How about this rule for ball fouls?

[NH Steve]

I notice it was mentioned that for at least the streamed matches, they played "foul on all balls" at Freezer's tournament.

I want to come back to my suggestion for general play -- or tournament play without a referee right at the table -- "All ball fouls with one touch warning"

The idea is to tighten up the game, but still take into account that there is no referee or neutral observer acting as a referee that is monitoring every single moment in a normal match -- hence the "one touch warning".

It's pretty simple:

1. If the shooter moves or touches one object ball prior to releasing their shot, they get a warning and the usual opponent option of leaving the ball or moving it back. But also a neutral observer or ref is called to watch at that point.
2. A second touch or moving of any ball, even if it is prior to releasing the shot, is a foul.
3. It is always a foul to clearly move or touch an object ball during the shot. But if there is no referee or neutral observer watching, the burden of proof is on the opponent (to reduce or prevent phantom foul calls).

The opponent can always call over a ref or neutral observer if a situation looks like it is going to be close to a foul, but the "one touch warning" obviously is intended to trigger that.

 

[Island Drive]

I'd simplify that. If you touch a ball, a ref is Automatically called. End of discussion. Since our game shoots over balls allot, and causes allot of stretching to reach, it's the nature of one hole. Good idea tho in tourney play.

 

[darmoose]

I notice it was mentioned that for at least the streamed matches, they played "foul on all balls" at Freezer's tournament.

I want to come back to my suggestion for general play -- or tournament play without a referee right at the table -- "All ball fouls with one touch warning"

The idea is to tighten up the game, but still take into account that there is no referee or neutral observer acting as a referee that is monitoring every single moment in a normal match -- hence the "one touch warning".

It's pretty simple:

1. If the shooter moves or touches one object ball prior to releasing their shot, they get a warning and the usual opponent option of leaving the ball or moving it back. But also a neutral observer or ref is called to watch at that point.
2. A second touch or moving of any ball, even if it is prior to releasing the shot, is a foul.
3. It is always a foul to clearly move or touch an object ball during the shot. But if there is no referee or neutral observer watching, the burden of proof is on the opponent (to reduce or prevent phantom foul calls).

The opponent can always call over a ref or neutral observer if a situation looks like it is going to be close to a foul, but the "one touch warning" obviously is intended to trigger that.

Steve,

Regarding #3 above, is this true? I don't ever remember a foul being called for accidentally touching a ball during a shot, unless it interfered in some way.

 

[NH Steve]

Steve,

Regarding #3 above, is this true? I don't ever remember a foul being called for accidentally touching a ball during a shot, unless it interfered in some way.

No it is not true now -- it is part of what I am proposing.

 

[darmoose]

No it is not true now -- it is part of what I am proposing.

OH, sorry, I misread that.

I think the problem is that with just about any rule, it is almost impossible to eliminate subjective argument. That is why we have CB fouls only and having that speeds things up greatly.

Now, we wanna consider all ball fouls again? Won't that slow things down, and create arguments?

 

[gulfportdoc]

...

1. If the shooter moves or touches one object ball prior to releasing their shot, they get a warning and the usual opponent option of leaving the ball or moving it back. But also a neutral observer or ref is called to watch at that point.
2. A second touch or moving of any ball, even if it is prior to releasing the shot, is a foul.
3. It is always a foul to clearly move or touch an object ball during the shot. But if there is no referee or neutral observer watching, the burden of proof is on the opponent (to reduce or prevent phantom foul calls).

The opponent can always call over a ref or neutral observer if a situation looks like it is going to be close to a foul, but the "one touch warning" obviously is intended to trigger that.

IMO the proposition is fair enough. But the problem would often arise in enlisting the aid of someone to watch, especially in private games. But if the rule is only for tournament play, it makes more practical sense because a T.D. or assistant should be available.

~Doc

 

[NH Steve]

OH, sorry, I misread that.

I think the problem is that with just about any rule, it is almost impossible to eliminate subjective argument. That is why we have CB fouls only and having that speeds things up greatly.

Now, we wanna consider all ball fouls again? Won't that slow things down, and create arguments?

That's why I came up with this idea -- it is intended to get closer to the ideal of all ball fouls, but with a minimum of the kind of subjective argument that comes up with all ball fouls.

 

[NH Steve]

IMO the proposition is fair enough. But the problem would often arise in enlisting the aid of someone to watch, especially in private games. But if the rule is only for tournament play, it makes more practical sense because a T.D. or assistant should be available.

~Doc

Sometimes for sure -- but often in a poolroom even now, players will call another player over to "watch the hit" in 9-ball for example.

For lots of players, they can self police and have zero problems. You just need the neutral/ref for those that cannot do it themselves

 

[darmoose]

That's why I came up with this idea -- it is intended to get closer to the ideal of all ball fouls, but with a minimum of the kind of subjective argument that comes up with all ball fouls.

Steve,

I guess with some players it could work as could many ideas, however, the reason CB fouls only was adopted is that it "overlooks" minor inconsequential touches that have no bearing on the shot. Only when the accidental touch is more severe and does interfere with the shot, is it called, and it is more obvious and less argued over.

The same subjectiveness exists on the second attempt and is only reduced if a third party is available.

Can work. Probably slows things down. Probably makes the game more tedious and subject to criticism than it already is.

JMHO

 

[LSJohn]

I guess with some players it could work as could many ideas, however, the reason CB fouls only was adopted is that it "overlooks" minor inconsequential touches that have no bearing on the shot. Only when the accidental touch is more severe and does interfere with the shot, is it called, and it is more obvious and less argued over.

This is just like real life: I believe in No harm, No foul, so I prefer CB fouls only (the way we usually play it.)

I wouldn't ever give a traffic ticket to someone who fails to come to a full stop at a STOP sign when no other traffic is present.

 

[beatle]

been playing this game for many decades with the old rules and almost never had an argument over those things. and played in mostly slimy places where they took any angle they could to win.

ive found as soon as you put in a new rule to correct a small problem someone finds a way to use to to their advantage which negates having the rule in the first place. thats the reason they eliminated all ball fouls in the first place. it only worked in straight pool which had a ref there looking at every shot.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

IMO since OnePocket.org has developed their own tournaments then the 'tournament' needs the upmost consideration, in the progression of adopting this rule to play a cleaner game. Whitey