"Four Ball" Rule

At the tourney in Bellflower today (thanks POV) they're using the "four ball" rule: maximum 4 balls in the kitchen, spot extras nearest the line.

In the match I was watching (King Kong vs. Jude _____) the rule changed the course of the game a couple of times, usually when a player forgot a ball would be spotted and left a shot as a result. But it also changed the game dynamic by constantly "churning" the balls that otherwise would have accumulated uptable. I guess the point is to keep balls in play and keep matches reasonably short, but it didn't work that way in this match - instead, the "OB uptable - CB on bottom cushion" phase just went on and on, like a loop tape - until somebody forgot a ball would be spotted and sold out a few balls.

I kinda like eliminating uptable congestion, but maybe that's because I don't get that part of the game yet. Is this rule a good way to keep games moving? Does it work? And even if it does work, should the venerable uptable game be sacrificed for expediency?

What other ways does the Four Ball Rule change the game? In whose favor?

pj
chgo

im really not knowledgeable or experienced enough to make a comment to quote........
but eliminating the end game would be to one pocket
what texas express 9 ball ie one foul ball in hand
did to 2 shot push out 9 ball
jmho
id have to go back and read the "grady rules" which freddy said was his but he let grady use them (icbw) are similar to the rules you mentioned

I remember Grady tried to implement a rule something like that. As I recall, it was different in that if five or more balls past the side pocket than all those balls would spot at once. I never did play in any of those tournaments. I don't even know if he got any of them off the ground. Maybe someone else has a better recollection of this than I.

I like the aggressive side to the game and don't enjoy those wedge style games but I would not be a fan of this rule.

Tom

Tom Wirth said:

I remember Grady tried to implement a rule something like that. As I recall, it was different in that if five or more balls past the side pocket than all those balls would spot at once. I never did play in any of those tournaments. I don't even know if he got any of them off the ground. Maybe someone else has a better recollection of this than I.

I like the aggressive side to the game and don't enjoy those wedge style games but I would not be a fan of this rule.

Tom

Click to expand...

The balls in the kitchen subject has already been discussed in several different threads here on this site over the past years...here's a copy of the post I made in one of those threads many years ago ----->

One Pocket Ghost said:

I Played in Gradys "Legends of One Pocket" tournament in South Carolina a few years ago (in 2001 I think it was), where Grady implemented the 'speeded up' rules for the first time = (spotting up balls that are in the kitchen)...and call me a traditionalist, but I didn't like it, and am totally against it....and the players that I talked to at the tournament didn't like those rules either - at all.....it's not real One Pocket - just to name one real bad thing about those rules - it took away a lot of the straight back banks and also the 2 rail and 3 rail banks - and those are shots that are a big part of the skill and beauty of One Pocket....about the only players that these rules would favor, and who might like them, are straight pool players...

One Pocket - AIN'T BROKE AND DON'T NEED TO BE FIXED - The game is perfect just the way it is...

And games don't usually slow down all that much anyways, unless you're playing against one of the mega-safe player types like Varner or Hopkins, etc. ( of which there aren't very many of in these current modern times anyway ).

PS, And forgive me for bragging a little...I finished in 7th-8th place in that tournament, with wins over Grady (4-0), Richie Richeson (hill-hill) and Danny Harriman (hill-hill).

- Ghost

Click to expand...

PS, And forgive me for bragging a little...I finished in 7th-8th place in that tournament, with wins over Grady (4-0), Richie Richeson (hill-hill) and Danny Harriman (hill-hill).

- Ghost

Click to expand...

That brag deserves an occasional reprise! How to be gangsta, 1PG.

pj
chgo

One Pocket Ghost said:

The balls in the kitchen subject has already been discussed in several different threads here on this site over the past years...here's a copy of the post I made in one of those threads many years ago ----->

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Ghost.

Tom

PS, And forgive me for bragging a little...I finished in 7th-8th place in that tournament, with wins over Grady (4-0), Richie Richeson (hill-hill) and Danny Harriman (hill-hill).

that's pretty strong ghosty.....

check this youngster out....

Tom Wirth said:

Thanks for the clarification Ghost.

Tom

Click to expand...

No problem Tom.

Miller said:

that's pretty strong ghosty..... <-----Yeah, Dustin...once in awhile I manage to sneak up on a few of those killers.

check this youngster out.... <-----That pic was taken in about 1978 at Freddy's private pool/card club...and I sure wish I still had that cue that I'm using in the picture - it would be worth some real nice $$$ now - it's a Peterson.

View attachment 10809

Click to expand...

- Ghost

I'm not sure how the rule works. What if a ball is frozen to the cb in the kitchen. Which balls get moved up, all four?

I don't like moving balls that are perfectly in play at all. I can't even believe this can be labeled a "solution" actually. It would be like moving a guy's queen on a chess board.... just because "we need to speed up the game." Maybe a guy put that ball up there for a reason. And, maybe you are speeding up the game, but you don't really have a legit game now. I just don't get it.

Not moving backwards in the score column is the best way to make one pocket faster and still preserve most all of its integrity. I thought about it a lot when this came up last time, and I really think it is true. Points go to the opponent of the player who fouled. You wanna take 4 fouls in a row, score is 4 zip. How much it would speed things up is kind of an unknown I will admit. I would not consider anything other than this and also both guys going to lower numbers (eg 7 or 6).

tylerdurden said:

I'm not sure how the rule works. What if a ball is frozen to the cb in the kitchen. Which balls get moved up, all four?

I don't like moving balls that are perfectly in play at all. I can't even believe this can be labeled a "solution" actually. It would be like moving a guy's queen on a chess board.... just because "we need to speed up the game." Maybe a guy put that ball up there for a reason. And, maybe you are speeding up the game, but you don't really have a legit game now. I just don't get it.

Not moving backwards in the score column is the best way to make one pocket faster and still preserve most all of its integrity. I thought about it a lot when this came up last time, and I really think it is true. Points go to the opponent of the player who fouled. You wanna take 4 fouls in a row, score is 4 zip. How much it would speed things up is kind of an unknown I will admit. I would not consider anything other than this and also both guys going to lower numbers (eg 7 or 6).

Click to expand...

Bravo, Tyler, that's a great idea, much better than moving balls around. Oh yeah, that was my idea. Guess I'm guilty of a "ghostyism".:heh:heh

Patrick Johnson said:

At the tourney in Bellflower today (thanks POV) they're using the "four ball" rule: maximum 4 balls in the kitchen, spot extras nearest the line.

In the match I was watching (King Kong vs. Jude _____) the rule changed the course of the game a couple of times, usually when a player forgot a ball would be spotted and left a shot as a result. But it also changed the game dynamic by constantly "churning" the balls that otherwise would have accumulated uptable. I guess the point is to keep balls in play and keep matches reasonably short, but it didn't work that way in this match - instead, the "OB uptable - CB on bottom cushion" phase just went on and on, like a loop tape - until somebody forgot a ball would be spotted and sold out a few balls.

I kinda like eliminating uptable congestion, but maybe that's because I don't get that part of the game yet. Is this rule a good way to keep games moving? Does it work? And even if it does work, should the venerable uptable game be sacrificed for expediency?

What other ways does the Four Ball Rule change the game? In whose favor?

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

That's (bold) what I would expect between good players, but it might shorten/enliven the game for the inexperienced.

As for expediency, there are IMO ominous signs that we may be in a change-or-die spiral. "Venerable" = old. New is better than old in marketing.

Bottom line IMO is that your short-rack suggestion has a far better chance to inject some new life into the game.

tylerdurden said:

I'm not sure how the rule works. What if a ball is frozen to the cb in the kitchen. Which balls get moved up, all four?

I don't like moving balls that are perfectly in play at all. I can't even believe this can be labeled a "solution" actually. It would be like moving a guy's queen on a chess board.... just because "we need to speed up the game." Maybe a guy put that ball up there for a reason. And, maybe you are speeding up the game, but you don't really have a legit game now. I just don't get it.

Not moving backwards in the score column is the best way to make one pocket faster and still preserve most all of its integrity. I thought about it a lot when this came up last time, and I really think it is true. Points go to the opponent of the player who fouled. You wanna take 4 fouls in a row, score is 4 zip. How much it would speed things up is kind of an unknown I will admit. I would not consider anything other than this and also both guys going to lower numbers (eg 7 or 6).

Click to expand...

I think that has real potential.

I agree with ghost that the game is perfect now, but the question is whether we need to change, or else!

LSJohn said:

"Venerable" = old.

Click to expand...

Damn! I thought that young babe was saying I look "vulnerable".

pj
chgo

A lot of rooms are going to the 4 ball in the kitchen rule. It's supposed to be a time saver on lengthy matches. One of the problems is that players forget to spot the ball closest to the rail and the game continues and all of a sudden someone remembers spotting the ball. This can cause an argument and does from time to time. Pool over the years has tried to speed up the game. Examples are:
- two shot shootout
- one shot shootout
- one foul ball in hand
- three consecutive scratches, loss of game
- winner break one pocket

However we are kinda of schizophrenic in that we now are playing 10 ball instead of 9 ball and alternate break formats in tournaments. I guess we want to speed the game up and have more hill hill thrillers. Or maybe we don't know what the hell we're doing.

One Pocket Ghost said:

The balls in the kitchen subject has already been discussed in several different threads here on this site over the past years...here's a copy of the post I made in one of those threads many years ago ----->

Click to expand...

I got some news for you, the game is broken. If you're not out there trying to make a living playing pool (I'm not either) then it's not really fair to even say the game isn't broken. Is it? When guys are winning 25 or 30 k for first one pocket tournaments every other week or so, we can call it unbroke.

I just watched a "6 red" snooker tournament in Bangkok. Bangkok May not be ready for full length racks races to 11. It wasn't pure snooker, but the organizers are astute enough to make it viable to that market.

Tell me how many one pocket tournaments have played on Espn and I will then tell you how badly the game needs to be sped up based on the answer. 0 times means it needs to be sped up quite dramatically for the average person to have a a chance at digesting it.

People are not stupid, they really aren't. Pure one pocket is never going to make it with the general public. However, the game is so so beautiful and interesting, we all know that. I can totally see average people loving it and playing it if there were less bunting, backscratching and confusion with all the fouls and bunts. People will have a better chance to get it and see its beauty if you give them a chance. Snooker players actually make a point to speed up their potentially slow game with their play. Slow play just is not tolerated. They kinda get it for lack of a euphemism. If we speed up one pocket somehow, it immediately becomes more viable.

.

jerry matchin said:

snip.....Or maybe we don't know what the hell we're doing.

Click to expand...

I think we need to start here, because it true, and work from there slowly and thoughtfully. Just assume we have had no idea what we've been doing, and work on it. Nine ball was played incoming player has the choice not too long ago; big changes in these games for the better are obviously possible.

Patrick Johnson said:

Damn! I thought that young babe was saying I look "vulnerable".

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

You should have known better and run to the dictionary immediately.

(I know you know what it means... I wasn't instructing, I was observing.)

tylerdurden said:

I got some news for you, the game is broken.

Click to expand...

I got some news for you - the game of One Pocket is not broken....you need to rethink your semantics - you're mixing apples with imaginary oranges...

The original game of One Pocket isn't broken, because it wasn't invented/designed/meant to be watched by all the league players of the world on their smartphones :sorry...but..bingo!, there's no need to change/dumbdown/defile the original game, to achieve the unrealistic/pie-in-the-sky 'One Pocket for the masses' transition that you say is needed...instead, your bastardized version of One Pocket can simply exist separate from the real game of One Pocket...there ya go - plenty of room in this world for two separate types of One Pocket...and with that win-win solution, there's no more need for divisiveness.

- Ghst