Official One Pocket Rules

[gulfportdoc]

in one pocket anything you can do with your playing cue i think should be allowed
just like jumping the object ball off the rail over obstacles

Larry, you bring up a good point of view. And it's logical to think that way, especially if the jump shot is limited to use with the regular playing cue. I simply believe that pool and cue sports were intended as a two dimensional games, and had been played that way for hundreds of years, until very recent times.

To my knowledge no other cue game allows the jump shot: billiards, snooker, Russian billiards, bumper pool, etc. The shot really came into prominence as the result of Texas Express rules 9-ball, which included the dreaded 3 foul rule. Guys wanted to make sure that they hit the ball of which they were required. The jump shot became an easy way to do it. And of course young guys like it because it's full of razzmatazz. But yet one of the greatest players of all time --Efren Reyes-- never resorted to the jump shot.

It's fun to watch a well-executed jump shot. Grady performed some eye-popping jump shots, including a few in 1P situations, on one of his tapes. It may have been in his "The Finer Points of ..." series; probably one-pocket. But situations for use of the jump shot are rare in 1P. IMO it should be left to the realm of trick shot exhibitions. Nevertheless it will undoubtedly remain permitted in our rules. So be it.

Doc

 

[senor]

I apologize in advance Doc, this was just the obvious question after reading your thoughts. Can you jump with a full length cue :sorry? I don't think not being able to jump implies a lack of skill. Obviously technique plays a part, but so does the equipment used. I could be wrong because I have never used one, but I am guessing the spliced, low deflection shafts are really difficult to jump over full balls with.

Masse shots use similar strokes and cue elevations, and the cue ball will most definitely jump and hop around a bit before the spin really grabs hold. It may be difficult for some to reconcile why one shot (masse) is allowed and another (full cue jump) is not allowed. And this is just one example most similar to the jump shot. I can think of a few other scenarios where the cue ball gets a little airborn.

 

[Jimmy B]

Larry, you bring up a good point of view. And it's logical to think that way, especially if the jump shot is limited to use with the regular playing cue. I simply believe that pool and cue sports were intended as a two dimensional games, and had been played that way for hundreds of years, until very recent times.

To my knowledge no other cue game allows the jump shot: billiards, snooker, Russian billiards, bumper pool, etc. The shot really came into prominence as the result of Texas Express rules 9-ball, which included the dreaded 3 foul rule. Guys wanted to make sure that they hit the ball of which they were required. The jump shot became an easy way to do it. And of course young guys like it because it's full of razzmatazz. But yet one of the greatest players of all time --Efren Reyes-- never resorted to the jump shot.

It's fun to watch a well-executed jump shot. Grady performed some eye-popping jump shots, including a few in 1P situations, on one of his tapes. It may have been in his "The Finer Points of ..." series; probably one-pocket. But situations for use of the jump shot are rare in 1P. IMO it should be left to the realm of trick shot exhibitions. Nevertheless it will undoubtedly remain permitted in our rules. So be it.

Doc

Check out Martinez shot at the 43 minute mark. Don't you feel that shots like this are perfectly ok? I remember Burton teaching me the art of jumping over half of a ball or a quarter of a ball with a regular cue and how easy it was. One day he said today I will show you how to make an object ball jump over the edge of another ball and go in when you don't have a pocket. I found this to be easy also. You can also just use high top to go over the edge of a ball that has barely got you hooked, and viewers can't even tell that the cue ball left the surface of the table. You do it with a pretty much level cue stick too. He told me to practice it by putting a penny in front of the cue ball and it will go right over it. I always liked using these type shots...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJHjNZp6KU[/ame]

 

[bernie p]

Let me get this straight Bernie: On one continent, in one state, in one poolroom, on one weekend, on one table, you saw a ball going in on the break 33 1/3% to 50% of the time and you think the rules of One-Pocket should maybe be changed to compensate for this???

If you weren't such a nice guy I'd ask you if you were losing what's left of your mind.

That's my food for thought.

Dennis

Dennis,

I enjoy your humor......:lol

This just in, from the Billy/Ghost recent match up....and I quote (from the Ghost)... "PS, And but you're memory is malfunctioning - it was twice that you made the corner ball out of your four breaks...trust me, I know for sure because I was unhappily pondering your making it at a 50% clip...and also I talked to first Ike, and then John about it after the match."

.....hard to believe I know. Yet on the exact same continent....in the very same country.....albeit a different state.....on yet another weekend....in a typical pool room....on an average table....2 accomplished one pocket players experienced a ball being made on the break by one certain player 50% of the time.....much to the chagrin of his opponent.

Can't possibly imagine the infinitessimally small odds of this phenomenon re-occurring again in such a small snippet of time.

Perhaps the Ghost would be an advocate of re-breaking under the circumstances?:lol Then again....perhaps Billy would not

Thanks.

Bernie.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Check out Martinez shot at the 43 minute mark. Don't you feel that shots like this are perfectly ok?

That was a good shot by Martinez, and very inventive. But it wasn't a "jump shot". The CB "jumped", but it was shot off the rail, and resulted in a foul. If you're willing to take a foul every time you perform a regular jump shot, I'll go along with it...

BTW, was one of the commentators Steve Booth? It sounded like his voice.

Doc

 

[Jimmy B]

That was a good shot by Martinez, and very inventive. But it wasn't a "jump shot". The CB "jumped", but it was shot off the rail, and resulted in a foul. If you're willing to take a foul every time you perform a regular jump shot, I'll go along with it...

BTW, was one of the commentators Steve Booth? It sounded like his voice.

Doc

Yes sir it was Steve and Sylver O I think. I just said that because of when you said you thought the game should be two dimensional, I thought it meant the cue ball should remain on the table all the time. My mistake.. I like the no jump stick rule but jump with a regular one. I haven't made up my mind about making balls on the break, but this is a good thread to go into these matters.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Dennis,

I enjoy your humor......:lol

This just in, from the Billy/Ghost recent match up....and I quote (from the Ghost)... "PS, And but you're memory is malfunctioning - it was twice that you made the corner ball out of your four breaks...trust me, I know for sure because I was unhappily pondering your making it at a 50% clip...and also I talked to first Ike, and then John about it after the match."

.....hard to believe I know. Yet on the exact same continent....in the very same country.....albeit a different state.....on yet another weekend....in a typical pool room....on an average table....2 accomplished one pocket players experienced a ball being made on the break by one certain player 50% of the time.....much to the chagrin of his opponent.

Can't possibly imagine the infinitessimally small odds of this phenomenon re-occurring again in such a small snippet of time.

Perhaps the Ghost would be an advocate of re-breaking under the circumstances?:lol Then again....perhaps Billy would not

Thanks.

Bernie.

I also enjoy your humor so I'll give you a little back.

First of all the two old guys can't even agree on how many games they played or how many times the corner ball went in on the break but let's assume the Ghost is right. 8 games played and the ball went in twice. That's 25% of the time not 50%. It is not relevant who broke, only that the event occurred. You also don't know if Bill broke to the same pocket both times he made a ball on the break putting more uncertainty into your position. What if he broke to the other pocket the 2nd time?

Secondly, 8 games is not a large enough sample to draw any conclusions from, they might play 50 more games without either player making a ball on the break.

In all seriousness, you may as well quit playing pool when you start thinking like this.

Dennis

 

[gulfportdoc]

... I am also interested in more players trying "All ball fouls with a one touch warning", which I have described before:

1. All cue ball fouls are always called.
2. Any movement or obvious touch of an object ball is always a foul if it occurs during or after the release of a shot.
3. Prior to release of a shot, if a player touches or moves a ball, the ball is restored and a warning is issued.
4. It is the responsibility of the the non-shooting player to request a referee or neutral observer in a close situation, especially if a warning has already been issued. If the summoned referee (or neutral observer) calls a foul based on any object ball contact, their decision is final.
5. After a warning has been issued, any object ball touch or movement is a foul, even if the shooting player has elected a different shot or the touch involves a different ball.

Just to be clear, the one warning applies to each shot, not inning, and does not carry over to the player's next shot or next inning.

Getting back to Steve's invitation to think about the "one touch warning" proposal; it seems like a good rule to me, although we run the danger of getting too niggling. It's almost as if there would too many things for which to be on alert.

Still, we've all been in situations where an opponent keeps touching an OB, especially during the setup of a shot. The "one touch warning" would take care of that. I do think rule 6.1 is well written, and covers this circumstance in most instances.

Doc

 

[MrVester]

Question. . .

Question. . .

In the rules section under section 9,2 Spotting Balls, it says, ". . .if a player runs off all the balls on the table without reaching a winning score, then all such balls are spotted immediately." What does " 'Such' balls" mean?

 

[androd]

In the rules section under section 9,2 Spotting Balls, it says, ". . .if a player runs off all the balls on the table without reaching a winning score, then all such balls are spotted immediately." What does " 'Such' balls" mean?

Welcome Mr.V
I don't like the rule.
It means any spot balls that haven't been paid.
Scratches that haven't been paid.
Any balls knocked into a neutral pocket during the run.
These scenarios are all possible with or without a handicap.
Rod.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

Welcome Mr.V
I don't like the rule.

Rod.

I don't like the rule either but for very different reasons.

Dennis

 

[gulfportdoc]

Welcome Mr.V
I don't like the rule.
It means any spot balls that haven't been paid.
Scratches that haven't been paid.
Any balls knocked into a neutral pocket during the run.
These scenarios are all possible with or without a handicap.
Rod.

Rod, obviously the balls have to be spotted, or the game couldn't continue. At least some of them, anyway. Do you have a particular order in mind? How do y'all play it over there?

Doc

 

[lll]

all the balls that fell into pockets should be spotted
jmho
icbw

 

[MrVester]

I want to thank all who took the time to answer my question. I know I'm new at the game so there are a few things that don't make a connection to me.

The term "Paid" balls confusing me a bit.

The scenario in my mind is that all the balls have been pocketed legally, but the winning number for one player has not yet been reached because of a handicap. So my question is how many balls must be spotted for the game to continue?

Am I on the right track or, more likely, am I still lost?

I'm sorry if I appear amateurish, of course I am, but I used to play with a number of fine one pocket players in Medford Oregon who taught me enough to capture my enthusiastic interest. I have moved up to Port Townsend WA and have found that although there are some very fine players of 8 and 9-ball, no one is familiar with one pocket and it's after hours charm. I would like to introduce the game, but I'm afraid that since I'm not well versed with the rules, no one will take me seriously since there will be too many chances that I will not know the rules definitively.
Thanks again for all your time.

 

[androd]

I want to thank all who took the time to answer my question. I know I'm new at the game so there are a few things that don't make a connection to me.

The term "Paid" balls confusing me a bit.

The scenario in my mind is that all the balls have been pocketed legally, but the winning number for one player has not yet been reached because of a handicap. So my question is how many balls must be spotted for the game to continue?

Am I on the right track or, more likely, am I still lost?

I'm sorry if I appear amateurish, of course I am, but I used to play with a number of fine one pocket players in Medford Oregon who taught me enough to capture my enthusiastic interest. I have moved up to Port Townsend WA and have found that although there are some very fine players of 8 and 9-ball, no one is familiar with one pocket and it's after hours charm. I would like to introduce the game, but I'm afraid that since I'm not well versed with the rules, no one will take me seriously since there will be too many chances that I will not know the rules definitively.
Thanks again for all your time.

If you were playing even, and owed 1 or 2 balls and your opponent had 7 balls. If you ran the remaining balls and possibly knocked one in the side pocket during the run, ALL balls (2 or 3 ) would then spot at the same time. So a handicap isn't necessary, but more likely. I think the scratches and or spot ball should be spotted together, but not punish the shooter for the ball that fell in the side. I think that it should come up after the shooters inning is completed.
Rod.

 

[MrVester]

Okay, I think I understand! Thanks for your help, I truly appreciate it.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Okay, I think I understand! Thanks for your help, I truly appreciate it.

Welcome Mr. McV,

It has been my experience, that it is a good idea to sort out the rules ( in any gray area) as best you can with your opponent...It is impossible to cover every eventuality, but get clear on basic things, (like you are refering to)...BEFORE you flip the coin...Especially for serious $$$.

 

[MrVester]

Thanks for the tip, I'm trying to do it the right way. I'm glad I found this site. The internet can be a wonderful tool.

 

[One Pocket Ghost]

Steve,

A situation came up this past weekend during a local tournament.

On one particular table the average tight (yet legal) rack quite often resulted in the corner ball being made on a regular basis (typically one out of every 2 or 3 breaks).

Prior to the start of one of my matches I asked my opponent if they would be interested in potentially re-spotting the ball if made on the break, on the basis that is it highly likely that it would result in loss of game for the non breaker. He agreed.

Given that this situation is either a function of mostly good fortune or "smart racking", I am proposing the adoption of a rule change that would prompt an automatic re-break in this circumstance.

Nobody wants to lose a game this way. Food for thought?

Thanks.

Bernie.

Bernie....I was meaning to answer this and I forgot :frus but now I'm finally answering it 6 weeks later...:heh...

Anyway, I agree with you re. this subject....I hate to lose because of blatant bad luck - and I don't want to win because of it either....I would make 2 changes though - the other being when the breaking side corner ball comes out and sells out against you when you break...and before somebody else says this - that ball doesn't only come out when the break is hit badly - countless times I've seen, or myself hit the break perfectly, and yet the corner ball banks out in front of the opponents pocket, oftentimes costing you the game....that all said....how I would like to see these break result situations be played would be like this...

I would allow for one ball to be gained from luck - but only one...as in...

If the breaker makes a ball on the break, he gets to keep the ball, keeps shooting, but can't pocket any more balls - he instead has to play a safety on his next shot

If, when the breaker breaks, the breaking side corner ball comes out and leaves that simple shot for his opponent...his opponent gets to shoot and pocket that ball, keeps shooting, but can't pocket any more balls - he instead also has to play a safety on his next shot.

- Ghost

PS, I hate to see a victory being awarded because of luck, in any sport, pool, football, etc.

 

[Cary]

If it weren't for luck, I'd never win a game.