Break

[unoperro]

Score a ball on the break you continue.
Don't score it is your opponents turn.
Keeping it simple

 

[frmn]

How does it lengthen the tourney? Its just the time to rerack.

 

[unoperro]

How does it lengthen the tourney? Its just the time to rerack.

No he stated trnmnt director may need to be called to judge a "sell out". It raises 1 more point of contention.

 

[12squared]

No he stated trnmnt director may need to be called to judge a "sell out". It raises 1 more point of contention.

Plus it's now 2 reracks. It never ends

 

[catkins]

I agree steves option is the only one I can say I like other than ball counts on the break. takes away the unfairness of not counting ball on the break but counting the scratch

 

[catkins]

or jsut let the breaker break untill they are happy with the outcome

 

[Tobermory]

Another nuanced point in support of counting the made ball but ending the breaker's turn after the break: sometimes the break will put a ball in the jaws or very close to the breaker's pocket, and the disadvantage for the incoming player is usually much more severe than if the ball had just gone in, but nobody says we should penalize the breaker when that ball gets fortunately close. It is pure luck whether that ball goes in or ends up close to in. If the balls are re-racked when the ball goes down, then it is bad luck for the breaker. The difference is that the breaker can't keep shooting when it is just close. A break and sit down rule allows for the luck of a made ball without penalizing the breaker for that luck. Simple.

I also want to make it clear that the break and sit down rule is most appropriate in tournament settings where a single game can make or break a player's chances in the tournament. When gambling, not so much, and the participants are always free to choose which way to go on this rule.

 

[Renegade_56]

I also want to make it clear that the break and sit down rule is most appropriate in tournament settings where a single game can make or break a player's chances in the tournament. When gambling, not so much, and the participants are always free to choose which way to go on this rule.

Well, one could say that ANY shot has that potential. I mean, where does it end. I say play by the written rule and quit fixing a great game.

 

[Billy Jackets]

Who among you, believes the rule was changed for any other reason , besides cheaters manipulating the rack?

 

[catkins]

I watched tony chohan brek 2 of 5 racks making a ball with dany smith racking so I think it was more of a certin tables break better at certin times to make balls

 

[Renegade_56]

I watched tony chohan brek 2 of 5 racks making a ball with dany smith racking so I think it was more of a certin tables break better at certin times to make balls

Do you recall his outcome? Was he 8 and out both, or either rack?

 

[catkins]

it was the match with dany smith right after he got back dany was giving up 8 7 I think and they renegotiated to ball not counting on the break. I forget out come of those games but definetly had a huge impact on the match

 

[Tobermory]

Who among you, believes the rule was changed for any other reason , besides cheaters manipulating the rack?

It is my understanding that the rule was changed because pros didn't want a tournament match to get decided by a lucky break where the ball goes in.

Who among you knows anyone who can manipulate the rack to make the corner ball more often? Who among you knows anyone who can do that and also make the rack look like a properly racked rack?

I'm tempted to revise my 11/50 proposition to allow the breaker to manipulate as best they can so long as the rack doesn't look crooked or super loose.

 

[Tobermory]

I watched tony chohan brek 2 of 5 racks making a ball with dany smith racking so I think it was more of a certin tables break better at certin times to make balls

Sounds to me like Tony was getting pretty lucky unless he learned something pretty slick during his vacation. 2 of 5 ain't 11 out of 50.

 

[RabbiHippie]

In the tournaments I ran, if somebody made a ball on the break, if they sold out on the next break they got one more break. Also making a ball on the break meant either pocket (logical consistancy). Director could be called to determine if the break was a sellout.

I'm not sure about the "sellout" option, although it would address my only frustration with the re-rack rule: laying down a good break and having it wiped out because a ball unintentionally fell, then flubbing my second attempt at the break after the re-rack. Judging a "sellout" is too subjective, even with an impartial referee. I can foresee lots of disputes from both sides with that.

As far as making a ball in either pocket ... well, I can say I've done that too. Made a ball in my opponent's pocket on the break. There wasn't a re-rack and I started the game down one. That struck me as unfair too because there's an imbalance between risks and rewards. I can be penalized for a really crappy break (which it certainly was) but gain no benefit from an otherwise good break where the same thing happened by accident.

Just brainstorming because re-rack is pretty much accepted everywhere now. I'd have to say, though, there are several options proposed in this discussion that are better thought-out than the rule we have. Short of DCC coming up with something different in the future, re-rack has been the standard in tournaments for a while now and it's been years since I played anyone who didn't expect a re-rack.

 

[frmn]

The sellout only pertains to a ball that leaks out and may be cuttable. If its close call the TD. I NEVER got called. If the palyer sells the break out then one more rerack only..........unless you make a ball again. Rinse .Repeat.

 

[RabbiHippie]

The sellout only pertains to a ball that leaks out and may be cuttable. If its close call the TD. I NEVER got called. If the palyer sells the break out then one more rerack only..........unless you make a ball again. Rinse .Repeat.

I agree that your way is more fair than the current system.

If anything, this discussion has been a good thought experiment. Lots of good points raised by everyone apparently not considered when the re-rack rule was written. Almost every suggestion has been better than what we wound up with. There's probably too much momentum behind the current rule now, though, to make it much better on a large scale.

 

[BRLongArm]

Bill, I wasn't suggesting that you were saying you could make it 20% of the time. I was trying to say that I'd be willing to bet against anyone who thinks they can make it 20% of the time. Even pros. As such, I tend to agree with you that we amateurs should allow the ball luckily made on the break.

Does anyone out there think making a ball on the break is a skill shot?

It can be. Russian Kenny makes his living with proposition shots. He is the one that shoots spot shots out of the jaws of the pocket. I have seen him beat Dennis, Shaw and SVB at this shot. It's a function of practice. He thinks only one person on earth can beat him; His ex-girlfriend, who he taught and now she can beat anyone, and give them a pretty good spot at doing it. If you practice enough, you can master a shot.

Anyway, I got to know him a little around New Orleans and he realized I was not going to bet against him on proposition shots. He then shows me two of his much lesser known proposition shots. First, he racks the nineball rack and makes the dead wing ball every time and runs out the same way every time by pattern racking. Next, he racked the one pocket rack. I inspected it. He made the corner ball 3 out of 5 times and hung it once. Unbelievable, I said. Do it in the other pocket. He racks the balls and breaks and makes it 2 out of 5 and hung it once. That is all I needed to see to know that unless we want one pocket to go the way of nine ball, we better rerack on a made ball. In the beginning, only a few knew how to rack the nineball rack. Now it is a broken game because they all know how to rack. The same will happen with one pocket.

According to Steve, making a ball randomly occurs 2% of the time. The pros can manipulate the rack to make it much higher than that. Right now, the breaker wins 60% of the time. That's a pretty solid advantage, but not so high that you can't overcome it. Allowing the savvy breaker to manipulate the rack will make the breaker win much higher than 60% of the time and will damage our game

 

[lll]

It can be. Russian Kenny makes his living with proposition shots. He is the one that shoots spot shots out of the jaws of the pocket. I have seen him beat Dennis, Shaw and SVB at this shot. It's a function of practice. He thinks only one person on earth can beat him; His ex-girlfriend, who he taught and now she can beat anyone, and give them a pretty good spot at doing it. If you practice enough, you can master a shot.

Anyway, I got to know him a little around New Orleans and he realized I was not going to bet against him on proposition shots. He then shows me two of his much lesser known proposition shots. First, he racks the nineball rack and makes the dead wing ball every time and runs out the same way every time by pattern racking. Next, he racked the one pocket rack. I inspected it. He made the corner ball 3 out of 5 times and hung it once. Unbelievable, I said. Do it in the other pocket. He racks the balls and breaks and makes it 2 out of 5 and hung it once. That is all I needed to see to know that unless we want one pocket to go the way of nine ball, we better rerack on a made ball. In the beginning, only a few knew how to rack the nineball rack. Now it is a broken game because they all know how to rack. The same will happen with one pocket.

According to Steve, making a ball randomly occurs 2% of the time. The pros can manipulate the rack to make it much higher than that. Right now, the breaker wins 60% of the time. That's a pretty solid advantage, but not so high that you can't overcome it. Allowing the savvy breaker to manipulate the rack will make the breaker win much higher than 60% of the time and will damage our game

thats why the OPPONENT should rack (with your inspection and approval)
then
whatever happens ...happens
jmho

 

[Tobermory]

It can be. Russian Kenny makes his living with proposition shots. He is the one that shoots spot shots out of the jaws of the pocket. I have seen him beat Dennis, Shaw and SVB at this shot. It's a function of practice. He thinks only one person on earth can beat him; His ex-girlfriend, who he taught and now she can beat anyone, and give them a pretty good spot at doing it. If you practice enough, you can master a shot.

Anyway, I got to know him a little around New Orleans and he realized I was not going to bet against him on proposition shots. He then shows me two of his much lesser known proposition shots. First, he racks the nineball rack and makes the dead wing ball every time and runs out the same way every time by pattern racking. Next, he racked the one pocket rack. I inspected it. He made the corner ball 3 out of 5 times and hung it once. Unbelievable, I said. Do it in the other pocket. He racks the balls and breaks and makes it 2 out of 5 and hung it once. That is all I needed to see to know that unless we want one pocket to go the way of nine ball, we better rerack on a made ball. In the beginning, only a few knew how to rack the nineball rack. Now it is a broken game because they all know how to rack. The same will happen with one pocket.

According to Steve, making a ball randomly occurs 2% of the time. The pros can manipulate the rack to make it much higher than that. Right now, the breaker wins 60% of the time. That's a pretty solid advantage, but not so high that you can't overcome it. Allowing the savvy breaker to manipulate the rack will make the breaker win much higher than 60% of the time and will damage our game

OK, Russian Kenny seems to have a gift, but can you explain exactly how he is able to make the corner ball that frequently? Gaffing a nine ball rack is one thing since the wing ball is basically caroming on the tangent into the pocket. I don't care how much you practice, manipulating a corner ball is another thing altogether. What's he doing? And how come nobody else seems to be able to do it? Tell Russian Kenny to come to SF and try his prop on one of the tight gold crowns at Family Billiards.