue off the table! I feel they need to follow it in (which takes aim)...plus you can get in some positions on the table where its impossible to follow it in, well that's a good shot by your opponent then, rack em! I

Agree

if some rule gives the better player an advantage that makes the spot unfair, the spot is wrong so raise the spot until it is fair.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[catkins]

to clarify my points I don't think that there should be a change to fouls, I think the only issue is tournament play and there are ways to handle that do require dramatic changes to the game . allowing jump cues would in my opinion would do harm to the game in a big way. I would maybe reword bob s point and say the better players take better advantage of the rules because they are better players not that the rules favor them but that they are better equipped to use the rules to gain the biggest advantage and I don't think this is something that should be corrected

 

[lll]

Nice to read more voices of reason to NOT change the rules
clarifying wording I am in agreement

 

[Island Drive]

Nice to read more voices of reason to NOT change the rules
clarifying wording I am in agreement

Tap.tap..tap...tap....

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I just watched the final championship game Ip 2020 DCC and they had a 60 sec. clock.

 

[LSJohn]

I just watched the final championship game Ip 2020 DCC and they had a 60 sec. clock.

Works fine for one match, or even for the last few, but it's a big housekeeping chore for TCs or refs to do it if it's done from the beginning. Unfortunately, it's the early matches that have the greatest tendency to slow down the tournament, for two reasons: weaker average player skill, and more matches to increase the odds of having a really slow one.
I would like to see some experimentation with players keeping time at the table. That may work out great, or it could be a nightmare.

 

[catkins]

oscar when running the mez tours had a bunch of i pads with timers on them which he had for each table that also did live socring which helped the tournament director to keep track of the flow of the tournament

 

[darmoose]

darmoose seems to think the way fouls are handled now helps the stronger players.

To clarify, I only think that about the unintended consequences created by our rules that allow one player to avoid the full gravity of a well played trap and to lengthen the game by changing the score through the use of stupid tap, tap, tap,tap fouls that serve NO other purpose and ad nothing to the game of OP. I have nothing against any other fouls, be they intentional or unintentional. It is easy to mindlessly demur from critical thinking, stick ones head in the sand, and refuse to even recognize a problem, let alone consider changes to a game that we all believe is the best there is on a pool table. I share that opinion completely, and love playing OP almost every day, even with this shortcoming.

The rules should help the stronger player. I think that is basic. In a handicap game, if some rule gives the better player an advantage that makes the spot unfair, the spot is wrong so raise the spot until it is fair. Leave the rule alone.

I'm sorry, this has to be the singular goofiest comment I have ever heard anyone mutter. The fact that it comes from an otherwise respected person and a member of a three man committee charged with reviewing and making recommendations about various of our rules for playing OP is particularly disturbing and concerning.

I only hope that I am just missing something here, as it's hard to believe that this is anyone's belief.

 

[Island Drive]

To clarify, I only think that about the unintended consequences created by our rules that allow one player to avoid the full gravity of a well played trap and to lengthen the game by changing the score through the use of stupid tap, tap, tap,tap fouls that serve NO other purpose and ad nothing to the game of OP. I have nothing against any other fouls, be they intentional or unintentional. It is easy to mindlessly demur from critical thinking, stick ones head in the sand, and refuse to even recognize a problem, let alone consider changes to a game that we all believe is the best there is on a pool table. I share that opinion completely, and love playing OP almost every day, even with this shortcoming.




I'm sorry, this has to be the singular goofiest comment I have ever heard anyone mutter. The fact that it comes from an otherwise respected person and a member of a three man committee charged with reviewing and making recommendations about various of our rules for playing OP is particularly disturbing and concerning.

I only hope that I am just missing something here, as it's hard to believe that this is anyone's belief.

I think rules help the game all the way around, otherwise it wouldn't be a game/sport.... a gambling match is a completely different scenario.

Years ago Richie Ambrose came to Denver and wanted to match up with Medina in his home court. He said you got action, but you have to call your next pocket that your next ball will go into (9ball). Danny turned that game down.

 

[LSJohn]

It is easy to mindlessly demur from critical thinking, stick ones head in the sand, and refuse to even recognize a problem

Moose, find a few guys who will play your preferred solution to the tap "problem" and see what they think. We have to do quite a bit of experimentation before we change one of the rules -- in the set of rules we hope to have respected -- that's been there forever.

I'm guessing your solution would be vastly unpopular, but I'm not claiming the majority is usually right, just that making a change few like -- IF only a few like it -- would be a bad idea.

I have tried to think critically about this, and I think I would like the current rules regarding taps better than any of the alternatives I've seen suggested.

 

[LSJohn]

I'm sorry, this has to be the singular goofiest comment

Nah, he's just sayin' that the better players will be more likely to know more about how to use the rules to their maximum advantage. He wasn't really trying to say anything more than "Better players are .................... um................... better."

The rest of his comment is a real point, and on point, IMO. If a rule is unfair to the weaker player, change the handicap to make it fair. If a player thinks the tap is too hard on him, he should put on his big boy pants and negotiate some adjustment, or admit that he just wants to play more than he wants to win. (Handicap tournaments are another matter for another time; this suff-- to me -- is about the set of rules that we hope to become standard.)

 

[LSJohn]

He said you got action, but you have to call your next pocket that your next ball will go into (9ball)

Man, I would LOVE to get in action like that..................................................................... with my sister-in-law that's in a body cast.

 

[lll]

To clarify, I only think that about the unintended consequences created by our rules that allow one player to avoid the full gravity of a well played trap and to lengthen the game by changing the score through the use of stupid tap, tap, tap,tap fouls that serve NO other purpose and ad nothing to the game of OP. I have nothing against any other fouls, be they intentional or unintentional. It is easy to mindlessly demur from critical thinking, stick ones head in the sand, and refuse to even recognize a problem, let alone consider changes to a game that we all believe is the best there is on a pool table. I share that opinion completely, and love playing OP almost every day, even with this shortcoming.




I'm sorry, this has to be the singular goofiest comment I have ever heard anyone mutter. The fact that it comes from an otherwise respected person and a member of a three man committee charged with reviewing and making recommendations about various of our rules for playing OP is particularly disturbing and concerning.

I only hope that I am just missing something here, as it's hard to believe that this is anyone's belief.

when many people dont agree with you
even someone as respected as bob jewett
and you think THEY are wrong
maybe you should rethink your position
just sayin