Rerack if you make a ball..rerack if you scratch

[lll]

SEEMS FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS
what do you guys think??

EDIT
for the record i dont think the rules should change at all
make one on the break... its ok.....go run out.....
having opponent rack the balls for the breaker seems logical to me to keep the "aspersions" under control....
the thread was if you were playing where it was agreed to rerack for making a ball....i think you should also rerack for scratching on the break

 

[GoldCrown]

SEEMS FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS
what do you guys think??

I would benefit on the scratch part hehe......I like things the way they are...but yes the game would equal. Can take or leave it. Would decide in advance.

 

[beatle]

it is fair to both anyway you can make one or scratch same as him. other wise do you not let a lucky shot count then call all balls and kisses.

better to not let the breaker rack his own.
if you must penalize the breaker then make it only one ball can be made on the breakers turn.

 

[youngstown]

Rerack if you make a ball..rerack if you scratch

Depends how it's used and for what. If it's just two guys of equal skill that are gambling then fine. Not in a serious tourney though, as it neutralizes a strength of the better players.

 

[baby huey]

If you rack well and break well, why should you be penalized? I don't get that new rule and don't like it. Do we penalize great rotation players when they run racks as long as the rack is appropriate? Forget it, just play the game.

 

[El Chapo]

What about just guy who makes the ball in the break can't continue his inning. I like that better than rerack after making a ball personally. Making a ball you've most likely hit it good. What if I get up and dog it after that and scratch or something. Don't seem fair I hit one great and one bad and I'm stuck with the bad one.

 

[Renegade_56]

I love one pocket because of the rules. Do they really need monkeying with? I really don't see where anyone is at a great advantage or disadvantage. I generally play safe as possible with the traditional 1p break and rarely make a ball, and rarely sell out a makeable shot. My brother likes a more agressive shot and makes a ball maybe 15-20% of the time I'd guess, but that comes at a cost of selling out a shot to my hole probably about the same percentage, and much more likely to scratch. The alternate break is the stopper here that keeps everything equal, so what's next, loser breaks?

 

[lll]

for the record i dont think the rules should change at all
make one on the break... its ok.....go run out.....
having opponent rack the balls for the breaker seems logical to me to keep the "aspersions" under control....
the thread was if you were playing where it was agreed to rerack for making a ball....i think you should also rerack for scratching on the break
i will post this above as an edit in the 1st post

 

[Renegade_56]

....i think you should also rerack for scratching on the break

makes sense, and if a ball made on the break isn't a point, then neither should the foul be a -point.

 

[androd]

it is fair to both anyway you can make one or scratch same as him. other wise do you not let a lucky shot count then call all balls and kisses.

better to not let the breaker rack his own.
if you must penalize the breaker then make it only one ball can be made on the breakers turn.

I play that way a lot and it often favors the non breaking shooter.
Usually when a ball is made the other corner ball comes out.

I don't try to make a ball, the people I play are usually going to 6 or7 and if they make one and continue to shoot it may be the whole game.

 

[cabilliardclub]

2 sides

2 sides

I think there are two things to look at. I agree with Jerry Matchin, but tournament play only. If two guys are matching up for money they can decide to play however they want as long as both agree. its really nobody's business but the two playing. In tournament play, however you should stick with the rules that are already in play. I also believe that your opponent should rack, so there are no shenanigans. you have all the right to check a rack before you break.

 

[RickC]

Prefer traditional rules, but in matching up, its just part of the negotiations....

 

[FrenchAT]

I play that way a lot and it often favors the non breaking shooter.
Usually when a ball is made the other corner ball comes out.

I don't try to make a ball, the people I play are usually going to 6 or7 and if they make one and continue to shoot it may be the whole game.

I said this before that there was a risk/reward associated with attempting to make a ball on the break as it almost always leaks the other corner ball. I cant remember what was said when it came up last time but i dont recall receiving positive feedback.lol The name of the game is to pocket balls. So, there's no way you will ever get me to agree to punish someone for making a ball on the break. If you want to know the equalizer in the game of one pocket, it is the intentional foul. It only penalizes 1 ball but everyone here knows there are many occasions it is worth a hell of a lot more than 1 ball or it wouldnt happen so often. There's your equalizer. If you want me to re-rack after making a ball on the break then all of the intentional fouls by the non breaker will be ball in hand. We know that aint happening but thats how i feel about it.
If you are gambling I dont care what 2 guys come up with as the rules as long as theyre agreed upon and explained before the match. However, as far as tournaments and official rules, let it stand.

 

[Billy Jackets]

Just let them rack their own, and break until they get one they like, saves a lot of whining.

 

[El Chapo]

SEEMS FAIR TO BOTH PLAYERS
what do you guys think??

EDIT
for the record i dont think the rules should change at all
make one on the break... its ok.....go run out.....
having opponent rack the balls for the breaker seems logical to me to keep the "aspersions" under control....
the thread was if you were playing where it was agreed to rerack for making a ball....i think you should also rerack for scratching on the break

I'm not sure I understand this though. I assumed the reason scott and Dennis did that was so a potentially huge game worth 100k could not be decided on by a guy essentially lucking a ball in on the break (which is all making a ball on the break comes down to imo) and running out.

Scratching on the break in most instances, as far as I'm concerned, results from a bad hit. Especially if the players have played on the table, if you scratch I'm labeling that a bad stroke.

I understand their point about not wanting a huge game to be decided on the break, but I don't understand the point about letting a guy off the hook if he hits the break bad and scratches. Also, what would happen if you did reracks on scratches is people would break a lot more aggressively (with more power) and more games could be decided right there because the breaks could just be too good, which is the opposite of what they were gong for. They were trying to find a rule that made sure there was as much "play" as possible for both players.

I actually don't mind the rule they used at all, but don't like the rerack for a scratch at all.

 

[LSJohn]

I'm not sure I understand this though. I assumed the reason scott and Dennis did that was so a potentially huge game worth 100k could not be decided on by a guy essentially lucking a ball in on the break (which is all making a ball on the break comes down to imo) and running out.

Scratching on the break in most instances, as far as I'm concerned, results from a bad hit. Especially if the players have played on the table, if you scratch I'm labeling that a bad stroke.

I understand their point about not wanting a huge game to be decided on the break, but I don't understand the point about letting a guy off the hook if he hits the break bad and scratches. Also, what would happen if you did reracks on scratches is people would break a lot more aggressively (with more power) and more games could be decided right there because the breaks could just be too good, which is the opposite of what they were gong for. They were trying to find a rule that made sure there was as much "play" as possible for both players.

I actually don't mind the rule they used at all, but don't like the rerack for a scratch at all.

I'm with you because I think making a ball on the break is more often luck than skill, and scratching on the break is usually poor execution. I'd re-rack makes but not scratches in tournaments of races to 3 or less.

 

[lll]

chap man and john
if there is a gap you could break perfect and scratch
thats not poor execution
just sayin
jmho
icbw

 

[darmoose]

It is true that making a ball on the break is mostly accidental, it is also true that quite often, when one makes a ball on the break he also sells out a ball to his opponents hole. Likewise, it is true that if one is deliberately attempting to make a ball on the break, the risk of scratching is higher.

There is no right answer. If you are in the camp that doesn't want to play a game where one player never gets to the table (like 9 ball) as I am.:frus

The simplest way to give the breaker "credit" for making a ball, and at the same time accomplish our goal, and simultaneously hold the breaker responsible for a mishit, sellout, or scratch is to establish the rule as such:

Breaker breaks (whatever happens, happens), then breaker sits down.

 

[LSJohn]

chap man and john
if there is a gap you could break perfect and scratch
thats not poor execution
just sayin
jmho
icbw

I don't think there is if the rack is perfect. I think there are probably gaps inside the rack that make it more likely to scratch with a good hit, and I think a rack tilted almost microscopically can do the same, since we're talking about miliseconds of difference in multiple ball to ball reactions.

One thing I consider is that a scratch usually only takes away the breaker's advantage. Making a ball accentuates that advantage. A scratch theoretically lengthens the game, a make shortens it. These affect how much time the player with the disadvantage has to overcome it.

Some tables are a lot more conducive to making a ball on the break than others. Among other things, this could be because the spot is 1/16" too high or low, or that the depression that has developed on the spot where the head ball will rest is high or low.

I don't want to play a race to 3 and have one of us make one on the break twice and the other once, or worse, twice each.

Some smarter people than I believe making one is mostly skill. I don't see how it could be, given the variables I mentioned above, plus how clean the balls are, the humidity, how level the table is, and the fact that in my own experience, I think I've made more on bad hits than good.

 

[El Chapo]

It is true that making a ball on the break is mostly accidental, it is also true that quite often, when one makes a ball on the break he also sells out a ball to his opponents hole. Likewise, it is true that if one is deliberately attempting to make a ball on the break, the risk of scratching is higher.

There is no right answer. If you are in the camp that doesn't want to play a game where one player never gets to the table (like 9 ball) as I am.:frus

The simplest way to give the breaker "credit" for making a ball, and at the same time accomplish our goal, and simultaneously hold the breaker responsible for a mishit, sellout, or scratch is to establish the rule as such:

Breaker breaks (whatever happens, happens), then breaker sits down.

I agree. That's what I was saying earlier. That rule would not bug me in the slightest, in fact I think it's quite fair and better than the current rule the way it stands.