NH Steve
Administrator
One topic that came up at the Providence One Pocket tournament was the question of fouls. We played cue ball fouls only, with the opponent having option of replacing the ball moved or leaving them in their new location. One of the players approached me afterward (Jared Clowery) and made a very good point, that I had to agree with him, is especially significant for One Pocket. Jared's point was, if he locks up his opponent so it is tough to bridge over interfering balls, why should the incoming player be able to get away with bumping those balls in order to get his shot off? It takes away from the strength of the position that Jared put him in.
I generally have been in favor of the cue ball fouls only because it is too tough to police all balls without a referee, and too easy for an over eager opponent to see mysterious touch fouls, which creates nothing but fireworks.
So here are a couple of ideas (which may or may not be new at all):
1. If the ball disturbance happens prior to the release of the shot, then play stops and the usual "move the ball back" situation could take place.
2. If the ball disturbance happens on/after the release of the shot (without time for the shooter to stop and get the ball replaced), then it would be called a foul.
3. You could also limit the ball disturbance/replacement (prior to the shot) to one time, as a warning, so that if the shooter bumped/disturbed the balls a second time (even if he is still just getting down into his stance to get ready to shoot), then bumping the balls a second time would be a foul, but the first time (for any given shot -- not like once a game or anything) it would not.
This combination of rules would not quite be "all ball fouls" but it goes a good way toward that, only basically allowing for one disturbance/bump during the shooters preparations as a warning, then basically going to all ball fouls.
The idea behind this for One Pocket especially is that you have to consider that those interfering balls are truly a part of the shot -- they effect the shooters ability to bridge or stroke from where either they left themselves, or where their opponent left them -- that difficulty of bridging and stroking cleanly could definitely be part & parcel to the outcome of the shot.
I have to add that I am still a little concerned that certain players could still abuse the mysterious foul call, so I would like to hear what others think could be done to minimize that. Also, what about in "three fouls, loss of game" situations? A touch foul would be a real nasty way to lose an important game... maybe these touch fouls should not be considered the same as other fouls & pocket scratches. Any ideas on that?
What do you all think, or am I just slow to catch up with what is already being done or talked about elsewhere?
I generally have been in favor of the cue ball fouls only because it is too tough to police all balls without a referee, and too easy for an over eager opponent to see mysterious touch fouls, which creates nothing but fireworks.
So here are a couple of ideas (which may or may not be new at all):
1. If the ball disturbance happens prior to the release of the shot, then play stops and the usual "move the ball back" situation could take place.
2. If the ball disturbance happens on/after the release of the shot (without time for the shooter to stop and get the ball replaced), then it would be called a foul.
3. You could also limit the ball disturbance/replacement (prior to the shot) to one time, as a warning, so that if the shooter bumped/disturbed the balls a second time (even if he is still just getting down into his stance to get ready to shoot), then bumping the balls a second time would be a foul, but the first time (for any given shot -- not like once a game or anything) it would not.
This combination of rules would not quite be "all ball fouls" but it goes a good way toward that, only basically allowing for one disturbance/bump during the shooters preparations as a warning, then basically going to all ball fouls.
The idea behind this for One Pocket especially is that you have to consider that those interfering balls are truly a part of the shot -- they effect the shooters ability to bridge or stroke from where either they left themselves, or where their opponent left them -- that difficulty of bridging and stroking cleanly could definitely be part & parcel to the outcome of the shot.
I have to add that I am still a little concerned that certain players could still abuse the mysterious foul call, so I would like to hear what others think could be done to minimize that. Also, what about in "three fouls, loss of game" situations? A touch foul would be a real nasty way to lose an important game... maybe these touch fouls should not be considered the same as other fouls & pocket scratches. Any ideas on that?
What do you all think, or am I just slow to catch up with what is already being done or talked about elsewhere?