Expedite One Pocket Options

Expedite One Pocket Options

  • Impose a shot clock

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Each player goes to 7 balls

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Fouls are paid by adding a ball to non-fouling player

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Hello all.

There have been a few threads on this, and if you are willing, read through them to see the points about each if you haven't already.

The poll is ANONYMOUS, so you don't have to worry about anybody seeing what you voted. I just thought it would be good if we could all see what the posters here think.

Poll explanation:

We are assuming we need to speed up one pocket a little, for a certain event, or perhaps even TV coverage. The original one pocket rules would still stay in place of course, no need to debate that. The choices are A) Impose a shot clock B) both players would race to 7 balls C) any foul would be paid by giving the non-fouler one ball.

I will leave out making the pockets bigger, because that is not always possible.

Please feel free to lambaste my poll. Maybe we could make a new and improved one after some poster comments :)
 
Last edited:

One pocket Smitty

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
749
From
Chandler, Tx.
I didn't vote because I like the game as it is currently played. However I did like the option of adding a ball for a foul. Talk about scary.--Smitty
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I didn't vote because I like the game as it is currently played. However I did like the option of adding a ball for a foul. Talk about scary.--Smitty

I think we are most all in your same boat Smitty. The poll is really what option would you choose if forced to.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
As you know, there were quite a few different ideas beyond these.

In fact, limiting balls in the kitchen (part of Speedo) actually has tournament experience -- unless you and darmooose (or others advocating fouls adding to opponent's score vs normal deduction from fouling player) have neglected to report back, I have not even heard of anyone trying a single game using your suggestion. Even for a fun game!

If you guys really want to see your proposal in action, I suggest adding money to a tournament with the stipulation that those rules are used. But if you ask me, I would also incorporate other speed-up aspects to the rules too -- if you are really trying to create something exciting to watch. imho, if you really want to see something exciting to watch you will need more than a change in the fouling rules. I think you also need a shot clock, and you also need something in place that limits balls in the kitchen -- otherwise you will always have slow games!

If we put together the foul rule change, a shot clock, limited balls in the kitchen, then we might have something -- "Express One Pocket" :):)

I would definitely be interested in working on that.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
If you guys really want to see your proposal in action, I suggest adding money to a tournament with the stipulation that those rules are used.

So a person like Tom Worth can come by and money. I am running to the bank Steve, I can't get to this seed money fast enough with all this provided incentive. :D
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,415
From
Tucson AZ
As you know, there were quite a few different ideas beyond these.

In fact, limiting balls in the kitchen (part of Speedo) actually has tournament experience -- unless you and darmooose (or others advocating fouls adding to opponent's score vs normal deduction from fouling player) have neglected to report back, I have not even heard of anyone trying a single game using your suggestion. Even for a fun game!

If you guys really want to see your proposal in action, I suggest adding money to a tournament with the stipulation that those rules are used. But if you ask me, I would also incorporate other speed-up aspects to the rules too -- if you are really trying to create something exciting to watch. imho, if you really want to see something exciting to watch you will need more than a change in the fouling rules. I think you also need a shot clock, and you also need something in place that limits balls in the kitchen -- otherwise you will always have slow games!

If we put together the foul rule change, a shot clock, limited balls in the kitchen, then we might have something -- "Express One Pocket" :):)

I would definitely be interested in working on that.

Steve, then you could create an "expressonepocket.org" site!!! It would not be the same great game. Keith
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
I think there has been enough discussion and I don't wish to influence the result here. I would only ask that voters think about games you have watched that went too long, comments from spectators about slow play and boring games, and most important the game you play and the practicality of the solutions in your room.
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
Hello all.

There have been a few threads on this, and if you are willing, read through them to see the points about each if you haven't already.

The poll is ANONYMOUS, so you don't have to worry about anybody seeing what you voted. I just thought it would be good if we could all see what the posters here think.

Poll explanation:

We are assuming we need to speed up one pocket a little, for a certain event, or perhaps even TV coverage. The original one pocket rules would still stay in place of course, no need to debate that. The choices are A) Impose a shot clock B) both players would race to 7 balls C) any foul would be paid by giving the non-fouler one ball.

I will leave out making the pockets bigger, because that is not always possible.

Please feel free to lambaste my poll. Maybe we could make a new and improved one after some poster comments :)

Why would you not include "no change" as an option?
That is my choice and there have been many on this site you have indicated the same opinion.

Tom
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
???????

???????

Why would you not include "no change" as an option?
That is my choice and there have been many on this site you have indicated the same opinion.

Tom

What part of "we are assuming we need to speed up one pocket a little":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes DON"t YOU GET??
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
My point Darmoose, is why should you make any assumptions at all? If you really want an accurate polling offer all the options.
Personally speaking I am in the camp of no change. There are others who feel the same way. Why should you simple make the assumption that everyone wants what you want, or feels there is any problem at all with the game just the way it is?

Tom
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
I for one love one pocket and play almost every week day.

I never watch tapes or live matches because all the stalling for no reason, by one player or the other is too painful to me.
Someone gave me a tape of Efren and Alex, I spent the whole time Alex was shooting fast forwarding the tape. I finally gave up and skipped to the end.
It was torture to me.
So I guess you can put me in the change camp.
Rod.
P.S. My games are never that slow, if my protagonist stalls or just plays painfully slow I quit. :frus
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
I for one love one pocket and play almost every week day.

I never watch tapes or live matches because all the stalling for no reason, by one player or the other is too painful to me.
Someone gave me a tape of Efren and Alex, I spent the whole time Alex was shooting fast forwarding the tape. I finally gave up and skipped to the end.
It was torture to me.
So I guess you can put me in the change camp.
Rod.
P.S. My games are never that slow, if my protagonist stalls or just plays painfully slow I quit. :frus

Rod, I agree that there are players out there who are a pain in the ass to play due to their stall tactics and inherent slow play. These are guys I might want to play only once or not at all. In a gambling atmosphere I have the choice. Tournament play is somewhat different because you don't have that option. This is what we deal with as players when we sign up to play a tournament or purchase a video. We all know what we are getting into before we get into it.

I have no objection to a tournament instituting whatever rules they wish. I can choose to participate or not, again it is my choice just as it is the choice of the people running the tournament. However, to make blanket changes to the rules of One Pocket is simply not necessary. The rules are quite easy to understand and follow just as it is at present.

If Darmoose and Tyler wish to run a tournament with the format they are promoting that is fine with me. But to impose rule changes to the game itself goes way too far.

Tom
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
Now that would definitely speed up the play. Everyone would be so embarrassed to be out there they would be anxious to get the hell out of there. The spectators would have made their exit at the sight of the first players entrance faster than a fire drill. That is unless the tournament was held in San Fran.

Tom
 

WillieNilly

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
98
From
N.E Pennsylvania
8 no count and roll out ........oh wait , you want to make the game faster:rolleyes:
of all the available poll options to choose from...(boy ,so hard to decide:p)
i think shot clock is a good start, 45sec-1min max, (im fine with 15-30 sec), even then a game could last forever.
I would suggest points races (w/shot clock), play the whole rack down , first to 16 or 23 balls wins , max 3 racks played, alt break first 2 racks and lag for third.
I think this would test the players allaround game, beginning to end, most all players have there strengths and weeknesses. This format would require the full use of the skill/knowledge a players got....... and hopefully not take forever:eek:

also a rule like " if after first 30 -45 min of play".. (w/shot clock) ," for every 5 consecutive innings that a score has not been made , the 2 object balls closest to the end rail get spotted, unless there is only 1 ball left .

ive seen the "4/5 or more in the kitchen,spot " rule played and the only thing i saw bad about it was (most) the players constantly forgot to use it.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
My point Darmoose, is why should you make any assumptions at all? If you really want an accurate polling offer all the options.
Personally speaking I am in the camp of no change. There are others who feel the same way. Why should you simple make the assumption that everyone wants what you want, or feels there is any problem at all with the game just the way it is?

Tom

We all know your point, Tom, you keep repeating it like a broken record. You are barking up the wrong tree, it ain't my pole and it weren't my idea to have a pole.:p:p:p:p

Lastly, it is just a discussion, nobody is gonna change the game if you stop repeating your point. Why can't you just let others have a little fun making believe that any of you "high levelers" give a crap about slow play, spectators, or Tv venues?

Didn't that sound just awful, I picked that up from you, and Ghosty, and Ducky.:lol:lol:lol:lol
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I don't have the patience to reply to those who can't understand simple English and keep repeating the same fallacious point over and over. But, what I will say is that I chose these 3 options because I felt the others destroy one pocket.

Case in point.... the proposed rules for taking balls out of the kitchen. Maybe a player put a ball in the kitchen purposefully so a guy can't put him in an entire quadrant of the table. The ball is just going to get moved so the player can't bank it at some arbitrary point? Not one pocket. You don't just move balls around anytime, just as you would not move checker pieces or chess pieces as some arbitrary point in the game.

The options I chose speed up the game and maintain its integrity to a relatively high degree. Not voting can be your "voice" if you don't like it, so I totally understand that. Thanks all :)
 

piggybank04

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
230
i didnt vote because my option wasnt there, which would be to put "slow" play on the clock--not everyone, just those deemed to be taking too much time in general.....i had a race to 2 go a little over 3 hrs, and we both played at a pace that could be termed between medium and fast....believe me, i would have loved a quick match but the opportunities just werent there that often.....if you want a fast match then i suggest outmoving your opponent in the early stages and then run out.....im going to continue my grinding, constant pressure game, no matter how long it takes to finish my match......its my best chance to win.......people can change the rules but i'll take one pocket the way it is......
 
Top