Thread: Rule question
View Single Post
  #29  
Old 07-22-2019, 11:01 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
Whitey,

It was just a joke, bud. Lighten up just a bit. It's pretty obvious these rules discussions aren't going anywhere anyway. Carry on.
Ok, I did not get that, but ok. This thread is now a little different for we have a champion that miscued on the break and did not contact the rack.

This lone single miscue, which in and of itself is not a foul, surely was not intentional, but which resulted in his opponent breaking 3 out of the first 4 racks. I believe it is a race to 3. You know good darn well they made up this ruling on the fly. So just maybe these rule discussion may someday someway have a reason.

This is exactly why I backed off of having the break turned over to the opponent. It is one hell of an advantage, to much! If this would of happened on the 2nd rack then the opponent would of broke 3 racks in a row.

But IMO your alternative ideas will someday have a big impact upon OP, and could become the norm. That's a compliment, not joking! Whitey
Reply With Quote