Official One Pocket Rules

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
It has been more than seven years since we first adopted our Official One Pocket rules. A lot has happened since then. Our rules have become pretty consistently the standard for many tournaments, leagues and head-to-head matches since we published them. I have also noticed the influence (plagiarism, lol?) of our rules in several other versions of more recently written rules.

I would like to take the time over the next weeks or months to review our rules completely, to make sure they serve the One Pocket community as best they possibly can. This review can include minor wording adjustments that add clarity, new items that we deem necessary and even the possibility of specific rule changes -- if we agree that changes would improve the game experience.

Our rules do not have to agree with the other written rules out there in every instance, but I do think we should look closely at the other "legitimate" rule versions to think about whether they have any good points in areas that they do not completely agree with our rules. The other rules versions that I am especially referring to would be the BCA rules, the Derby City Classic rules and the Cue Sports International rules. Please feel free to add another version for us to look at if you know of one (I mean another different version that gets significant successful use somewhere).

Here are some useful links:

Our Official Rules: http://www.onepocket.org/one_pocket_pool_rules.htm

BCA General Rules: http://home.bca-pool.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=54

The BCA does not seem to include their One Pocket rules on their official site any more, but I found a pdf here which looks right: http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/billiards/Docs/BCAOnePocketRules.pdf

Cue Sports International: http://www.playbca.com/portals/0/rules/1Pocket.pdf

Derby City: http://www.dcctickets.com/OnePocket/tabid/71/Default.aspx
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
I'm going to to take the lack of response to mean the rules are pretty damn good the way they are -- but I am still going to keep this discussion open.

Looking back over they years there have been a zillion "what is the rule?" questions both here or over at AZ and elsewhere, and I would say nearly all the time those questions are resolved by reference to our rules. That is good. What I am looking for are those occasional times when people still think something is not completely clear, and we can take a look at the wording in those specific areas.

I am also interested in more players trying "All ball fouls with a one touch warning", which I have described before:

1. All cue ball fouls are always called.
2. Any movement or obvious touch of an object ball is always a foul if it occurs during or after the release of a shot.
3. Prior to release of a shot, if a player touches or moves a ball, the ball is restored and a warning is issued.
4. It is the responsibility of the the non-shooting player to request a referee or neutral observer in a close situation, especially if a warning has already been issued. If the summoned referee (or neutral observer) calls a foul based on any object ball contact, their decision is final.
5. After a warning has been issued, any object ball touch or movement is a foul, even if the shooting player has elected a different shot or the touch involves a different ball.

Just to be clear, the one warning applies to each shot, not inning, and does not carry over to the player's next shot or next inning.
 
Last edited:

jtompilot

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
5,797
From
New Orleans
That brings up question. Using qb fouls only, what happens when you disturb a ball and the object ball you hit now rolls into the disturbed ball?
 

8andout

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
178
Rules are Rules.

Rules are Rules.

As an advocate of honest, fair and knowledgable play, i have several comments on the rules. (1) i can't find World Pool rule # 1.16.1 as mentioned in the lead paragraph to #6 Rules. (2) section 3.2 should be clarified that only in a handicapped game can both winning balls be pocketed at the same time. (3) Concerning rule 6.5 Cueball of the table. Is it a foul if the cueball touches anything other than the felt playing surface, like the top of the table or the back of a pocket? Also a comment- I personally think that intentionally driving the object ball or cueball off the table should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. When a player is left with a long shot with their opponents ball in the jaws, the shooter asked to "clear the way" because he is going to shoot one or more balls flying off the table (and possible striking a person or damaging and object). I think this shot should be removed from the game. The game is intended to be played on the surface, not through the air (legal jump shots are OK). (4) Section 7 Three Foul Warning should be clarified. I think the incoming player should be warned he's on 2 fouls as he approaches the table to shoot. Waiting until he's down on the shot to speak would be considered sharking. Also, if a player forgets to warn his opponent he's on 2 fouls, and the players makes a legal shot, he shouldn't still be considered on 2 fouls, because he made a legal shot, therefore the 2 fouls are out of play.
 

SactownTom

Moderator
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
813
From
Sacramento CA
Great thread Steve, this revision/review should be done on a regular basis, say every 5 years.

I would also like to suggest that a difference be stated pertaining 'Tournament' and 'Gambling' rules. These get confused way too often and we have some great resources here to separate the rule differences.

All ball fouls in tournament play has always been my preference, but until the American pool players have a standard set of rules they can learn and qualified referees, Cue ball fouls will be the norm.


jtompilot, (in tournament play) accidental movement of two or more balls is a foul. Movement of a ball that comes into the path of the object ball or the cue ball has always been considered a foul. Both are dependent on the TD and what the players agree upon in the player's meeting.

Gambling is a different ruling
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
As an advocate of honest, fair and knowledgable play, i have several comments on the rules. (1) i can't find World Pool rule # 1.16.1 as mentioned in the lead paragraph to #6 Rules. (2) section 3.2 should be clarified that only in a handicapped game can both winning balls be pocketed at the same time. (3) Concerning rule 6.5 Cueball of the table. Is it a foul if the cueball touches anything other than the felt playing surface, like the top of the table or the back of a pocket? Also a comment- I personally think that intentionally driving the object ball or cueball off the table should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. When a player is left with a long shot with their opponents ball in the jaws, the shooter asked to "clear the way" because he is going to shoot one or more balls flying off the table (and possible striking a person or damaging and object). I think this shot should be removed from the game. The game is intended to be played on the surface, not through the air (legal jump shots are OK). (4) Section 7 Three Foul Warning should be clarified. I think the incoming player should be warned he's on 2 fouls as he approaches the table to shoot. Waiting until he's down on the shot to speak would be considered sharking. Also, if a player forgets to warn his opponent he's on 2 fouls, and the players makes a legal shot, he shouldn't still be considered on 2 fouls, because he made a legal shot, therefore the 2 fouls are out of play.[/QUOTE]

this is from the DCC rules
3-Foul Rule: If you commit 3 successive fouls in one game you lose the game. Your opponent must notify you that you are on 2 fouls immediately before your next inning
its 3 successive fouls in all rules
so if you made a legal shot you may still owe 2 balls but you are not on 2 successive fouls with loss of game on the next one
at least thats how i understand it
 

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,806
From
baton rouge, la
A couple of points

A couple of points

It is quite possible to pocket both winning balls at the same time in a game such as 7-6.

If our rules are to make any mention at all of the variations that might be used by tournament directors or in personal matches, it should be presented in a separate section, perhaps appended. Most of the items we see in red should be included in the rules or omitted. The one exception that comes to mind would be the case of a proprietor who bans all jump shots. There may be others. We are not a sanctioning body, and tournament directors and players are aware that they can do nearly anything they want. We can only suggest our rules.

A few updates suggested in language:

Balls are to be racked 'in random order'

'Unless otherwise stated, the breaker chooses the pocket opposite his hit on the rack.'

'By agreement, players may rack their own balls or rack for the opponent. The rack is always subject to approval before the break and re-racks are okay when needed.'

Rule 3.1 . . .to continue their inning. The rest of the sentence is unnecessary, having been covered just prior.

Rule 4. Begin 'Safeties need not be called.'

Rule 6. Should we address multiple balls disturbed accidentally?

Owed balls should by recorded at the table by visible markers .


Thanks for reading.

Bill
 

SactownTom

Moderator
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
813
From
Sacramento CA
As an advocate of honest, fair and knowledgable play, i have several comments on the rules. (1) i can't find World Pool rule # 1.16.1 as mentioned in the lead paragraph to #6 Rules.
The WPA removed Cue ball only fouls about 5 years ago. The rest of the world plays All Ball fouls



(2) section 3.2 should be clarified that only in a handicapped game can both winning balls be pocketed at the same time.
I've only heard this was a problem with gambling, not tournament play. The shooter always wins if his ball is made, making an opponents ball in the same shot

(3) Concerning rule 6.5 Cue ball off the table. Is it a foul if the cue ball touches anything other than the felt playing surface, like the top of the table or the back of a pocket? not quite sure what you mean here? why would it be a foul if the cue ball hit the back of a pocket? Or do you mean if a cue ball went into a pocket and somehow landed back on the playing surface?


Also a comment- I personally think that intentionally driving the object ball or cueball off the table should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. When a player is left with a long shot with their opponents ball in the jaws, the shooter asked to "clear the way" because he is going to shoot one or more balls flying off the table (and possible striking a person or damaging and object). I think this shot should be removed from the game. The game is intended to be played on the surface, not through the air (legal jump shots are OK).

I agree about the intentional foul, but this shot has been included in the game of One Pocket since the inception. It is a 'last resort' shot by many players. One Pocket is a fairly new game in comparison to the other popular games.

(4) Section 7 Three Foul Warning should be clarified. I think the incoming player should be warned he's on 2 fouls as he approaches the table to shoot. Waiting until he's down on the shot to speak would be considered sharking. Also, if a player forgets to warn his opponent he's on 2 fouls, and the players makes a legal shot, he shouldn't still be considered on 2 fouls, because he made a legal shot, therefore the 2 fouls are out of play.

I agree, the shooter should be warned as he approaches. BTW, a player is off 2 fouls automatically when they make a LEGAL shot
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
Steve, I like the vast majority of the rules as they are. And you were careful in writing the rules to indicate that in "after hours" contests (that might be replaced with "private" matches) it's common to see...[whatever example].

Even the wording is usually self-explanatory. There might be a few minor changes in wording for clarification. For example in Sec. 8, "Fozen balls":

8. Frozen balls
"For a foul to result from failure to legally strike a rail after contacting a frozen ball, the ball in question must be inspected and designated as frozen prior to a player’s shot, otherwise the ball is not considered frozen. If the cue ball becomes wedged between an object ball and the cushion and frozen to both, then legal shot requirements must be met by pocketing the frozen ball, or by contacting either another ball or another cushion en route to a legal shot. Failure to do so is a foul."

The wording in blue might be more easily read this way:

The cue ball or an object ball shall not be considered “frozen” to another ball, or to a cushion, unless it is inspected and declared to be so, prior to a player’s shot. Otherwise it shall have been considered not frozen.

Then again, I suppose it's up to the average reader. What say you?

Doc
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,415
From
Tucson AZ
2 points

2 points

Steve, there are 2 points I would like to have open for discussion. First has to do with calling a foul. Everyone remembers the thread concerning if you foul and your opponent doesnt see it should you call the foul on yourself or in effect is it even a foul if your opponent doesnt call it. I know there are 2 schools of thought on this subject and I would like it to be clarified in the rules.

The second issue deals with fouling/double hitting the cueball when the cueball and the object ball are not frozen but are positioned very close to each other. I beleive the current rule says if you play this shot aiming straight into the object ball it is a double hit if the cue ball moves foward beyond where the object ball was. However at the Derby this is not a foul as long as you elevate the butt of the cue so that the cue is at a 45 degree or greater angle. Clearification on this point should be made also. keith
 

bernie p

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
234
Steve,

A situation came up this past weekend during a local tournament.

On one particular table the average tight (yet legal) rack quite often resulted in the corner ball being made on a regular basis (typically one out of every 2 or 3 breaks).

Prior to the start of one of my matches I asked my opponent if they would be interested in potentially re-spotting the ball if made on the break, on the basis that is it highly likely that it would result in loss of game for the non breaker. He agreed.

Given that this situation is either a function of mostly good fortune or "smart racking", I am proposing the adoption of a rule change that would prompt an automatic re-break in this circumstance.

Nobody wants to lose a game this way.:mad: Food for thought?

Thanks.

Bernie.
 

Cowboy Dennis

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
From
Detroit,Michigan
Steve,

A situation came up this past weekend during a local tournament.

On one particular table the average tight (yet legal) rack quite often resulted in the corner ball being made on a regular basis (typically one out of every 2 or 3 breaks).

Prior to the start of one of my matches I asked my opponent if they would be interested in potentially re-spotting the ball if made on the break, on the basis that is it highly likely that it would result in loss of game for the non breaker. He agreed.

Given that this situation is either a function of mostly good fortune or "smart racking", I am proposing the adoption of a rule change that would prompt an automatic re-break in this circumstance.

Nobody wants to lose a game this way.:mad: Food for thought?

Thanks.

Bernie.

Let me get this straight Bernie: On one continent, in one state, in one poolroom, on one weekend, on one table, you saw a ball going in on the break 33 1/3% to 50% of the time and you think the rules of One-Pocket should maybe be changed to compensate for this???

If you weren't such a nice guy I'd ask you if you were losing what's left of your mind:).

That's my food for thought.

Dennis
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Steve,

A situation came up this past weekend during a local tournament.

On one particular table the average tight (yet legal) rack quite often resulted in the corner ball being made on a regular basis (typically one out of every 2 or 3 breaks).

Prior to the start of one of my matches I asked my opponent if they would be interested in potentially re-spotting the ball if made on the break, on the basis that is it highly likely that it would result in loss of game for the non breaker. He agreed.

Given that this situation is either a function of mostly good fortune or "smart racking", I am proposing the adoption of a rule change that would prompt an automatic re-break in this circumstance.

Nobody wants to lose a game this way.:mad: Food for thought?

Thanks.

Bernie.
I wouldn't have thought to put it like Dennis did, but I agree with him. If someone discovers a way to consistently break at One Pocket and make a ball every time with a strong possibility of running out that all the pros could learn (like the soft break problem in 9-ball at the pro level?), then we could have a problem in One Pocket. So far, as well as many players break, no one has come up with that consistently, although I am sure they have been working on it for years.

I know at one of Grady's Legends events -- in Maine in 2000 -- there was a match where I believe the corner ball was made in roughly half of the match breaks, which did effect the outcome of that match. But in all the AccuStats I have watched, that is the only match I can think of where a ball repeatedly made on the break seemed to play a major role in who won.

I believe One Pocket is already considered slow enough -- I would hate to see it further slowed by taking that occasional jump start away. Also, balls on the break are not so frequent to create a fair competition issue. I think an occasional ball on the break brings a positive element to the game. It also is why the standard break is what it is -- because it contains that element of potential offense on top of establishing a positional advantage.

The break is a strong advantage, which is why it is alternated of course. I think diligence about racking, and an alternated break is already sufficient to deal with the corner ball being made more often now and then. I think it is important to keep the break rule as is, with the ball counting if made.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
You guys are making some good suggestions -- I agree some wording can be tightened up -- both in the actual rules and in the "after hours" or house rule variations that we include as alternates.

As a general principle, I do not think we should get into the General Rules of Pool unless we strongly feel that they should be handled a certain way because One Pocket is significantly improved by addressing a certain general rule in a specific way to protect and improve our game. That means Keith's suggestions are off my agenda :) sorry.

I cant' find the World Rule 1.16.1 either, although the World Pool-Billiard Association still lists "Cue Ball Fouls Only" under their "Regulations" page: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#20
20. Cue ball fouls only
If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

The reason I brought up "One touch warning -- all ball fouls" is because there has been a lot of talk about how players are able to take advantage of "accidentally" touching or moving object balls. I think One Pocket safety play is most closely like Straight Pool safety play, with players often trying to lock the cue ball up in an awkward position as an aggressive defensive move. If the incoming player is not penalized for touching object balls as they bridge over them, then a lot of the strength of the move is lost.

So, should we play all ball fouls? My own experience with all ball fouls is that you absolutely need a referee or you are going to get lots of serious arguments. That is why I have suggested this alternative of One Touch Warning to go with the All Ball Fouls.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
Steve, there are 2 points I would like to have open for discussion. First has to do with calling a foul. Everyone remembers the thread concerning if you foul and your opponent doesnt see it should you call the foul on yourself or in effect is it even a foul if your opponent doesnt call it. I know there are 2 schools of thought on this subject and I would like it to be clarified in the rules.

The second issue deals with fouling/double hitting the cueball when the cueball and the object ball are not frozen but are positioned very close to each other. I beleive the current rule says if you play this shot aiming straight into the object ball it is a double hit if the cue ball moves foward beyond where the object ball was. However at the Derby this is not a foul as long as you elevate the butt of the cue so that the cue is at a 45 degree or greater angle. Clearification on this point should be made also. keith

IMO the rule covering whether a foul is seen or not, or put another way, admitted to or not, is adequately covered in the rules. In a refereed match few of these issues become problematic. However having a referee is rare.

Most times an official or a third party can be enlisted to watch a hit, or to give an opinion. Most amateur players don't want to bother asking someone to observe, so that's when problems oftentimes arise.

But unless the foul is flagrant, it's going to be "his word against yours". Most experienced players, upon witnessing a minor foul by their opponent, will call the foul. But if the opponent doesn't admit to it, the player will let it drop, because he knows that fouls unwitnessed by a referee are going to go in the favor of the shooter. In cases of more egregious fouls, appealing to a referee might cause the opponent to fess up.:)

There was a recent tournament situation in which one of our members witnessed a foul by his opponent who was an experienced player. Our man called it to the opponent's attention. No one else had been in the position to have observed the foul. There was a discussion, after which the opponent admitted to the foul. This ultimately resulted in his losing the match. My comment to the player was that it was certain that the opponent fouled, because he admitted to it, even though the call would have gone in his favor without third party confirmation. The guy had felt guilty about the foul, so he fessed up. But there is simply no way to cover situations like that any more precisely in the rules than they already are.

As far as double-hitting and frozen ball rules, that has been a point of contention for as long as I can remember. The classic BCA rule was that if the CB was frozen to the OB, then a player could shoot through the OB, as long as the player used a normal stroke. I take that to mean that one couldn't extend the cue tip beyond the normal range, or certainly not push through the CB/OB union.

Likewise when the CB is closer to the OB than a chalk cube's width, "special attention is required". If the CB travels further through the OB than a half ball width, then it is considered to have been a double hit.

Entities like the DCC have thrown all that out. For simplicity's sake they state that whether or not a ball is actually frozen, as long as the player elevates the butt of the cue by 45 degrees, it would be considered a legal shot. This is ridiculous of course. Elevating 45 degrees does not necessarily prevent a double hit NOR a push shot. But I imagine they got tired of the arguments. So they said, this is it-- live with it.

But I agree with Steve. Our one-pocket rules should not get into every little niggling point. Deferring in these cases to a larger authority is sufficient.

Doc
 

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,806
From
baton rouge, la
I have a DVD

I have a DVD

with an important tournament match, in which Alex Pagulayan beat Jose Parica by 4-3 They racked their own balls, and Pagulayan made a ball on the break three times in four breaks. He went 8 and out at least once and ran 6 or 7 one other game. Tough way to lose. Maybe it should be allowed only once in a match, if we could all agree that on a good rack, there is no way to apply your skill to make the corner ball.
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,718
From
New Braunfels tx.
Steve,

A situation came up this past weekend during a local tournament.

On one particular table the average tight (yet legal) rack quite often resulted in the corner ball being made on a regular basis (typically one out of every 2 or 3 breaks).

Prior to the start of one of my matches I asked my opponent if they would be interested in potentially re-spotting the ball if made on the break, on the basis that is it highly likely that it would result in loss of game for the non breaker. He agreed.

Given that this situation is either a function of mostly good fortune or "smart racking", I am proposing the adoption of a rule change that would prompt an automatic re-break in this circumstance.

Nobody wants to lose a game this way.:mad: Food for thought?

Thanks.

Bernie.

Try for the agreement that if a ball is made on the break, it's the opponents shot.
I've played this way often and it's equally fair for everyone.
Rod.
P.S. The reason I do this is my opponents are often going to 6 or 7 balls.
 
Last edited:

senor

Verified Member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
1,001
I know this is more of a rotation game question, but why would we try to eliminate the potential break and run from any game of pool?

Obviously, what anyone does with their cash in a gambling match is their prerogative. But to eliminate break and runs from tournament play, pool's closest equivalent to a sporting event, would be tantamount to eliminating snowbirding in basketball or defensive touchdowns in football. It makes the game what it is.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
In regards jumping the CB off the table after clearing an opponent's pocket when it's not possible to follow the OB in the hole, I think it probably should stay allowed. Otherwise it's a check/checkmate situation as in chess.

In private play, many guys will agree to accept that the shooter is going to play that jump shot, and just give it to him as if he'd successfully completed it. Then the jawed ball simply gets spotted without the shooter attempting the shot, which could possibly cause some damage.

It would be a little trickier to apply that method in formal tournament play, simply because tournament play is supposed to exhibit and reward the most adept talent. However I doubt if guys would squawk too much if the rule were used. Although it's not uncommon to see a guy muff that shot. I've muffed it.:rolleyes:

Also it's inconsistent to allow jump shots, but yet to not allow the above shot. I really don't think pool should permit the jump shot, even with the regular playing cue, but it's not going to go away any time soon. Neither is Texas Express 9-ball...

Doc
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
In regards jumping the CB off the table after clearing an opponent's pocket when it's not possible to follow the OB in the hole, I think it probably should stay allowed. Otherwise it's a check/checkmate situation as in chess.

In private play, many guys will agree to accept that the shooter is going to play that jump shot, and just give it to him as if he'd successfully completed it. Then the jawed ball simply gets spotted without the shooter attempting the shot, which could possibly cause some damage.

It would be a little trickier to apply that method in formal tournament play, simply because tournament play is supposed to exhibit and reward the most adept talent. However I doubt if guys would squawk too much if the rule were used. Although it's not uncommon to see a guy muff that shot. I've muffed it.:rolleyes:

Also it's inconsistent to allow jump shots, but yet to not allow the above shot. I really don't think pool should permit the jump shot, even with the regular playing cue, but it's not going to go away any time soon. Neither is Texas Express 9-ball...

Doc

in one pocket anything you can do with your playing cue i think should be allowed
just like jumping the object ball off the rail over obstacles
 
Top