Official OnePocket.org Rules Poll revised

[NH Steve]

Steve I think you need to decide whether you want to draw a line in the sand and state rules as you think they should be
or as you think the majority of one pocket players would want
or codify every what if option and tell everyone play the game the way you want to just decide among yourself what variation you want to agree to
that makes everybody happy and nobody would complain
jmho
icbw

Players can always do whatever they want, but the funny thing is, so can TD's lol. So you see a lot of different stuff. Two of those "option" rules I posted are already being used at DCC.

 

[NH Steve]

Steve I think you need to decide whether you want to draw a line in the sand and state rules as you think they should be
or as you think the majority of one pocket players would want
or codify every what if option and tell everyone play the game the way you want to just decide among yourself what variation you want to agree to
that makes everybody happy and nobody would complain
jmho
icbw

I agree and that is what our complete Official rules as a baseline are supposed to do -- they are the backdrop of rules to go by.

For these options -- and this is a big question right away -- I don't want to put them right in the rules, because that would open potential confusion, even if they are italicized or include the word "option" or whatever to add some differentiation. But for tournament directors who feel they need certain "options" to keep their events moving, if we have those options available somewhere, it makes our rules a lot easier and sensible to reference.

Another one that is being floated for events is:

*7.1 Foul limit loss of game option: A player may owe up to 4 unpaid fouls, but an additional foul that would result in 5 owed balls is loss of game.

 

[lll]

i would like one last time to suggest that the ball in hand behind the line be added anywhere ball in hand by itself is written
i think people searching one section see ball in hand by itself might get the idea its ball in hand like 9 ball
jmho

 

[lll]

I agree and that is what our complete Official rules as a baseline are supposed to do -- they are the backdrop of rules to go by.

For these options -- and this is a big question right away -- I don't want to put them right in the rules, because that would open potential confusion, even if they are italicized or include the word "option" or whatever to add some differentiation. But for tournament directors who feel they need certain "options" to keep their events moving, if we have those options available somewhere, it makes our rules a lot easier and sensible to reference.

Another one that is being floated for events is:

*7.1 Foul limit loss of game option: A player may owe up to 4 unpaid fouls, but an additional foul that would result in 5 owed balls is loss of game.

 

[darmoose]

Should we be concerned about giving options to TD's.........

I believe it is a mistake to try to anticipate and think for TD's that might be looking to solve a particular problem and have completely different motives than are represented in any games official rule book. That is simply a recipe for failure and waters down the "official" rules of the game. Looks like we are gonna have a rules book and an "options" book that we will have to staple together to have everything we will need to know.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to try to be all things to all people, sorry.

P.S. could we get an option that a player can't run more than two balls (that oughtta help level the playing field for me).... ....or how bout an option to have an option to pass the shot back....

 

[darmoose]

Thank you Bob! I have an old Brunswick rule book from the 1890's I think, but then nothing until maybe the '68 that you quote. I was wondering when it changed -- and there it is, between '68 and '70!

But why do you suppose they said "near" in the old rules, which seems to most of us to directly conflict with "frozen"? Do you suppose it meant that if you could not get the ball to freeze, then as near as you could get it was acceptable???

I suspect that because the equipment wasn't what it is today, they were simply saying freeze the ball if possible, but if not possible, get it as close as you can. Don't you think that is the most plausible explanation?

 

[NH Steve]

Should we be concerned about giving options to TD's.........

I believe it is a mistake to try to anticipate and think for TD's that might be looking to solve a particular problem and have completely different motives than are represented in any games official rule book. That is simply a recipe for failure and waters down the "official" rules of the game. Looks like we are gonna have a rules book and an "options" book that we will have to staple together to have everything we will need to know.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to try to be all things to all people, sorry.

P.S. could we get an option that a player can't run more than two balls (that oughtta help level the playing field for me).... ....or how bout an option to have an option to pass the shot back....

It’s not actually “anticipating” — it’s in fact responding because major events and streamed money matches are already using some variations and asking for more variations that do not match our official rules. And I think we pretty near nailed the Official rules that we just voted on. So our rules are our official rules straight ahead. But we are the onepocket.org for all of One Pocket — not just our own MOT. And as much as we try to wrestle players and tournaments, players and tournaments are always going to do their own thing.

Another option that would fall nicely into a “throwback” rule set, would be that knocking an object ball off the table is not a foul (contrary to our rules since 2005)

So the way it might look in practice is something like this below in red. Let’s call this one “throwback” One Pocket, but you can see that different simplified packages are easily possible if we put the tools in place. You can make up your own favorite and give it a name that makes sense and boom, you and your opponent are off and running.

Throwback One Pocket Rules
​

• Opponent racks; breaker keeps shooting on a ball made on their break
• Whole ball for BIH
• Spotted balls freeze to the cue ball when it interferes
• Ball closest to the head rail spots on a BIH with all balls in the kitchen
• Jumped object ball is not a foul
• No 3 foul rule

For complete rules reference onepocket.org/rules


With rule “options” like these somewhere in an addendum that can actually be looked up, our rules are more complete for these different situations.

*9.1.1 Spot balls frozen to the cue ball option: When the cue ball interferes with the spot, the spotted ball shall be tightly frozen to the cue ball without dislodging the position of the cue ball.

*9.5.1 Spotting from the head rail: When all of the balls are located behind the head string in a BIH situation, the ball nearest the head rail may be spotted at the request of the incoming player. If two or more balls are equally close to the head rail, the shooter may designate which ball to spot

 

[onepocketman]

I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that you think "below the line" means within the kitchen??

I always think of the head of the table as where the kitchen is, which is also "up table". The foot of the table is where the balls are racked, which is also "down table". "Above" would always be toward the head of the table, and below would always be toward the foot.

I don't see how anyone could be confused about cue ball placement, since it clearly says "behind the line" twice right up front. The reference to above/below comes up in the description of what "whole ball" means. But maybe I misunderstand the way some people see above/below the line.

Yes, you got it. Every player I know calls the kitchen area as being behind the line from the incoming shooter's perspective with BIH in OP.

Not a big deal as far as that point goes, as this is pretty much a no-brainer for any pool player. The main points are that CB is completely within the kitchen, not touching the line, and vice-versa for OB. So I did a double-take for a split second is all.

 

[onepocketman]

Steve, I think the reasoning behind as close as possible without touching cue ball is - if you touch cue ball, then you fouled.

I have been playing nearly 50 years and it has always been as close as possible without touching cue ball. Doesn't that make sense ?

Reminds me of playing Joe Salazar. He knocks ball into upper corner pocket, cue ball goes as deep as it can without scratching. I

try to get my hand in to get ball and barely touch the cue ball. First thing Joe does is holler foul. I got the best of that argument,

and every time it happened after I would have Joe walk around and remove pocketed ball.

I agree, but then you have the catch 22. I can't freeze it to the CB without touching and therefore disturbing the CB. Which was okay by me when we played it that way.

I see pros/cons either way. If we played to freeze it, cool, but I will do whatever I need to in order to do so unless some wear spot on the table would mean serious disturbance of the CB. I am never going to blatantly move the CB off of its location on purpose. I advise the opponent that they are welcome to try when I can't get them to freeze easily, even when tapping the OB with another, those racking wear spots can be pretty pesky. I can easily tell if that would help or not.
If not, I used as near as possible. Same as for OBs on the string-it happens.

The issue when freezing is the difficulty in being precise without inadvertently disturbing it seriously and having to restore its position sometimes. If the felt is new, it would be much less of an issue without those depressions from the racked balls. This is the reason they came out with all those templates to help freeze racks when the felt is broken in.

I was switched to the now commonly used "near as possible without touching the CB" rule a few years back. It doesn't matter in the long run, when both players have it the same way. At least then you are accountable if you disturb the CB.


As far as the re-rack rule. I prefer old-school rack, make, and run.
I also prefer to rack my own, then I can't blame anyone in my own mind or out loud if it isn't a nice rack. I hate to be a pesky guy telling an opponent their rack is defective, but that's how it has to be if someone racks for me. I take it seriously.
Let's face it, in novice play or for small stakes why would my opponent use so much care to rack perfectly for me? It can also be an (incidental??) move for them.

I (and my opponent) always have the right to inspect and say something if the rack job looks hinky. At Michael's, they draw a line to the foot rail from the spot so it is easy to tell if twisted. You can see the line between ball positions 2 and 3 as well as see the centering on the base center ball. I wish all pool halls would do this because I have a hard time eyeballing it otherwise. If I have an opponent who prefers to play the re-rack, I'm easy.

Also, no re-racks on scratches when a ball is pocketed. A foul is not a legally scoring shot. Spot it, and you owe one, same as for any point during the game on a scratch. No balls made on a scratch count, and you are penalized one. Saying it was a perfect break is like saying you made a perfect shot but then scratched on it. It becomes a foul, not perfect. There is no such term in any rule stating perfect with an asterisk stating *other than, or until the scratch". We can't change the meaning of that word.

Sorry for the long-winded post.

 

[beatle]

xxxxx

 

[lll]

you cant have a foul on the guy spotting a ball or why should he. so touching the cue ball when spotting a ball isnt a foul.
if it is tell the other guy to spot the ball and then call a foul on him. lets be reasonable.
the person spotting the ball is acting like a referee. how do you punish a ref. if he bumps some balls or moves the cue ball an inch.

this is our rule 6.7( i bolded the relevant part to your post beatle
6.7 Spotting balls: It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes. It shall be a foul for the incoming shooter to accidentally touch an object ball while placing the cue ball in a ball in hand situation. The outgoing player is responsible for spotting ball(s) at the end of their inning. Both players have the right to approve the exact spot prior to resuming play, and if the players themselves cannot agree on the spot, then they have to get someone else to spot the ball. Once play has resumed, a ball cannot be re-spotted unless both players agree.

 

[mr3cushion]

IMO, this needs to come to an end! This, 'nit-picking' is so ridiculous!

 

[NH Steve]

IMO, this needs to come to an end! This, 'nit-picking' is so ridiculous!

Official One Pocket Rules

www.onepocket.org

 

[mr3cushion]

Are these helpful: https://www.billiards.com/official-bca-one-pocket-rules

 

[NH Steve]

Are these helpful: https://www.billiards.com/official-bca-one-pocket-rules

That’s seriously funny — those are a direct knock off of our 2005 rules — with no credit of course. And they say BCA — which they are not lol. Basically click bait

 

[mr3cushion]

That’s seriously funny — those are a direct knock off our 2005 rules — with no credit of course. And they say BCA — which they are not lol. Basically click bait

You should of did Copyright.

 

[NH Steve]

You should of did Copyright.

I did — people just copy lol. Sometimes they copy and tweak. Sometimes they just copy. It’s one of the ways our rules have promulgated

The internet is like that

 

[mr3cushion]

I did — people just copy lol. Sometimes they copy and tweak. Sometimes they just copy. It’s one of the ways our rules have promulgated

The internet is like that

Take the BCA to court.

 

[NH Steve]

Take the BCA to court.

Its NOT the BCA -- it has nothing to do with the BCA. It was just a bozo web guy that was looking for content and "borrowed" our rules -- maybe not even directly from our website. Anyone who creates decent content on the web gets freeloaders like this.

 

[mr3cushion]

Its NOT the BCA -- it has nothing to do with the BCA. It was just a bozo web guy that was looking for content and "borrowed" our rules -- maybe not even directly from our website. Anyone who creates decent content on the web gets freeloaders like this.

The Bozo doesn't edit/manage content on his own! Content has be approved by the site owner.