Go Back   OnePocket.org Forums > One Pocket Forum
Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-07-2019, 08:36 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,111
Default

Darmoose, it seems you have captured my thread to some extinct. But your idea of passing back every foul does not correlate very well with a cue ball in motion that is inadvertently interfered with. When this happens it could possibly leave the incoming player in a precarious situation, thus we are discussing if there should be a further option of BIH/BTL. I think it is very reasonable for this grievous foul.

Passing it back would not work if in fact the opponent is in an advantageous position, as Steve has pointed out! For now the incoming opponent is stuck with no option but to except the balls where they lie. We are trying to work the wordage to alleviate this scenario. Also BIH/BTL is being used by DCC and US Open when illegally trapping and wedging, but it has its short comings. So we are trying to write up a ruling for this also.

I can relate to your point in regards to intentional fouls, but not how it relates to this one; 'cue ball in motion foul'. I do not like an intentional and did not play that way. I would suggest keeping it to an intentional foul (any shot that does not satisfy the criteria of a legal shot), and work out the wording so you can completely express your idea.

For example; Say I do an intentional, you pass it back, and then the ruling is that the next shot has to be a legal shot or it is BIH/BTL option. This would satisfy your quest in eliminating the use of an intentional. This would be especially effective in stack play. Now combine this with the idea of any shot that does not satisfy the legal shot requirements is a loss of a ball going to the opponent (a variation of your fast forwarding). This doubles down on the efforts to thwart the use of an intentional.

Say you do a kick into the stack and get a legal hit sending a ball by your hole putting your opponent in a tough spot, now the opponent just taps the cue ball into the stack. But, now with your option to pass it back, he now has to make a legal shot, or else BIH/BTL option for you. With this criteria backed up with BIH/BTL he now double thinks whether to just tap the cue ball, or is he better off shooting his way out of it!

I think you have a good initial idea but it needs to be explicitly developed. OP is going to change, and your ideas may very well be a big part of it.

If you were to start a thread; Alternative Ways to Play OP, I'll hang with you, but for me to hang, I think you need to be open to ideas instead of just my way or the highway approach obsessively, for these guys have a lot of knowledge. Respectfully, Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 07-07-2019 at 10:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-07-2019, 10:51 AM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSJohn View Post
Certainly so. However -- you and I rarely disagree on this kind of stuff -- I like the idea that a player who wisely chooses when to take an intentional, how to take it, and executes it well, gains an advantage over players deficient in any of those. It's a part of the game I'd rather keep than lose, despite some bad-roll disadvantages and often reducing the value of cleverly laid traps. (It also reduces the effect of an occasional pure-luck bad-roll leave on a good hit, and that's a good thing if taking out as much of the luck factor as we can is an objective.)
John,

I totally agree with you, and am quite pleased that we often agree. You are a role model when it comes to critical thinking, except on the rare occasion when you do disagree with me.

I have NO intention to eliminate intentional fouls from the game (although I do believe my proposal will curb their use somewhat). There very well may be times when you playing an intentional is the right move, and if properly played, as Steve says there is no "guarantee" that returning the shot to you will help me. But it can't hurt to have the option, and if I choose not to use it on those rare occasions I am no worse off. If you miss slightly and don't quite accomplish your goal, the option may help me considerably. You'll think about that before you do it.

I think reducing the amount of luck in OP is definitely a goal. That's certainly what the discussion about the rise of "rerack" was about wouldn't you agree? An incoming player being penalized, potentially more heavily than the one ball penalty paid by the fouler, because his opponent committed a foul is not something to be encouraged in my opinion. Our rules should encourage players to make legal shots, and we should recognize that ALL penalties slow down the game and cause it to go backwards.

I think some are making too big a deal of this "option to return the table". Nobody is gonna return the shot with a BIH, nobody is gonna return the shot if the offending player has a shot to his hole or if he can gain a further advantage. I think it will have little effect on how we play the game other than to discourage and maybe further reduce fouls, basically speeding up the game.

Hey...cie la vie....
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-07-2019, 10:51 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darmoose View Post
I'm sorry guys, but this is crazy. You are now gonna ask players and referees to distinguish between impeding a CB and double hits. You are gonna try to distinguish certain "unsportsmanlike" behaviors from other "unsportsmanlike" behaviors and apply different penalties. REALLY??

The first principal of rule making is to minimize or eliminate ambiguity, exceptions, choices. Rules, if at all possible should be written as if they would be adopted to ALL play, not just to be applicable when playing in a tournament with a referee standing watch over every match.

Can you imagine the potential arguments between players gambling even semi serious money over the application of these changes. I think you need to rethink this.

At the risk of being redundant, if you are concerned about deficiencies in our current rules, and wish to make improvements in a very simple and straightforward way to keep players from taking advantage of the current rules, I have a suggestion.

The problem is not determining if a foul has been committed, but rather what to do about it. If the answer to this question is always the same, you have arrived at utopia.

After all fouls the incoming player can either accept the table as is, or can return the table to the offending player.
You are obsessing, and not listening to Steve, CrabcatJohn, LS John or anyone else. We clearly understand your position on a cue ball in motion that is inadvertently interfered with, and you are against upgrading the existing rule. Ok we get it!
I offered up for you to only considered your rule as it pertains to an intentional, and you completely ignored my suggestion, so this is why it is hard to work with you! 'respectfully'! Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-07-2019, 11:02 AM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,310
Default

My feeling in general is that with One Pocket, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and with One Pocket being one of the oldest popular games out there, with fairly stable rules, then I'm not even sure anything needs to be addressed.

Actually there is one thing that REALLY needs to be addressed, and that is the issue of slow match times being an issue for running One Pocket tournaments. But this is not the thread for that ongoing conversation.
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-07-2019, 01:13 PM
mr3cushion's Avatar
mr3cushion mr3cushion is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 6,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
My feeling in general is that with One Pocket, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and with One Pocket being one of the oldest popular games out there, with fairly stable rules, then I'm not even sure anything needs to be addressed.

Actually there is one thing that REALLY needs to be addressed, and that is the issue of slow match times being an issue for running One Pocket tournaments. But this is not the thread for that ongoing conversation.
Finally, something we can agree on! Slow players that don't shoot at they're hole, put the brakes on all 1P non-pro events!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-07-2019, 01:29 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
My feeling in general is that with One Pocket, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and with One Pocket being one of the oldest popular games out there, with fairly stable rules, then I'm not even sure anything needs to be addressed.

Actually there is one thing that REALLY needs to be addressed, and that is the issue of slow match times being an issue for running One Pocket tournaments. But this is not the thread for that ongoing conversation.
Steve,

You may be right, and there is definitely a certain wisdom in resisting change, as you say, to avoid unintended consequences.

With regard to your last paragraph, I always try to keep that in mind when discussing any rules changes, and hope you can recognize that any of the proposals I have fostered or supported do have a "game shortening" component to them. Adding rules that only address singular infractions and require subjective judgement and can only be applied when a referee is on hand do just the opposite.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis "Whitey" Young View Post
You are obsessing, and not listening to Steve, CrabcatJohn, LS John or anyone else. We clearly understand your position on a cue ball in motion that is inadvertently interfered with, and you are against upgrading the existing rule. Ok we get it!
I offered up for you to only considered your rule as it pertains to an intentional, and you completely ignored my suggestion, so this is why it is hard to work with you! 'respectfully'! Whitey
Whitey,

That comment is beneath you. Dismissing legitimate criticism as obsession without addressing the critique is lame. You seem to be more interested in defending "your thread" than solving what you see as a problem for the benefit of the game. I was pretty clear in post #50 as to the shortcomings I see in what you are proposing, but you haven't addressed any of them. You did ask for input in your initial post; excuse me if I did not realize that acceptance of your approach to the problem was a prerequisite.

Are you writing rules only for tournaments? if so, please make that clear. Also, if Steve's concern for shortening the game or making it go faster, particularly in tournaments does not interest you, you might also make that clear.

Perhaps you can assess and consider my comments in post #50 that have nothing to do with my suggested rule, and we'll find it easier to work together, respectfully. What da'ya think?
__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-07-2019, 04:10 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
My feeling in general is that with One Pocket, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and with One Pocket being one of the oldest popular games out there, with fairly stable rules, then I'm not even sure anything needs to be addressed.

Actually there is one thing that REALLY needs to be addressed, and that is the issue of slow match times being an issue for running One Pocket tournaments. But this is not the thread for that ongoing conversation.
Thanks Darmoose, we had Steve finally being able to realize that OP rules are not infallible, and you put the stoppage to it by convoluting a very simple rule change that represents fairness of play. A cue ball coming off the rail and you let the cue once again hit and stop it and trap it, can and does happen.
Seems direly familiar to getting RR put to rest for this year's MOT, doesn't it. OP.org has the chance to set the standard for OP rules, and to set a standard befitting of the high excellence of play the game demands. A standard way above anything ever before represented in any rules any time any where. Simply making history!

But now Steve has flip flopped, on what is not even a highly technical rule carry any high standard, just a common sense rule. Very upsetting. For it is like Mike Shamos related to me in the beginning in my early days of endeavor to bring the standards of pool rules up to a level of excellence, and he stated; 'never in the history of pool rule writing has a governing power ever changed their rules, by suggestions of others'. If I was president of a corporation I would go out and hire the best, but that is not the way pool does it.

I have a hard time realizing that other's in governing power can not see that pool rules are in the stone age. Why do we have to stumble along with this notion if it is not broken do not fix it, for it was never fixed in the first place. Right now the standard of pool is digressing at an alarming rate, we are losing the standard rules we use to play by.

Who can tell me the highest standard foul criteria of when shooting into a ob that is within a 1/4", what is the 'one' foul criteria when the cue is frozen to the ob, what is the foul criteria of when the cb is frozen to an ob that in turn is frozen to a rail, what is the foul criteria and the criteria when the cb is frozen to two balls or more and stroked into them, can you define what is a 'push stroke', when does a push shot occur vs. when a double hit occurs, what is the difference in sound when the cb is double hit into an impeding ob vs. when the cb is just double hit and what is the effect upon the tangent line, what is the correct tangent line on close proximity shots, and how does a referee judge this, can a cue ball be fouled when using center ball and stroking the ob on a 45 degree angle with a tooth pick distance between the balls, and so on!

These are all scenarios that happen everyday in a game of pool, but yet there are no high standard rule writings that depict these scenarios, thus the standard of pool organizations and their players are dimensioned and their players are subjected to play by a very low standard.

It is regrettable that pool rules are not progressing into the 21st century, as other fields of learning and development of knowledge are, but actually have regressed do to tournaments that want to cattle players through, and even more regrettable that I have to mention this and it is not recognized and realized. Who among you can tell me the standard of play in DCC when shooting a close proximity shot? This standard is embarrassing, are you paying attention what is happening to pool, and vastly becoming the new standard of play!

Why is playing pool by a high standard such a bad thing, would not every player want this, and want to know what that high standard is? I have done many threads pointing out these high standards of play, and nothing! Many times I have pointed out the importance of protecting the OP.org game rules by the development of their own 'general rules', but yet nothing! The development of 'General Rules' that represent the highest of standards, backed up with diagrams and videos for complete clarity and understanding, eliminating ambiguity, and signed off by the most knowledgeable OP masters, is the only way to protect the Official Rules of OP.

I've done all I can do within my realm of my power to help! It is helpless feeling watching pool rule digress over time, and there is not a dam thing I can do about it. Sincerely, Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 07-07-2019 at 06:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-07-2019, 07:49 PM
NH Steve's Avatar
NH Steve NH Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 8,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
Thank you. I actually started working on a proposed re-write to give us something to look at -- then I got tired and took a nap instead lol. But one thought did come to mind that made me a bit uncomfortable, and that is, I realized there are a lot of different kinds of fouls that involve accidentally or on purpose causing a misdirection of the cue ball. One obvious one (I think, lol) is any kind of "double hit" for example. Or possibly even a miscue.

I just dont' want to see any new unintended consequences with ANY new rule changes.
Whitey, I'm not so sure I flip-flopped lol. I've quoted my post way back on the first page of this thread, obviously expressing misgivings. But I did do a pretty good job of listening -- to both you and darmoose -- but I was probably more vocal in disagreeing with darmoose
__________________
"One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
-- Strawberry Brooks
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-07-2019, 09:18 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
Whitey, I'm not so sure I flip-flopped lol. I've quoted my post way back on the first page of this thread, obviously expressing misgivings. But I did do a pretty good job of listening -- to both you and darmoose -- but I was probably more vocal in disagreeing with darmoose
Whatever!!! Whitey
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-08-2019, 07:26 AM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,389
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Steve View Post
My feeling in general is that with One Pocket, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and with One Pocket being one of the oldest popular games out there, with fairly stable rules, then I'm not even sure anything needs to be addressed.

Actually there is one thing that REALLY needs to be addressed, and that is the issue of slow match times being an issue for running One Pocket tournaments. But this is not the thread for that ongoing conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr3cushion View Post
Finally, something we can agree on! Slow players that don't shoot at they're hole, put the brakes on all 1P non-pro events!
games that take forever and players that take forever that screw up a tournaments time flow
are NOT due to the few intentional fouls that might be taken during a game
jmho
icbw
i apologize for this somewhat off topic comment
carry on men
the popcorn is ready to come out of the microwave ( i dont want my popcorn to take too long to cook...no oven made popcorn for me...)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All original content Copyright Onepocket.org and/or the original author. All rights reserved.