Rules Update Conversation

[vapros]

If the tap foul were outlawed, the penalty would have to be loss of game. What if it were unintentional - who would make the official distinction?

 

[Island Drive]

Bill,

You already did this and I think you are right. I have already given you my thought. I hope others will do likewise with some reasoning.

Look, I know I am being a pain is the ass about all this. But, I don't know any other way to approach this subject (rule changes) than to keep responding to others opinions and trying to provide logical reasoning. I can see that very very slowly people are starting to open up to at least thinking about the pluses and minuses, and that's a good first step.

I encourage all to speak up, be honest, keep an open mind, and consider only the potential betterment of the game of OP/

I know....your not a pain, maybe sometimes ....like myself.

I'll just create a New thread Titled ''Tap Fouls'' and see how that goes.

 

[NH Steve]

Just so you guys have a clear understanding of where I am coming from regarding this rules update — I am not out to change the rules of the game. All I am trying to do is clean up places that have been subject to confusion and disagreement, and in a couple of cases adding I guess what could consider somewhat new rules (maybe not new, but not covered in 2005), that have been driven by the way the game is being played today, as we all can see it. But not looking at — geez, how can we invent new ideas that might speed up the game or make it more equitable between classes of players.

Our game, as it is being played is popular and seems to be growing as it is! I do love hearing various ideas — like some of the creative stuff darmoose has come up with for sure— but those new ideas are only going to end up in the Official Rules if they percolate up, via a groundswell of interest. even then they would probably only start out in our alternate sections, leaving the official tome-honored game intact.

So if that disappoints some of you that want to revolutionize the game or the rules, that is a different project.

Our rules are in fact the standard of the game, and even if another organization like say USAPL has ”their own” — have s look, they basically copied and paraphrased ours for 99.9% of them lol.

 

[LSJohn]

Why are we so reluctant to exercise any input into how this game should be played.

I'm not noticing reluctance to offer input, just some normal differences of opinion about what is or would be best.

 

[LSJohn]

I am against it because too many players think that because they saw Cory Duel do it, they can also do it, it is perfectly legal.

There is nothing wrong with requiring the shooter to shoot away from a close or frozen OB. The rule applies to ALL players and so there is bias involved, and no disagreements afterwards.

I feel like we would be telling Alex that he's not permitted to execute his most effective shot in a situation because many other people aren't smart enough or honest enough to do it without fouling and admitting it.

The problem with writing a rule to cover only a "tapping" foul is that anything one writes can apply to any other shot where the CB or OB does not contact a rail after contact.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

We already have rules that require identifying a shot as unsportsmanlike.

We have it, but I've never seen it implemented, and don't think it ever will be -- until we have multiple-angle video of every shot on every table -- unless there is a tournament referee watching. Anyone willing to commit an unsportsmanlike foul seems pretty likely to be willing to claim he didn't.

 

[darmoose]

I have not talked to the DCC - TD in quite awhile, but I would assume they made the rule to eliminate referees being called to the table.

Darmoose, if you think you can talk Steve into making your foul option an official rule, go for it. LOL. Does that answer your question? This is why I am suggesting an addendum section, and who knows, there is sure no guarantees on anything.

In your deliberations upon what is an intentional, I wanted to make this distinction: When playing Kentucky in the 2018 MOT I kept trying to go into the side rail and into the stack to get balls pushed to my side, but my ability be as it is, I was not getting a rail, a foul of course. I had enough speed to get a rail but I was unable to kick and contact the ob solidly enough to get a rail. My intentions was to play OP as it should be played, I just could not pull it off.

I do not think this would be considered an a-typical stack intentional that we want to thwart. thanks, Whitey

I think that trying to get into someone's mind to say what was intentional and what was just a mistake is a fools errand, and impossible. That is what led me to the "option to return the shot rule". With that rule I don't need to know intent, everything just simply s based on the result, period. If you are going to try to determine intent, then you are going to have to separate the different kinds of intentionals, some are ok, some are not (tapping fouls).

We could just define tapping fouls the same as we define the trapping foul or the push foul or even the double hit file and rely on players to settle any disagreements same as they do today. As I said I think it is good to avoid subjectiveness but what the hell.

 

[darmoose]

I feel like we would be telling Alex that he's not permitted to execute his most effective shot in a situation because many other people aren't smart enough or honest enough to do it without fouling and admitting it.



Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.



We have it, but I've never seen it implemented, and don't think it ever will be -- until we have multiple-angle video of every shot on every table -- unless there is a tournament referee watching. Anyone willing to commit an unsportsmanlike foul seems pretty likely to be willing to claim he didn't.

Yeah, hard to argue without you're saying. However, I do think rules should be written for the masses, not for the best player in the world.

 

[darmoose]

If the tap foul were outlawed, the penalty would have to be loss of game. What if it were unintentional - who would make the official distinction?

That's interesting, I don't think I have ever tapped the CB while attempting to do something else. How often do you do that?

 

[vapros]

Yeah, I do it now and then. For me it's a matter of vision - I have no depth perception and in an awkward posture I might venture too close to Jojo and touch him. Apart from that, have you never fouled in close quarters by failing to reach a rail by being too careful? If so, isn't that the same as the tap foul we are talking about? I have done that at least twice already this week. Where to draw the line?

 

[darmoose]

Just so you guys have a clear understanding of where I am coming from regarding this rules update — I am not out to change the rules of the game. All I am trying to do is clean up places that have been subject to confusion and disagreement, and in a couple of cases adding I guess what could consider somewhat new rules (maybe not new, but not covered in 2005), that have been driven by the way the game is being played today, as we all can see it. But not looking at — geez, how can we invent new ideas that might speed up the game or make it more equitable between classes of players.

Our game, as it is being played is popular and seems to be growing as it is! I do love hearing various ideas — like some of the creative stuff darmoose has come up with for sure— but those new ideas are only going to end up in the Official Rules if they percolate up, via a groundswell of interest. even then they would probably only start out in our alternate sections, leaving the official tome-honored game intact.

So if that disappoints some of you that want to revolutionize the game or the rules, that is a different project.

Our rules are in fact the standard of the game, and even if another organization like say USAPL has ”their own” — have s look, they basically copied and paraphrased ours for 99.9% of them lol.

Steve, I must confess I am not familiar with how the current rules of OP as we use today came about. Did you and others write our rules in 2005 as you mentioned? I played OP well before then, but I don't know where the rules came from. I figured we adopted them from one of the larger pool associations around way back then.

Did you (we) have any input into DCC's "jack it up 45 and fire away" rule, cause I run into guys all the time who wanna do this and I detest it. It's cheating as far as I am concerned. As for close proximity or frozen ball shots, I ALWAYS shoot away from the OB cause I don't want to be accused of fouling (or cheating) and I don't trust myself to execute like Orcullo. That DCC shot is infiltrating our game, like it or not.

 

[darmoose]

Yeah, I do it now and then. For me it's a matter of vision - I have no depth perception and in an awkward posture I might venture too close to Jojo and touch him. Apart from that, have you never fouled in close quarters by failing to reach a rail by being too careful? If so, isn't that the same as the tap foul we are talking about? I have done that at least twice already this week. Where to draw the line?

Yes , i have had that happen to me. That's why it is so hard to define a tap foul, and that is what led me to abandon trying to define a tap foul. That led me to the "option' on all fouls which would make tap fouls useless and extinct.

 

[NH Steve]

Steve, I must confess I am not familiar with how the current rules of OP as we use today came about. Did you and others write our rules in 2005 as you mentioned? I played OP well before then, but I don't know where the rules came from. I figured we adopted them from one of the larger pool associations around way back then.

Did you (we) have any input into DCC's "jack it up 45 and fire away" rule, cause I run into guys all the time who wanna do this and I detest it. It's cheating as far as I am concerned. As for close proximity or frozen ball shots, I ALWAYS shoot away from the OB cause I don't want to be accused of fouling (or cheating) and I don't trust myself to execute like Orcullo. That DCC shot is infiltrating our game, like it or not.

I basically wrote them with input from the late Grady Mathews, Freddy the Beard, and a few different tournament directors, among others. Basically just trying to codify the way the game was actually being played. At the time, there were really only brief rules in the BCA that did not address much, and in at least one detail different from what I was hearing about how people like Grady actually played the game. I gathered from whatever was available for rules. I also looked at old rules, like the simple rules the Jansco's used at Johnston City, as well as a 60's rule book that Fats got his sponsor to publish I believe. Then the forum voted on various aspects of the rules, as well as the final version, which was approved in January 2005.

 

[vapros]

Darmoose, if the rules were changed to call for an option on all fouls it's certainly true that you would no longer have to define tap fouls. For that matter, we don't have to define them now, do we? I will repeat something I have posted here recently - options have no place in one pocket. I guess we could call the new game 'one pocket lite'. Let's not.

 

[LSJohn]

However, I do think rules should be written for the masses, not for the best player in the world.

If we were making up rules for a new game, I'd agree with you. I think taking something away from the best players now is a step too far.

 

[NH Steve]

So Dennis, Bob and I are working on this section. We are still picking at it, but I want to call your attention to the issue of jumping the cue ball off the table, which has been traditionally part of the game, but more rooms and TD’s don’t allow jumping like that, so an alternate has been added for those situations only — not changing the game

3. Continuing play​

​

3.1 Continuing play: A player’s inning continues only as long they pocket a ball or balls in their own pocket on a legal stroke. While it is perfectly legal to pocket a ball in a neutral pocket or in the opponent’s pocket, doing so does not entitle the shooter to continue their inning, unless on the same stroke they legally pocket a ball into their own pocket. Any balls pocketed either accidentally or intentionally into the opponent’s pocket are counted for the opponent, unless on the same stroke, either the cue ball pocket scratches or jumps off the table.​

​

Poolroom management and/or tournament directors may not permit jumping the cue ball off the table. Wherever jumping the cue ball off the table is not permitted, if a ball is pocketed in the opponent's pocket with a cue ball jumped off the table, the ball is counted for the opponent rather than spotted. ​

​

3.2 End of the game: In the event that a player pockets both their own game-winning ball, and their opponent’s game-winning ball, both on the same legal stroke, then the shooting player wins. There are no ‘ties’, and it does not matter which ball drops first, as long as they both drop as a result of the same stroke.​

 

[LSJohn]

A player’s inning continues only as long they pocket a ball or balls in their own pocket...

I wiah you would consider alternative wording that eliminates the use of "they" and "their" as a singular pronoun.

 

[NH Steve]

I wiah you would consider alternative wording that eliminates the use of "they" and "their" as a singular pronoun.

Ah yes — I got rid of a few of those in the earlier sections. Ty for pointing these out

 

[Jimmy B]

So Dennis, Bob and I are working on this section.

​

3.2 End of the game: In the event that a player pockets both their own game-winning ball, and their opponent’s game-winning ball, both on the same legal stroke, then the shooting player wins. There are no ‘ties’, and it does not matter which ball drops first, as long as they both drop as a result of the same stroke.​

I noticed this happening in the Action Room at DCC one time.. The guys seemed to know the rule. Shooter wins it. Rack em up. No moaning or questions at all... Thanks to you guys for this work.. I know it can be drudgery. props..

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

In 9-Ball the standard play as with all rotation games was to contact the lowest numbered ball first, otherwise it is a foul and opponent has BIH-BTL. Shootout was always an option to the standard. There were 3 different ways hustlers played shootout by either two foul rule by a player or a combined 2 foul rule in which it was BIH anywhere, or two balls before the 9 behind the line went down. Shootout was so popular no one played the standard way.
The death nail for 9-ball was giving ball in hand anywhere.

A similar death nail for OP is the stack intentional. A recognized slow game just gets slower and the score progresses 'backwards' to boot. Two consecutive taps by opponents just made the game 25% longer, and if it happens again it is now 50% longer. My point is the 'foul option' or 'moving forward' is not a death nail for OP, just like the alternative ways to play 9-ball shoot out was not it's death nail. But, it helps alleviates one of the symptoms that slow the game down, which in turn is a death nail, especially when you consider tournament play. Tournaments will develop ways to speed up OP whether we like it or not. OP will be played differently within the next 5 years, at least in tournaments, and then that way, if popular or it just makes commonsense, will become the norm. Commonsense = Pool Players?

I was talking to fellow friend pool player who loves OP but never gets to play it. He brought up out of the blue sky; " the one thing I hate about OP is that a guy does a great shot by creating a ball by their pocket and leaving the cue ball up against the stack, and then there is no reward, for the opponent just taps it, so I tap back and now my reward is to loose a point"! I said; "yes, and a lot of times they illegally tap the cb and bury it deeper into the stack, with no further penalty, and now you have no choice but to tap back"! I then told him about Darmoose's Moving Forward Rule, and he said; " that would fix it"!

For me I do not like an intentional, I did not play this way nor did my opponents back in the day, we shot our way out of it. The game based upon skill.
So I like; The foul option coupled with moving forward. For every foul it gives a ball to the opponent w/option to accept or pass the shot back. Exception being a pocket scratch or cb jumped.

By doing the rule this way it helps thwart just pushing out. For otherwise a guy could just push out and then gain an advantage to maneuver, whereas now he gives the opponent a ball (a two ball turn around) he just might think twice about it. The ball given would either be directly from his scored balls or a ball nearest the head string, if no balls are scored, as I understand it. Steve wanted to give the opponent the choice of any ball from the table, as I remember. Very interesting!

This eliminates one of OP's death nails. The other death nail is not shooting at your hole and just playing to put the balls up table. I guess Grady recognized this! Not sure if he implemented the Grady Rule in his own tournaments to speed along the game, or not. Whitey

 

[darmoose]

In 9-Ball the standard play as with all rotation games was to contact the lowest numbered ball first, otherwise it is a foul and opponent has BIH-BTL. Shootout was always an option to the standard. There were 3 different ways hustlers played shootout by either two foul rule by a player or a combined 2 foul rule in which it was BIH anywhere, or two balls before the 9 behind the line went down. Shootout was so popular no one played the standard way.
The death nail for 9-ball was giving ball in hand anywhere.

A similar death nail for OP is the stack intentional. A recognized slow game just gets slower and the score progresses 'backwards' to boot. Two consecutive taps by opponents just made the game 25% longer, and if it happens again it is now 50% longer. My point is the 'foul option' or 'moving forward' is not a death nail for OP, just like the alternative ways to play 9-ball shoot out was not it's death nail. But, it helps alleviates one of the symptoms that slow the game down, which in turn is a death nail, especially when you consider tournament play. Tournaments will develop ways to speed up OP whether we like it or not. OP will be played differently within the next 5 years, at least in tournaments, and then that way, if popular or it just makes commonsense, will become the norm. Commonsense = Pool Players?

I was talking to fellow friend pool player who loves OP but never gets to play it. He brought up out of the blue sky; " the one thing I hate about OP is that a guy does a great shot by creating a ball by their pocket and leaving the cue ball up against the stack, and then there is no reward, for the opponent just taps it, so I tap back and now my reward is to loose a point"! I said; "yes, and a lot of times they illegally tap the cb and bury it deeper into the stack, with no further penalty, and now you have no choice but to tap back"! I then told him about Darmoose's Moving Forward Rule, and he said; " that would fix it"!

For me I do not like an intentional, I did not play this way nor did my opponents back in the day, we shot our way out of it. The game based upon skill.
So I like; The foul option coupled with moving forward. For every foul it gives a ball to the opponent w/option to accept or pass the shot back. Exception being a pocket scratch or cb jumped.

By doing the rule this way it helps thwart just pushing out. For otherwise a guy could just push out and then gain an advantage to maneuver, whereas now he gives the opponent a ball (a two ball turn around) he just might think twice about it. The ball given would either be directly from his scored balls or a ball nearest the head string, if no balls are scored, as I understand it. Steve wanted to give the opponent the choice of any ball from the table, as I remember. Very interesting!

This eliminates one of OP's death nails. The other death nail is not shooting at your hole and just playing to put the balls up table. I guess Grady recognized this! Not sure if he implemented the Grady Rule in his own tournaments to speed along the game, or not. Whitey

Whitey,

You make toooo much sense for this crowd. You could be in danger of losing your spot on the rules consideration squad. However, I think I read somewhere that you have the experience and commitment to the game to give us sage advise, so, how did you ever arrive at all this. Go figure..........

I recall playing push out nine ball for a very long time. I never experienced it as an "alternative or optional" way to play. It was, as you say very much main stream.

I don't know about the "death nail" thingy for OP, I doubt that, but we could use an improvement in the area you are addressing.

I honestly think that combining the "option" rule with the "moving forward" rule is not necessary (too much). The "option" rule is by far the simplest and least obtrusive rule as to how we play and how we score. It would only be applied or used part of the time as there will be many occasions where the incoming player will not want to give the shot back.

To be clear for everyone, the "option" rule has to be in play for ALL fouls so we don't get into a situation where we have to make subjective judgements about intentional vs unintentional, tap vs lag, etc. That is a pit to be avoided.

Thanks for you thoughts Whitey, maybe some day others will catch up. BTW, ask your friend what he would think of the "option" rule, which gives the incoming layer the option to shoot or give the shot back to the opponent after EVERY foul.